Short Summary
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Drs Logistics against Google regarding trademark infringement via search engine advertising. The court recognized that using a registered trademark as a keyword could lead to consumer confusion, diverting traffic from the plaintiff's site to competitors. Consequently, the court granted interim injunctions requiring Google and other defendants to investigate any complaints of misuse and remove or block advertisements found to be infringing or causing passing off.
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. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Another vs Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Bda Private LimitedvsJohn Distilleries Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications for an interim injunction in a complex trademark dispute involving the marks 'Officer's Choice' and 'Original Choice', used for whisky. Despite the plaintiff having filed suits based on both passing off and registered trademark infringement, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the essential element of misrepresentation required for a passing off action. Consequently, the application seeking an interim injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were directed to maintain proper sales accounts.
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.
Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd.vsSunil Kumar Saluja
The Delhi High Court dismissed Airtec Electrovision's appeal against the Commercial Court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. Airtec sought protection for its registered mark 'EIRTEC' against Sunil Kumar Saluja's use of 'AIRNET' on television sets, claiming deceptive similarity. However, the court found no sufficient phonetic or stylistic similarity and emphasized that common words like 'air' are often used in the electronics trade, ultimately upholding the lower court's decision.
The Himalaya Durg Company & OrsvsHimalya International Ltd
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.
Flu Jeans Private LimitedvsMr. Manish Jain & Anr.
Flu Jeans Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the impugned trademark 'BIGFLU'. The court disposed of two interlocutory applications—one for exemption and another seeking leave to file additional documents—and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 23rd November 2026 for further proceedings.
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.