Institute For Inner Studies & Ors v. Charlotte Anderson & Ors

CS(COMM) 501/2017 & CCP(O) 113/2014, I.A.2534/2018, 9024/2018

This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the exclusive rights over the name and practices of 'Pranic Healing'. The defendants argued that these terms and concepts were pre-existing since 1904, forming part of traditional knowledge available in the public domain, and thus incapable of protection under existing IP laws. The court directed specific defendants to file an affidavit detailing their position before further arguments.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 501/2017 & CCP(O) 113/2014, I.A.2534/2018, 9024/2018
Judge(s)
J.R. Midha

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Institute For Inner Studies & Ors vs Charlotte Anderson & Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCO (COMM.IPD-TM) 285/2021 & I.A. 21222/2022

The Hind Samachar LimitedvsPunjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition concerning the trade mark 'PUNJAB KESARI' after the involved family members reached an oral and written settlement. The court directed the amendment of the trademark registration, effectively carving out specific geographical territories for both the petitioner (VKC group) and the respondent (AKC group). This resolution allowed the parties to coexist using the same mark within defined regional boundaries.

trademarkMP-4539-2025

Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam MarketingvsMohan Singh Panwar

This petition challenged the rejection of a request to transfer a trademark infringement suit to the Commercial Court. The petitioner argued that since the dispute involved intellectual property, it should automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regardless of the low valuation. However, the High Court ruled that while IP rights are covered by the Act, the requirement for a 'commercial dispute' to have a specified value of at least Rs. 3 lakhs must be met. Since the suit was valued below this threshold, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition.

trademarkIA(L)-22386-2024 (f).doc / Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 20290 of 2024

Universal Test Solutions LlpvsPunam Kumari Singh and Others

The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 83/2021 & I.A. No. 37152/2024

Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.vsVijay Kalra And Anr.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark dispute between Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Kalra And Anr., based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement mandated that Respondent No. 1 acknowledge the exclusive rights of the petitioner in 'VKC' marks and cease using similar trademarks like 'VKV'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to process the withdrawal and subsequent rectification/removal of the infringing trademark from the register.

trademark2025:BHC-OS:13402

M/s. ARCEE ElectronicsvsM/s. ARCEEIKA

M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.

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