Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.

M/s.Shaktiman Equipments Private LimitedvsUnion of India

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited, upholding an earlier order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The core dispute involved the use of the identical trade name 'Shaktiman' by both parties. The court affirmed that since the respondent company held extensive and long-standing trademark rights for 'Shaktiman,' its continued use by the petitioner was contrary to corporate incorporation rules, regardless of differences in product categories.

M/S. Mocemsa CarevsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S. Mocemsa Care against the Registrar's refusal of a device mark registration. The court held that even if the mark comprises common English words, its composite and stylized arrangement makes it distinctive when viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court dismissed the objection regarding insufficient invoices, noting that this issue was never raised in the initial examination report. Consequently, the application is now directed to proceed with advertisement.

Abhishek Jain (Trading As M/S Trip Planners)vsTrip Planners Holidays Private Limited

The dispute between Abhishek Jain (M/S Trip Planners) and Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited was amicably settled through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The settlement mandates that the defendant must cease all use of the trademark 'Trip Planners' and its derivations in perpetuity, including removing it from business names, websites, social media handles, and closing associated domains/email suffixes by December 31, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to withdraw a pending trademark application for the disputed mark.

GLAXO GROUP LIMITEDvsCIAN HEALTHCARE LIMITED

The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Glaxo Group Limited and Cian Healthcare Limited based on a settlement agreement reached through mediation. The defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards the plaintiff's claim and costs, and crucially, consented not to use the trademark 'BETASOL' for their products. This resolution allowed both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.

Drs Logistics (P) Ltd.vsSandeep Chohan @ Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed an application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit involving 'Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.' The court noted the delay (40-50 days) between when the plaintiff became aware of the alleged misuse and when the suit was filed. Despite citing precedents that allow injunctions despite delay, the judge held that because the delay was relatively short, granting an immediate ex-parte order would cause greater mischief to the defendants than waiting for them to be served notice. Consequently, the court denied the interim injunction and directed proper service of summons.