patanjali ayurved ltd v. axiom ayurveda

CS(COMM) 29/2019 & I.A. Nos.868-

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. sued Axiom Ayurveda for trademark infringement, alleging that Axiom was using the terms 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Ayurved Foundation Trust' and 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Yogpeeth Foundation Trust' on their products, creating a deceptive association with Patanjali’s trademarks PATANJALI and PATANJALI AYURVED. The plaintiff claimed significant revenue (approximately Rs. 9,000 crores) and widespread distribution of its products under the contested marks.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 29/2019 & I.A. Nos.868-
Judge(s)
J.R. Midha

Practitioner Note

This decision the delhi high court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining axiom ayurveda and its associates from using any trade names deceptively similar to patanjali and patanjali ayurved, particularly those including endorsement references, until the next hearing date. relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar trademark dispute before Delhi High Court - Orders, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.

Related Cases

trademarkRP No. 682 of 2024

Surindar Pal SinghvsIchhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi and New Ichhadhari and Others

The Madhya Pradesh High Court listed the case involving Surindar Pal Singh and Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi. The court granted time to both parties to verify the outcome or status of a pending rectification application filed under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. This indicates that the dispute over the trademark's validity or registration is still active and awaiting further judicial determination.

trademarkCOMIP (L) NO. 581 OF 2019

Mahindra & Mahindra LimitedvsGnanasekaran Paramsivan Trading as Mahindra Lifts and Anr.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd filed a suit against Gnanasekaran Paramsivan for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyright, and passing off related to the mark 'MAHINDRA' and domain name www.mahindralifts.com. The Bombay High Court disposed of the suit by decreeing the prayers in favor of the Plaintiff, granting perpetual injunctions and ordering the destruction of infringing goods.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 90/2021

A.K. Al Muhaidib And SonsvsChaman Lal Sachdeva And Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, removing the mark 'AL-WALIMAH' (TM No. 523217) from the register. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark in relation to goods in Class 30 for a continuous period of five years. Given the lack of evidence of genuine commercial use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the removal of the mark.

trademarkIPDATM/133/2023

M/S. Polo / Lauren Company, L.P.vsM/S. Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification filed by M/S. Polo / Lauren Company against a similar trademark, 'LOREN'. The petitioner argued that the respondent's mark was registered dishonestly and created a likelihood of confusion with their established global brand, 'RALPH LAUREN'. Crucially, the court noted that the impugned registration had long lapsed and no steps were taken by the respondent to renew it. Consequently, the court directed the removal and expunging of the expired trademark entry.

trademarkM.F.A.NO.7382 OF 2022 (IPR), M.F.A.NO.7914 OF 2022 (IPR)

M/s Btv Kannada Private LimitedvsM/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited

M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited appealed against an order passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, which allowed temporary injunctions sought by the plaintiff. The appeal challenged the misuse and misrepresentation of the plaintiff's logo, channel name, and assets by the defendants. The High Court dismissed the appeals but held that the impugned order was subject to the trial court's determination of jurisdiction.

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