Kheshtra Pal Sharama v. Pancham Singh Varma

N/A (1915)ILR 37ALL446

This 1915 Allahabad High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement concerning medicinal products. The applicant, selling 'Sudha Sindhu,' sued the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered trademark through advertisements in Muttra. The court ruled that if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true—specifically, that the advertisement was calculated to induce confusion—then the trademark has been infringed within the jurisdiction of the local court. Consequently, the lower courts' decision to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds was set aside, allowing the case to proceed.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Allahabad High Court
Case Number
N/A (1915)ILR 37ALL446
Decision Date
7 May 1915

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Allahabad High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kheshtra Pal Sharama vs Pancham Singh Varma is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 126/2021

Dr.Reddys Laboratories LimitedvsEros International Media Limited And Anr.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the release of a feature film, 'Haathi Mere Saathi,' alleging that its brand mark 'DRL' was being used in a derogatory manner within the movie plot. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that Dr. Reddy's failed to meet the three-pronged test for granting an injunction. The court held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants due to their substantial investment in the film production.

trademarkIA.No. 6872/2008 in CS(OS) 1073/2008

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries LimitedvsCipla Limited

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceuticals against Cipla regarding the use of the trademark THEOBID-D. Despite arguments from the defendant citing statutory requirements for registered assignment, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to protection based on prima facie rights and the potential irreparable injury caused by continued infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The order restrained the defendant's associates from using the disputed mark during the pendency of the suit.

trademarkCS(OS) No.816/2008

M/S Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd.vsH.E. Industries & Ors.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Johnson Appliances, finding that the defendants infringed upon the registered trademark 'JOHNSON' in relation to electric water heaters. The court extensively reviewed the historical chain of title, confirming the plaintiff's continuous ownership and rights over the mark since 1960. Despite the defendant's reliance on an alleged license agreement, the court held that the defendants lacked any valid rights to use the mark for these specific goods, granting a permanent injunction.

trademarkCS (OS) No. 1371/2009

The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors.vsSurjit Singh Sial & Anr.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's website for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly selling and promoting Himalaya products while creating a false impression of being authorized dealers. Furthermore, the parties settled on damages, with the defendants agreeing to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiffs.

trademarkO.S. 5080/2008

M & H Management Ltd.vsMr. Ravi Shankar

M & H Management Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for passing off their goods and services by using the 'Anantara' trade mark, which is held by the plaintiff. The court partly decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions but rejecting the claim for damages.

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