Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Halberd Chemicals

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 560 OF 2019

Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Halberd Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress, registered trademarks (Nos. 1486109, 1780462, 1486107), and passing off using its well-known logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 560 OF 2019
Judge(s)
S.J. Kathawalla

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 Halberd Chemicals is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkOP(TM)Nos.64 & 65 of 2024

Thilakarasu Venkatasamy trading as Grand Catering CompanyvsBrand Avatar Llp

The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions OP(TM)Nos.64 & 65 of 2024 after the parties, Thilakarasu Venkatasamy and Brand Avatar LLP, reached an out-of-court settlement. The petitions sought the removal or rectification of specific trademark entries (Registration Nos. 5795826 and 3843193) in Class 41. Given the amicable resolution between the parties, the court allowed the proceedings to be dismissed without further order on costs.

trademark(T)OP(TM)50/2023, (T)OP(TM)51/2023 & (T)OP(TM)52/2023

Delight Chemicals Private LimitedvsGanga Yallappa trading as Sarpa Paint

The Madras High Court dismissed several petitions filed by Delight Chemicals Private Limited seeking the removal or rectification of trademarks registered under Ganga Yallappa. The court noted that the petitioner had previously won a suit for infringement and passing off against the respondent in 2019. Crucially, the respondents submitted that the subject trademark had not been renewed since 2017. Based on this development, the High Court found that there was nothing left to adjudicate in the pending petitions, leading to their dismissal as infructuous.

trademarkCS(COMM) 595/2019

Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd.vsMukesh Dalmia

In this Delhi High Court order, Jindal Stainless sought to cancel an upcoming evidence recording date before a Local Commissioner. The request was made because the Plaintiff had filed rectification proceedings challenging the Defendant's trademark registration. Since the Defendant raised no objection, the court allowed the application and cancelled the scheduled date, allowing the parties to mutually fix a new convenient time.

trademarkITA No. 1048/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 109/Ahd/2015

M/S. Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Addl. Cit, Range-5, Ahmedabad

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of trade mark expenditure. The assessee also filed a cross-objection concerning the calculation of depreciation on machinery. The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, addressing issues related to intangible asset deduction and depreciation.

trademark(T) OP (TM) Nos.319 & 320 of 2023

M/S.Gm Modular Private LimitedvsK.Dalpat Singh

The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/S. Gm Modular Private Limited seeking the rectification of two rival trademarks, 'GM Pipe' and 'GMware'. The court found that the 1st Respondent adopted these marks with an ulterior motive to ride on the Petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'GM' brand since 1999. Despite arguments regarding differing classes of goods (Class 19 vs Class 17), the court held that the similarity and bad faith adoption justified removing the infringing marks from the Register.

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