Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.

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.

Asia Match Company Pvt LtdvsP.Sundaram

The Madras High Court allowed Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd to file additional documents in its rectification petition against P.Sundaram. The petitioner sought to introduce trade mark applications filed by the respondent's son, arguing they demonstrated deceptive similarity and concerted action. While the respondent raised several objections regarding relevance and timing, the court ruled that the issue of relevance could be determined during the trial phase, granting permission for filing while preserving the respondent's right to challenge admissibility later.

M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private LimitedvsM/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar

The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant challenging the District Judge's order that allowed the Respondent to file a suit afresh regarding trademark infringement. While initial applications concerning delay condonation were granted, the core dispute over jurisdiction—specifically why a 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court instead of under the Commercial Courts Act—was deferred. The court has now scheduled further proceedings for August 19, 2025, requiring both parties to file detailed notes of contentions.

K.R. Beri & Co.vsThe Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P)

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal to register the trade mark 'FIVE 50' in favor of The Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P). The court found that the appellant's proposed mark was highly likely to deceive and confuse consumers due to its substantial similarity to the respondent's established marks, 'Fifty' and '50'. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove concurrent use or acquiescence against the respondent, whose extensive prior usage and market reputation were well-documented.

Abhoy Kumar JainvsVrajlal Manilal & Company And Others

The Delhi High Court intervened in a dispute over trademark rectification, setting aside an ex parte order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner successfully argued that the original decision failed to consider their statement of defense and material evidence. Consequently, the court restored the petitioner's mark 'Tufan' on the register and remitted the case back to the IPAB for a fair reconsideration, emphasizing procedural fairness over substantive merits.