Short Summary
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Mars Incorporated against Rf Limited And Ors. following a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the distinctive packaging, trade dress, and branding of Mars' PEDIGREE pet food line. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged Mars' proprietary rights and agreed to cease manufacturing or marketing pet foods using an identical trade dress or get-up for their 'PETYUM' brand.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
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 Mars Incorporated vs Rf Limited And Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Skechers South Asia Private LimitedvsDelhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
Vintage Distillers LimitedvsRamesh Chand Parekh
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Vintage Distillers Limited against Ramesh Chand Parekh regarding their alcoholic beverage brands. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'DHOLA THARU' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DHOLA MAARU'. Furthermore, the court recognized infringement not only under trademark law but also under copyright law due to the slavish imitation of the Plaintiff's artistic label design and trade dress. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds.
Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi Trading As M/S PUSHKAR PAIN CLINIC AND PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTER SENIOR HOUSEvsMr Tivender Kumar Kaushik
The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi against the rejection of his interim injunction application. The court recognized the appellant's claim that the respondent, a former employee, was infringing upon his established trademark, 'Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Center.' As an interim measure, the High Court granted a temporary restraint, allowing the respondent to continue operating their clinic but strictly prohibiting the use of the disputed name until further hearing.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt LtdvsBikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute between Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd and Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd following a comprehensive settlement. The defendant agreed to exhaust all existing stock bearing the disputed mark 'SHYAMJI' by September 30, 2024, while simultaneously withdrawing opposition and registration applications related to that mark. Crucially, the plaintiff consented not to oppose the defendant's adoption of the new trademark, 'SHYAM RASS', effectively resolving the conflict amicably.
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt LtdvsAds Spirits Pvt Ltd
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off related to country liquor. The defendant argued that since the impugned product was restricted and sold only within Haryana, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defense, finding that both parties operated in Haryana, thus necessitating filing the suit in a competent court there.
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.
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.