M/s.K.P. Namboodiri'S Ayurvedics v. Dr. S. Sajikumar

(T)OP(TM)/85/2023 (ORA/122/2013/TM/CHN)

The Madras High Court disposed of the petition filed by M/s.K.P. Namboodiri'S Ayurvedics against Dr. S. Sajikumar regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark (No. 1914715). The court noted that the contesting parties had entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 31, 2023. Under this settlement, both parties agreed to permit each other's trademarks to coexist in the market and subsequently withdrew all related proceedings.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T)OP(TM)/85/2023 (ORA/122/2013/TM/CHN)
Judge(s)
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

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.K.P. Namboodiri'S Ayurvedics vs Dr. S. Sajikumar is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark2002(25)PTC369(ALL)

Sahana Soap Works And Ors.vsKanpur Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. And ...

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a trial court's interim injunction. The case involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off concerning soap wrappers, where the plaintiff argued their 'GHARI' mark was being copied by defendants using identical designs. Based on evidence showing the plaintiffs had significantly larger business volume and were prior users, the court upheld the initial restraint order against the defendants.

trademarkFAO(OS)-549&567/2011

Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd.vsRadico Khaitan Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute between Carlsberg and Radico Khaitan regarding the use of the numeral '8' in their respective alcoholic beverage trademarks. Radico claimed infringement and passing off, arguing that Carlsberg's use of 'PALONE 8' was confusingly similar to its registered mark '8 PM'. However, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Carlsberg, finding no prima facie evidence of consumer confusion or actionable similarity between the two labels. The court emphasized that mere use of a common numeral or color combination is insufficient for an injunction.

trademarkCS(COMM) 1585/2016

Pepsico Inc & Ors.vsDugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.

trademark964-NMCDL-2483-2018

Hindustan Unilever Ltd.vsR. R. Trading Company

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against R.R. Trading Company for allegedly using a label mark and trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive BROOK BOND RED LABEL/RED LABEL. The Bombay High Court granted the leave petition and passed an interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods that pass off as those of the plaintiff.

trademarkCS(COMM) 286/2019

Aap Ki Pasand & AnrvsNew Direction Exports & Crafts

In this trademark dispute, the defendant sought to establish a prior right by claiming they purchased the 'ANDEES' trademark and logo from a third party in 2018. The court accepted the defendant's temporary commitment to cease using the disputed packaging pending further proceedings. This order indicates that the matter is still actively litigating, with both parties encouraged to attempt an out-of-court resolution.

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