M/s.Ambika Appalam Company v. Nandi Food Products

Glaxo Group Ltd.vsUnion Of India & Ors.

Glaxo Group Ltd. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its trademark registration appeal for 'VOLMAX.' The Delhi High Court intervened, finding that the IPAB had failed to properly consider key legal issues regarding deceptive similarity and the concept of a family of trademarks. Consequently, the High Court set aside the IPAB's order, restoring Glaxo's appeal to be decided afresh on all merits.

Punam FlutesvsMahesh Chand Gupta And Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed Punam Flutes' petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration ('PUNAM'). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'PUNAM FLUTES,' used for musical instruments. Given the strong potential for consumer confusion and the Petitioner's established market reputation, the Court ruled that the Respondent's registration could not sustain under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.

Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd.vsPankaj Kumar Patel

The plaintiff, Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, Pankaj Kumar Patel, who used the similar label 'Shri Plosto' on allied goods like water tanks and pipes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to lack of evidence regarding the quantum of loss, while granting an injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.

Vidli Restaurants LimitedvsAlok Sovind Chandewar

Vidli Restaurants Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Application seeking dispute resolution related to its Franchise Agreement with Alok Sovind Chandewar. The core of the dispute involved Vidli alleging that the Respondent was using a deceptively similar mark, constituting trademark infringement post-termination of the agreement. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application, ruling that since Vidli was merely a licensee and not the owner of the trademarks, it lacked the legal standing to initiate arbitration over the alleged infringement.

Dinesh Kumar Mittal M/S Paras EnterprisesvsPragya Trading Company, Kaserate

In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the removal of the impugned mark from the Trademark Register. The court noted that despite the petitioner's claims, the registration had expired on February 21, 2022, and the statutory one-year period for restoration under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had lapsed without any renewal application being filed. While this order addresses the validity status of the mark, it explicitly leaves all merits of the dispute open for future consideration.