Mr. Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar @ Kumar G.M v. M/S. Eaglesight Media Private Limited

Lakme Lever Private LimitedvsShyama Mai Enterprises And Anr.

This Bombay High Court judgment addresses a commercial arbitration application concerning the alleged misuse of the LAKME trademark. The court reviewed an affidavit from one respondent, who stated she was operating a salon under a different name ('8 to 8 Salon') and was not using the LAKME brand after her husband's death and the expiry of the franchise agreement. Given these new facts, the Court directed both parties to confer and provide instructions on whether the applicant still wishes to proceed with invoking Section 11 (likely related to trademark rights) and if the respondent is willing to remit past franchise fees.

Dxn Holdings BhdvsDaehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by Dxn Holdings Bhd seeking the removal of specific trademarks from the register. The court noted that the last registration date of the marks was in 2021, and crucially, the first respondent (Daehsan Trading) was found to be under liquidation. Given these developments, the petitions were deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps for mark removal.

Amaravathi Restaurants Private LimitedvsKaraikudi Chettinad Mess

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.

Carlsberg Breweries A/SvsTensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further arguments.

Varun Chopra & Jagdaman Kumar ChopravsShyam Sunder Chopra And Sons, Sampan Chopra, Vaibhav Chopra, Samvitee Foods Pvt Ltd

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning a lower court's decision to reject their trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether Section 20 of the CPC (territorial jurisdiction) was applicable despite provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that the special provisions of the Trademark Act do not oust the general principles of territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the plaint rejection application.