Aculife Healthcare Private Limited v. Auspharma Private Limited

OP(TM)No.34 of 2025

The Madras High Court disposed of OP(TM)No.34 of 2025, which sought rectification of a trademark registration. Although listed for reporting settlement, the court formally accepted and gave effect to a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) between Aculife Healthcare Private Limited and Auspharma Private Limited. The judgment confirmed that the MOC would form part of the order, effectively resolving the dispute without further litigation.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
OP(TM)No.34 of 2025
Decision Date
25 September 2025

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aculife Healthcare Private Limited vs Auspharma Private Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS (OS) No. 2642/2012

sandisk corporationvsms shivji electronics

Sandisk Corporation sued M/S Shivji Electronics for trademark infringement of its 'SanDisk' mark and logo, alleging the defendants were selling counterfeit SanDisk memory cards at significantly lower prices than authorized retailers. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and damages against the defendants’ counterfeiting activities in Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/355, 356/2023 (ORA/50-51/2020/TM/CHN)

M/s.Haryana Soap Factory (Sh.Krishan Kumar Jain)vsSh.A.J.Saravanan & The Registrar of Trade Marks

This Madras High Court judgment confirms the dismissal of Transfer Original Petitions filed by M/s.Haryana Soap Factory seeking rectification of specific trademarks (936165 and 1833170). The court noted that both parties had reached a compromise regarding the underlying dispute, which was formalized in a memo recorded by the District Court, Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their claims, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.

trademarkFAO(OS) (COMM) 69/2021 & CM. APPL.15117/2021

Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co.vsKbm Foods Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co. against an interim injunction granted to Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that there was a high likelihood of confusion between the two parties' spice labels, particularly due to the use of similar marks and 'COW' devices. Despite the appellant's claims regarding prior use and copyright protection for their artwork, the court upheld the original order, finding that Kbm Foods had established a strong prima facie case for passing off.

trademarkCS 1 of 2020

Shyam Sel And Power LimitedvsAtibir Industries Company Limited

The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Shyam Sel And Power Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Atibir Industries Company Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'ISEL' on TMT bars constituted passing off, as it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'SEL'. Relying on the principles of trade law and the lack of defense from the respondent, the court expedited the judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

trademarkOra/46/2007/Tm/Kol (IPDATM/43/2023)

M/S. LorealvsLoren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd.

The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S. Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark "LOREN HAIR OIL" registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned mark be removed/rectified from the register, reinforcing the importance of continuous commercial activity in maintaining trademark rights.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call