Future Bath Products Private Limited v. Corza International & Ors.

Sopariwala Exports And Anr.vsSatyapal Shivkumar

The Bombay High Court vacated an earlier ex-parte order that had recognized the Plaintiff's prior use of the trademark 'PAN RAAS'. The court found that the statement claiming the Plaintiffs conceived and adopted the distinctive mark in 2008 was incorrect, noting that the word 'RAAS' was adopted after a compromise with Rasana Private Limited. This decision significantly impacts the Plaintiff's claim regarding the originality and priority of their trademark rights.

Ds Agrifoods Private LimitedvsM/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Ds Agrifoods Private Limited against M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'DOODMALAI' and its associated trade dress was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DOONMALAI'. Given the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity, coupled with a prior business relationship suggesting bad faith, the court ruled that the Defendants were passing off their goods. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's market standing until the final hearing.

Qrg Enterprises & Anr.vsHpl (India) Limited & Ors.

The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.

Bhargava Phytolab Private LimitedvsLdd Bioscience Private Limited

The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited against Ldd Bioscience Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'TUMOTIN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'TUMORIN,' leading to a prima facie case for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. While the injunction restricts future use, the parties were also directed to mediation to amicably resolve the dispute.

Su Kam Power Systems LimitedvsKunwer Sachdev & Anr. Kantaloop Communications & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple rectification petitions concerning the 'Su-Kam' trademark, pitting Su Kam Power Systems Limited against Kunwer Sachdev. The court noted that while the petitioner company holds a key registration, the defendant claims original conceptualization of the mark. Given the complex history involving insolvency and prior civil judgments, the court has directed both parties to file detailed notes and encouraged them to explore amicable resolution through mediation before listing the matter again.