M/S. M.V.J Foods (India) Pvt.Ltd v. Devanand Shenoy

OP(C).No. 2666 of 2013

This Kerala High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging a trial court's order allowing the reopening of evidence in a trademark infringement suit. The original suit alleged that the defendants were passing off goods using the 'MELAM' brand, which was registered by the plaintiffs. The core dispute centered on whether a licensing agreement from 1994 could be introduced as evidence. The High Court found no prejudice to the defendant and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the case to proceed with the newly admitted evidence.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Kerala High Court
Case Number
OP(C).No. 2666 of 2013
Judge(s)
P.N.Ravindran

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Kerala High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S. M.V.J Foods (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Devanand Shenoy is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 74/2025

Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company LimitedvsJohn Doe & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff, Bombay Dyeing, to implead two new entities, M/s Ooak Association and M/s Urban Stuff Retail, as defendants in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that these newly identified parties were organizers of an exhibition where counterfeit 'BOMBAY DYEING' bed linens were being sold. Furthermore, the Court granted exemption from advance service to several existing defendants, facilitating the continuation of the injunction proceedings against the infringing products.

trademarkCS(COMM) 879/2023

M/S Shree Vallabh MetalsvsPappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shree Vallabh Metals against Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta, granting a permanent injunction. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off concerning the plaintiff's 'MAXFRESH' brand across various household goods categories. While dismissing an application to add another party, the court proceeded with the suit, decreeing the specific relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the use of their protected marks.

trademarkCS(COMM) 133/2019

M/S Malhotra Book DepotvsM/S Mbd Industries And Anr.

Malhotra Book Depot filed a suit against Mbd Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off due to the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'MBD' for non-metallic building materials. The Plaintiff held multiple registrations for 'MBD' across various classes related to publishing. During mediation, the parties agreed that the Defendants would change their mark to 'JMVD'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending interim injunction applications, allowing the Defendants to continue operating under the new mark.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 279/2022

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsPreet Kamal Grewal And Anr.

Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the removal of a conflicting trademark, 'KINDPAN,' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 5. The court ruled that the registration was unsustainable because Mankind is the prior adopter and well-known proprietor of the 'KIND' family of marks in the pharmaceutical sector. By allowing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that established goodwill and extensive use grant heightened protection to a trademark owner against confusingly similar registrations.

trademarkWP(IPD) No. 3 of 2026

Solariz Healthcare Private LimitedvsThe Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)

Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.

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