Adidas Ag v. Union Of India & Anr.

Kiranakart Technologies Private LimitedvsMohammad Arshad & Anr.

Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited filed a suit seeking the removal of an identical word mark, 'ZEPTO,' registered by Respondent No. 1 under Section 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Petitioner uses 'ZEPTO' for instant grocery delivery services, while the Respondent holds the mark in Class 35 relating to mobile phone marketing. The court has initiated proceedings by issuing notices to all parties, setting the stage for a detailed examination of trademark conflict and consumer confusion.

Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. LaboratoriesvsM/S Little Profit Trading Company

The Delhi High Court formally accepted an out-of-court settlement between the trademark proprietor, Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories, and M/S Little Profit Trading Company. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'BLUE HEAVEN' trademark and agreed to pay Rs. 3.00 lacs as damages. Furthermore, the defendant committed to surrendering all rights in the infringing mark and disposing of existing stock by a specified date, leading to the suit being decreed based on these terms.

M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd.vsMr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks

The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.

Ranjitkumar Saklchand JainvsPratapchand (Deceased) & Others

The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Ranjitkumar Saklchand Jain seeking to remove the trademark 'SANGHVI' from the register. The core dispute centered on whether the petitioner was a prior user of the mark for Roti Makers, despite having registered it later than the respondents. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence, such as invoices or sales turnover, to substantiate his claim of continuous use since 1996, thereby upholding the validity and protection rights of the respondent's trademark.

M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt LtdvsM/S Kaveri Polymers

The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.