Executive Summary
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Dhananjay Gruh Udyog alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered 'SPLAT device mark'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. The court issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks on detergent preparations and ordered the destruction of all bearing goods.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Dhananjay Gruh Udyog is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Eco Products India (P) Ltd.vsCommissioner Of C. Ex.
The dispute concerned whether Eco Products India (P) Ltd. was using a third party's brand name ('Aquarious-II') on water filters, making them ineligible for tax exemption. The department argued that Singer India Ltd. owned the brand based on a distributorship agreement. However, the Tribunal found that the contract terms indicated the petitioner owned the trademark and had the right to use it.
Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag EnterprisesvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag Enterprises, which sought to restore a lapsed trademark registration. The petitioner had failed to renew their 'TIGER' mark after 2006 and only attempted renewal in 2022, sixteen years later. The court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of such undue delay, especially since the RTI response confirmed an O3 notice was generated in 2006 but remained untraceable.
Holyland Marketing Pvt. Ltd.vsVijay Pal Vineet Kumar And Co. And Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, striking down a competitor's registration. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent's mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to its own, despite minor differences in the names ('Golden Crown' vs 'Golden Queen'). Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's application was ineligible for registration under Section 11(1)(b) due to the petitioner's prior priority of user and registration. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade dress and marks against confusingly similar imitations.
M/S Bharath Chemical IndustriesvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Bharath Chemical Industries seeking the rectification of a trademark register. The petitioner had sought to expunge the name of another party from the registration of the mark 'BCI-BHARATHA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES' (TM No. 2835990). However, during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner voluntarily submitted that the petition was withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn, while reserving all rights for the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
M.Raja MohamedvsThe Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed a long-pending writ petition filed by M.Raja Mohamed seeking the restoration of his trademark, 'RAJA SUPARI.' The court did not delve into the merits of the case but issued a Mandamus directing the Registrar of Trademarks to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2017 and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. This order effectively moves the matter forward for substantive consideration by the Trademark Registry.
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.
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.