Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro Valves v. The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 152/2024

The petitioner filed Rectification Petitions seeking cancellation of three 'MILTON' trademarks registered in Class 21. Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the pendency of earlier related rectification petitions before the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The court satisfied this objection after the petitioner undertook to withdraw the relevant pending petitions.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 152/2024
Decision Date
10 September 2025

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 Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro Valves vs The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(OS) 328/2006 & CS(OS) 1352/2006 (IA 1941/2006 & IA 7308/2006)

M/S Koxan India / Ramesh MardiavsRamesh Mardia / M/S Koxan India

The Delhi High Court dismissed two separate applications seeking ad interim injunctions regarding the use of the trademark 'MARDIA CABLES.' The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of exclusive rights over the mark, stemming from a chain of assignments and subsequent re-assignments. Given the complex factual matrix—including disputed assignment documents and competing registrations—the court found that neither party could establish a clear prima facie case for exclusivity at this preliminary stage.

trademarkCS No. 62170/16

Kurlon Enterprises Ltd.vsM/S Goel Foam Co.

The plaintiff, Kurlon Enterprises Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, M/S Goel Foam Co., was misguiding customers by displaying the plaintiff's glow sign board and selling products under its name without authorization. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved through documentary evidence that the defendant was infringing upon their trade mark and business reputation.

trademarkCS(COMM) 83/2024 & I.As. 2119/2024

Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd.vsFly- Hi Maritime Travels Private Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction in a trademark dispute between Frankfinn Aviation Services and Fly-Hi Maritime Travels. The court allowed the defendant to use its logo mark 'FLY HI' for its current, specified services, subject to plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, the defendant was granted conditional liberty to use the word form 'FLY HI' only as a reference in its normal course of business, provided it identifies specific, necessary circumstances and avoids trademark usage.

trademarkCS(COMM) 181/2024, I.A. 4775/2024

Tirth Agro Technology Private LimitedvsNavkar Agriculture Industries

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Navkar Agriculture Industries. The court found a prima facie case regarding the alleged infringement of the 'SHAKTIMAN' trademark and associated artistic work/trade dress used on agricultural products like rotavators. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using similar marks or trade dresses, and the plaintiff was permitted to seize and seal all infringing material.

trademark2024:BHC-OS:1071

Gold Medal Electricals Pvt LtdvsC.K. Electricals

Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.

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