Executive Summary
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute involving the mark "VELLO." Although initially facing an ex-parte injunction against using the mark, Apar Industries Limited voluntarily acknowledged that 'VELO' belonged exclusively to Sh Rummy Chhabra. The court accepted detailed undertakings from Apar, which included ceasing all use of the mark, withdrawing its pending trademark application, and selling off existing stock within a year. Consequently, the underlying suit was decreed based on these mutual commitments.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apar Industries Limited vs Sh Rummy Chhabra is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Sfp Sons India Private LimitedvsMr. Jitender Singh
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by Sfp Sons India Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'JASS' by Mr. Jitender Singh, trading as M/s. Sri Vidhiya Agencies. The court found that the defendant was liable for infringing the plaintiff's rights through the use of deceptively similar marks like 'JAAS'. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further misuse and directed the payment of suit costs to the plaintiff.
Mex Switchgears Pvt LtdvsTwinkle Luminaires Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued orders in two connected trademark appeal matters, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2021 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2022. In both cases, the court addressed procedural issues regarding service of documents, specifically the counterstatement filed by the respondents. The appellant argued that they were never properly served with these crucial documents. Consequently, the Court granted time for both parties to place their respective evidence on record and scheduled further hearings in January 2024.
M/S Loreal S.A.vsRavi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd.vsM/s.Team-Venture; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. seeking to remove or rectify the trade mark 'SHEAR MAGIC UNISEX SALON AND SPA' from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was based solely on the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite multiple notices being served. This ruling highlights the strict procedural requirements in trademark litigation.
Sun Pharma Laboratories LimitedvsHetero Healthcare Limited And Anr
In a complex trademark dispute, Sun Pharma sought permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare regarding the alleged infringement of its mark 'LETROZ' by 'LETERO'. The court allowed the Defendants to challenge the validity of Sun Pharma's marks through a rectification petition under Section 57. Crucially, the court clarified that while invalidity can be challenged, the primary suit for passing off will proceed independently, leading to framing of multiple issues covering both infringement and validity.
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.
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.