Everest Food Products Private Limited v. Everest Beverages And Food Industries & Anr.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 23/2023, I.A. 16324/2023, I.A. 16325/2023 & I.A. 22032/2023

This appeal before the Delhi High Court challenges an earlier order that set aside an opposition filed by Everest Food Products against a Trademark Application. The appellant argued that crucial documents were misplaced or not supplied to them, hindering their ability to present a full case regarding prior use and rights. While the court did not rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, it granted an adjournment to allow further submissions and document exchange.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 23/2023, I.A. 16324/2023, I.A. 16325/2023 & I.A. 22032/2023
Decision Date
19 March 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 Everest Food Products Private Limited vs Everest Beverages And Food Industries & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkFAO (COMM) 160/2025

Kausal Goyal And & Ors.vsAwadh Oils Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Awadh Goyal

The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse ex-parte interim injunction against Kausal Goyal and others in a trademark dispute involving the mark 'Kala Ghoda'. The court found that the Appellants had established a prima facie case, particularly citing a family settlement agreement and long-standing use of the trademark. This decision allows the parties to proceed with a full hearing, preventing immediate prejudice to the appellants.

trademarkFAO(OS) 263/2017

Turning Point & Anr.vsTurning Point Institute Private Ltd

This appeal addressed a dispute over the use of the mark 'TP TURNING POINT' in the educational sector. The appellant challenged an order that had restricted its use of the trademark, while the respondent claimed prior usage rights dating back to 1994. The court focused on setting aside the restrictive injunction granted against the appellant. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal regarding the interlocutory injunction, quashing the previous order and dismissing IA 16232/2015. However, the judgment noted that it was prima facie and interlocutory in nature, leaving the core merits of the trademark dispute unresolved.

trademarkC/AO/377/2015

Cadila Healthcare LimitedvsMicro Labs Limited

The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning a suit filed under Section 142 of the Trademark Act. While addressing procedural matters, the court granted ad-interim relief in favor of the appellant (Cadila Healthcare Limited). This interim order mandates that the respondent (Micro Labs Limited) must provide at least one week's prior written notice before initiating any legal proceedings related to the dispute against the appellant.

trademarkC.R.P. 163/2019

M/S Ever BakevsM/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd.

The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Ever Bake's petition challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a trademark infringement suit. The respondent, M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd., had filed a suit claiming violation of their registered 'EVER BAKE' trademark. Although the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction because they operated in Assam, the Court upheld the trial court's decision. Citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the High Court found that since the respondent's registered office was in Delhi, the suit was correctly filed within the proper jurisdiction.

trademark24-IAL6967-2021 IN COMIPL6965-2021 WITH LPETN83-2021

Bhavesh Suresh KatariavsKataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd

The plaintiff, an insurance consultant operating under various names including Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy, sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, a private limited company, for using a deceptively similar domain name (www.katariainsurance.co.in) to his established mark. The court found that the similarity was too great and ruled in favor of granting immediate injunctive relief.

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