Google Llc v. Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors

CS(COMM) 592/2018

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CS(COMM) 592/2018
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google Llc vs Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkTM No. 140/11

Levi Strauss & CompanyvsShivani Label

Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Shivani Label alleging clandestine manufacturing and supply of apparel under deceptively similar marks, including LEVI'S. The court found the plaintiff's claims substantiated by un-rebutted testimony and documents.

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 80/2021

M/S V-Guard Industries Ltd.vsM/S Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by V-Guard Industries against an order that deemed its trademark opposition abandoned. The court held that the strict interpretation of 'leave with the Registrar' in the Trade Marks Rules should not lead to the evisceration of a citizen's valuable commercial right to oppose registration. Despite the evidence being received three days late, the High Court set aside the abandonment order and directed the Deputy Registrar to proceed with considering V-Guard's opposition.

trademarkCS(COMM) 899/2022 & I.A. 22085/2022

Anita AgarwalvsVankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2024

Abhinav Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'VISA EXPERTS - PARTNERING LIFE CHANGING DECISIONS' for visa and immigration consultancy services. The court ruled that the composite nature of the mark prevents it from being deemed merely descriptive under Section 9(1)(b). Furthermore, addressing the likelihood of confusion (Section 11(1)), the Court noted an agreement with the conflicting trademark owner to proceed provided a disclaimer of the word 'VISA' is included. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised for registration.

trademarkCS(COMM) 277/2023

Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd.vsShubhom Juneja

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against Shubhom Juneja regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off of whisky. The court found a prima facie case based on the near-identical nature of the trade dresses and packaging used for 'Royal Green' and 'Royal Queen' whiskies, coupled with phonetic similarity between the names. This order temporarily restricts the defendant from introducing further products in the confusing manner.

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