M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India

Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Ors.vsAshok Kumar(S)/John Does & Ors.

In a significant commercial dispute concerning the HARPIC brand, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiffs (Reckitt And Colman). The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court also permitted an ex parte ad interim injunction by appointing Local Commissioners to conduct inspections of the alleged infringing products, reinforcing the strength of the brand's trademark and trade dress protection.

Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. LtdvsLucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd against Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondent from continuing to use the 'Best Western' sub-licensed mark even after the underlying Sub-License Agreement was terminated due to defaults by the respondent. The court found that the continued unauthorized use of the mark, despite termination and legal notice, was likely to cause irreparable damage and mislead the public regarding an ongoing relationship between the parties.

Welcome Shoes Private LimitedvsRetro Footwears Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

The Delhi High Court judgment in Welcome Shoes vs. Retro Footwears concluded the dispute through an amicable settlement between the parties. The defendants agreed to withdraw several similar trademarks, cease using deceptively similar marks like 'BURE' or 'WELCOMO' for footwear, and refrain from diluting the plaintiff's established brands ('WELCOME' and 'PURE'). This resolution provides a clear path forward, binding both companies to the terms of the settlement decree.

Lakme Lever Private LimitedvsShyama Mai Enterprises And Anr.

This Bombay High Court judgment addresses a commercial arbitration application concerning the alleged misuse of the LAKME trademark. The court reviewed an affidavit from one respondent, who stated she was operating a salon under a different name ('8 to 8 Salon') and was not using the LAKME brand after her husband's death and the expiry of the franchise agreement. Given these new facts, the Court directed both parties to confer and provide instructions on whether the applicant still wishes to proceed with invoking Section 11 (likely related to trademark rights) and if the respondent is willing to remit past franchise fees.

Zenith Spray And Aerosols Pvt LtdvsUrmila Goel Tin Works And Packaging

The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing injunction against Urmila Goel Tin Works and Packaging after finding that the defendant's packaging remained deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress, despite changing its trademark. The court found that merely altering the brand name did not negate the infringement of the distinctive visual appearance (trade dress). Consequently, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises to prevent further violation of the original order.