Executive Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. against Divyam Gupta, finding that the defendant was attempting to ride on the plaintiff's established trademark rights. The court recognized the substantial use and reputation of the 'CP CENTURY' mark in kitchen hardware products. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'CENTUARY PLUS/ACE CENTUARY PLUS' until the final hearing of the suit.
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 M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. vs Divyam Gupta is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Zafar Alam & Anr.vsMahesh Kumar
This Delhi High Court order addresses multiple interim applications concerning a trademark dispute involving 'LINK' and its variants. The Plaintiffs filed an application alleging wilful disobedience of a prior injunction, while the Defendant sought to vacate that same injunction. The court noted procedural lapses, specifically the Plaintiffs' failure to file required written submissions. Consequently, the court directed the Plaintiffs to submit their written arguments within two weeks before proceeding with the merits of the applications.
Jindal Industries Private LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court allowed Jindal Industries Private Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its trademark application. The court held that the rejection, based on non-distinctiveness or prohibition under Section 9 of the Act (specifically regarding the use of India's map outline), was unsustainable. Citing previous rulings and the 'No Objection' from the Survey of India, the High Court directed the Registrar to proceed with the registration of the mark.
The Capital Group Companies, IncvsAshok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.vsM/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the trademark dispute between Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The court disposed of an interlocutory application seeking records from the Trademark Registry, noting that the record had been received by the parties. Furthermore, the court set a schedule for both sides to file written submissions on the main case before listing it again in January 2026.
Tesla Inc.vsTesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
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.