M/S Dreams Lingerie Products v. Akash Chaudhary

CS(COMM) 370/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Dreams Lingerie Products against Akash Chaudhary, restraining him from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'DREAM'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, inventory infringing goods, and examine manufacturing records.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 370/2022
Judge(s)
Navin Chawla

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 Dreams Lingerie Products vs Akash Chaudhary is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkOP(TM)/38 & 40/2024, (TM)A/61 & 63/2024

T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam CateringvsMr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court dismissed two original petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking the rectification and cancellation of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan. The court noted that the first respondent had subsequently initiated applications for the cancellation of the disputed registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Since the underlying issue was being addressed through administrative channels, the petitions were deemed infructuous.

trademarkW.P. (C) 1263/2005

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.vsUnion Of India & Ors.

The Delhi High Court set aside an adverse ruling by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) concerning the trademark T-SERIES. The court affirmed the initial registration granted to Super Cassettes, finding that there was no likelihood of deception or confusion between T-SERIES and the marks held by TELCO. The judgment emphasized that because Super Cassettes did not use the word 'TATA,' which is central to TELCO's branding, the similarity claim failed.

trademarkCS(COMM) 681/2023

Ht Media Limited & Anr.vsHindustan News Network & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan News Network. The court found that the defendant was attempting to pass off its news channel and name as being connected with the long-established 'HINDUSTAN' mark owned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and logo, and orders were issued compelling domain registrars (GoDaddy) and tech platforms (Google/Meta) to suspend the infringing website and take down related content.

trademarkIPDATM/261/2023

Fena Private LimitedvsBajranglal Rathi Trading As M/S. Maheshwari Soap Industries and Ors

The Calcutta High Court addressed a trademark dispute brought by Fena Private Limited against Bajranglal Rathi Trading. The court noted that prima facie, the impugned registration appears to infringe upon the appellant's rights. Furthermore, the court observed evidence suggesting a clear case of non-use regarding the respondent's mark, which was not disputed at the hearing. Consequently, the matter has been adjourned for further arguments and submissions.

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2023

Ind Swift LimitedvsRegistrar Of Trademarks & Anr.

In this trademark opposition matter, Ind Swift Limited sought an exemption from strict procedural requirements regarding document submission. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, permitting the Appellant to produce original documents later as required by law. The court also noted that the appellant's mark 'AMYCLOX' is opposed by Cedar Properties and Trading LLP, directing necessary intimation to the opposing counsel before listing the matter for further proceedings.

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