Bp P.L.C. & Anr. v. Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises

CS(COMM) 587/2023 & I.A. 8999/2024

In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 587/2023 & I.A. 8999/2024
Decision Date
24 April 2024

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Bp P.L.C. & Anr. vs Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarknull

J.C. Eno LimitedvsVishnu Chemical Co.

J.C. Eno Limited filed a passing off action against Vishnu Chemical Co., alleging that the defendants were selling saline under the name "Falaxar," which was a colorable imitation of the plaintiffs' well-known marks, "Eno" and "Fruit Salt." The court found that the plaintiffs had established a wide reputation for their product in India. Consequently, the court granted an injunction against the defendant while awarding profits to the plaintiff.

trademarkS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18563/2022

Mr. Peter Fanning, Chief Executive, The Chartered Institute Of TaxationvsM/s Institute Of Charted Tax Advisers Of India Limited

The Rajasthan High Court addressed two interconnected writ petitions concerning a trademark dispute over 'Chartered Tax Adviser (CTA)'. The core issue was whether the plaintiff's attempt to invalidate the registered trademark, via an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, should be decided on its merits. The court set aside previous technical orders that dismissed the application and directed the Commercial Court to frame a specific issue regarding the pending cancellation proceedings (Section 57) before the High Court of Gujarat, ensuring the Section 124 application is now heard afresh on its substantive grounds.

trademarkCS(COMM) 752/2024

M.K. Srinivasan And AnothervsChemsol India And Another

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M.K. Srinivasan And Another against Chemsol India And Another, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess significant goodwill associated with their 'TAURUS' trademarks used for testing and measurement instruments. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.

trademarkIPDATM/129/2023 (Application No.247502 In Class 32)

M/S. SONA BEVERAGES PVT LTDvsTHE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND ANR

The Calcutta High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S. Sona Beverages Pvt Ltd seeking the removal of the mark 'SIMBA' registered in favor of The Coca-Cola Company. The court found that the trademark, which had lapsed on February 24, 2020, was never renewed despite receiving official notices from the Registry. Consequently, the court directed the expunging of the expired registration.

trademarkIP-COM/23/2024

Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt LtdvsAshok Kumar Anr.

Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Ashok Kumar Anr. for infringing their registered trademark 'COOKME'. The plaintiffs alleged that they only discovered the infringement in July 2024, necessitating urgent legal action. The Calcutta High Court granted leave to proceed with the suit under various provisions, including Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the plaint to be admitted subject to departmental scrutiny.

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