Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Ashok Kumar (Unkown)

CS(COMM) 879/2025

The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 879/2025
Decision Date
25 August 2025

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 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust vs Ashok Kumar (Unkown) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCivil Revision Petition Nos.1047 to 1052 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 & M.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2006

M/s.World Wide Brands Inc.vsSmt.Dayavanti Jhamnadas Hinduja, Smt.Janaki Madanlal Hinduja, Smt.Veena Rajendra Hinduja, Smt.Nalini Dinesh Hinduja (Trading as The Central Wearhouse) and The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

M/s.World Wide Brands Inc challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's order allowing the registration of 'Camel Collection' by local partners trading as The Central Wearhouse. The petitioner argued that their global reputation and prior use entitled them to exclusive rights, while the respondents claimed long-standing continuous use in India since 1992. The Madras High Court upheld the appellate board's finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of commercial publicity within India.

trademarkTCM(TM)/142/2023

British Engines (UK) LimitedvsThe Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court allowed British Engines (UK) Limited's appeal against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its mark. The court found that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable because it failed to adequately address the appellant's arguments regarding the device nature and international use of the mark. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to advertisement, though with a crucial caveat: the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual words 'British' or 'Engines'.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/400/2023

Legrand France and Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt LtdvsPraveen Kumar Jain (Trading as Biocon Tapes India) and The Registrar of Trademarks

The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the trade mark register, successfully canceling an identical registration of 'LEGRAND' held by Praveen Kumar Jain. The court found that the petitioner, Legrand France, had prior and extensive use of the arbitrary mark since 1970 in India, while the respondent's goods (adhesive tapes) were complementary to the petitioner's electrical products (switches). Given the identical nature of the marks and the likelihood of public confusion due to overlapping distribution channels, the court ruled that the later registration was made without sufficient cause.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 667/2022

M/S. P.M. Diesels P. Ltd.vsM/S. Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.

The Delhi High Court delivered a multi-faceted judgment addressing several IP disputes involving the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark. In one suit, the court decreed P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd.'s claim against Thukral Mechanical Works, while simultaneously ordering the cancellation of an older registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works in Class 7. Furthermore, the High Court set aside previous rejection orders for P.M. Diesels' trademark applications, allowing them to proceed toward registration.

trademark2023:MHC:3816 (T)OP(TM)/265 to 269/2023

Feroke Boards LimitedvsUniversal Hardware

The Madras High Court allowed rectification petitions filed by Feroke Boards Limited against Universal Hardware and the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that the petitioner had prior use rights for marks like 'FERO' and 'FEROPLY' since 1990, in a near-identical business sector (boards and construction materials). Despite the respondent's attempt to distinguish their composite marks by adding initials ('MK'), the court ruled that this adoption was not honest and was likely to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the infringing trademark entries were removed from the register.

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