M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.

A.No.1851 of 2022 Batch (in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.75 of 2022)

This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
A.No.1851 of 2022 Batch (in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.75 of 2022)
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.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark12-IAL-5746-2020 IN COMIPL-5745-2020

Hindustan Unilever LtdvsBalaji Enterprises

Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an Interim Application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Balaji Enterprises for alleged trade mark infringement and passing off related to flour products. The court found a sufficient prima facie case, noting that both marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally indistinguishable, leading to inevitable consumer confusion.

trademarkOSA (CAD) Nos.15 to 19 of 2025

M/S.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India & Sakthi Sai Glass Traders (Appellants)vsCompagnie De Saint-Gobain & Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (Respondents/Plaintiffs)

The Madras High Court dismissed appeals challenging an interim injunction granted to Saint-Gobain against Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India. The court found that the appellants, despite their contract with Saint-Gobain expiring, were infringing the 'Saint-Gobain' trademark by using it in connection with toughened glass products. Given the prima facie evidence of consumer confusion and dilution, the balance of convenience favored the trademark owner, upholding the injunction while allowing the main suit to proceed.

trademarkCS(COMM) 1160/2025

Jaquar And Company Private LimitedvsJaquar Franchise & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.

trademarkFA No. 208 of 2024

Pataka Industries Private LimitedvsJyoti Dewani

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Pataka Industries Private Limited against Jyoti Dewani. The court noted that the appellant had previously benefited from an injunction and allowed the application, restraining the respondent from using the trademark '502 Pataka' on any product or label until further orders. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/244/2023 (ORA/15/2017/TM/CHN)

M/s.Zeenath's Leather PlanetvsMr.M.Abdul Rasheed

The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s. Zeenath's Leather Planet seeking the removal of Trade Mark No. 1623248 from the Register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the petition for default. This highlights the critical importance of timely representation and adherence to court schedules in IP litigation.

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