Inventio Ag And Anr v. Schneider Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

CS(COMM) 3/2022 (I.A. 18910/2022)

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Inventio Ag And Anr. against a newly formed company, VDMIL Elevator India. The court found that this new entity was being used to circumvent existing trademark injunctions previously passed against the original defendants (Schneider Elevator). The order restrains the proposed defendant from using marks or logos deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from mimicking the plaintiff's website look and feel.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 3/2022 (I.A. 18910/2022)
Judge(s)
Navin Chawla

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 Inventio Ag And Anr vs Schneider Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkW.P.(C) 19029/2025

Max India Investment Services Private LimitedvsUnion Of India & Ors.

The Delhi High Court stayed an order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that had directed petitioner, Max India Investment Services Private Limited, to change its name. The dispute arose because a respondent company claimed the petitioner's name was too similar to their registered trademarks ('MAX' and 'Max India Limited'). The court found that since the petitioner has been using the name incorporating 'Max India' since 2007, it established a prima facie case for interim relief. Furthermore, the parties were referred to mediation to explore an amicable resolution.

trademarkCS(COMM) 71/2024

Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr.vsJohn Doe & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' application to implead WhatsApp LLC in a trademark infringement suit concerning deceptive online investment schemes. The court found prima facie evidence that certain administrators of the 'Peak XV 1026' WhatsApp group were using the Plaintiff's trademark and images of their Managing Directors to create an impression of authenticity. Consequently, WhatsApp was directed to block access to the implicated accounts and provide subscriber information to aid in identifying the perpetrators.

trademarkNMS1233-09-PALM GROVE-F.DOC (in Suit No. 815 of 2009)

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd.vsRoyal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.

trademarkCS(COMM) 454/2025

Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr.vsFranchise India Brands Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed an application concerning the alleged contempt of a prior injunction order. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants continued using the trademarks 'Rasna' and 'Rasna Buzz' despite the expiration of their Master License Agreement (MLA). While the court noted the dispute over a purported new agreement, it primarily directed the Defendants to file their reply within two weeks. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the existing injunction order must be strictly complied with.

trademarkCS(COMM) 1389/2025

Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr.vsKrishna Alias Tinku & Anr.

In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural exemptions to Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. while simultaneously granting urgent interim relief. The court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection of the defendants' premises to investigate alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.

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