Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. Anupam Srivastava & Anr.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 259/2025

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner challenged the registration of the mark 'VNYABAIE' in Class 3, which was registered in the name of Anupam Srivastava. The Delhi High Court issued notices to all parties and directed that the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, setting a future date for hearing.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 259/2025
Judge(s)
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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 Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs Anupam Srivastava & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark

Cadila Healthcare Ltd.vsUnion Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. appealed the summary dismissal of its Special Civil Application, which challenged an interlocutory order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. The High Court examined whether the petition was maintainable under Article 226/227 and clarified the legal distinction between non-tenability and non-entertainability.

trademark2003(27)PTC352(MAD)

Woodlands Travels And Agencies And Anr.vsK. Vasudeva Rao And Anr.

The Madras High Court dismissed an original petition filed by Woodlands Travels And Agencies seeking the rectification of a trademark registration ('WOODY'S'). The petitioner argued that the mark was inherently incapable of registration and lacked distinctiveness. However, the court found sufficient evidence demonstrating that the respondents had been continuously using the mark since the date of application in connection with their restaurant business. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the existing trademark registration.

trademarkCS (OS) No. 309 of 2005

Mrs. Ishi KhoslavsAnil Aggarwal And Anr.

The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Ishi Khosla against Anil Aggarwal and others regarding the use of the trademark 'Whole Foods'. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of prior use, distinctiveness, and reputation associated with her brand. This ruling protects her goodwill against deceptive imitation by competitors, reinforcing the importance of early action in trade mark disputes.

trademarkCS(OS) No.1305/2003

Larsen And Toubro Ltd.vsLachmi Narain Trades And Ors

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Larsen And Toubro Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off. The court found that L&T's name and abbreviation, having acquired distinctiveness over decades, were being used by the defendants (using marks like 'LNT'/'ELENTE') to sell electrical goods, thereby causing confusion among the public. This judgment reinforces the principle of protecting established goodwill and reputation against deceptive trade practices.

trademark2004(2)KLT772

Medivision Scan And Diagnostic ...vsMedivision-Ind Diagnostic Centre

The Kerala High Court overturned a trial court order that had denied an interim injunction in a passing off suit. The plaintiff, Medivision Scan And Diagnostic..., successfully argued that despite the common use of the name 'Medivision,' their established reputation and prior use in the specific locality (Mavelikara) warranted protection against the defendant's deceptively similar trade name, 'MEDIVISION IND.' The court emphasized that passing off rights are distinct from trademark registration rights, allowing it to grant immediate relief based on the likelihood of public confusion.

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