Short Summary
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
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 Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S. Simpson & Company Limited vs Shri Rhythm Agarwal is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance LimitedvsSachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit after noting that the disputed mark had already been removed from the register by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court accepted the defendant's affidavit stating that the trademark was never put into commercial operation, rendering all remaining claims for injunction and damages moot. This decision highlights how prior administrative actions (like rectification) can fundamentally alter the trajectory of a civil IP suit.
M/S Sureka Forbes (Pvt) LimitedvsM/S Eureka Forbes Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Sureka Forbes against M/S Eureka Forbes. The petitioner had challenged the trial court's acceptance of a Court Commissioner's report in an ongoing suit for permanent injunction concerning trademark and copyright infringement. The court ultimately found that accepting or rejecting the commissioner's report is a discretionary function of the trial court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.
Hindustan Unilever LimitedvsFabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private LimitedvsM/S. Rohm Gmbh
The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.
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.
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.