Popsockets Llc v. Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors.

CS(COMM)No.496/2020

In this trademark infringement suit, Popsockets LLC sought remedies against Flipkart India Private Limited for allegedly selling products under an infringing mark. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on November 12, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and permitted the issuance of summons to all defendants, while also noting the dispute regarding whether Flipkart itself was infringing by selling the product under the disputed trademark.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM)No.496/2020
Judge(s)
Navin Chawla

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Popsockets Llc vs Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkIP SUIT (L) NO.1376 OF 2018

Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd.vsShri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others

The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed an IP suit against Shri Ajanta Fabrics and others for infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks in relation to textile goods.

trademarkCS(COMM) 768/2024

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr.vsTerre Primitive & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by the Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation (AMUL) against Terre Primitive. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Amuleti' was identical and deceptively similar to AMUL's well-known mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted interim relief, directing the defendant to cease using the infringing marks, take down products from their website, surrender materials for destruction, and block specific social media URLs.

trademarkCMA(TM)No.6 of 2025

Lucas TVS LimitedvsFFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025

Abbott Products Operations AgvsMs. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the trademark dispute involving Abbott Products Operations Ag and Alrom Pharmaceuticals. The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking leave to file additional documents, while simultaneously initiating proceedings for a rectification petition concerning the 'KREOFLAT' trademark. This order sets out timelines for both parties to file replies and written synopses, moving the core dispute forward.

trademarkCM(M) 1662/2025 & CM APPL. 54166/2025

Nitin Maheshwari And AnrvsPatanjali Foods Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed a procedural matter in an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Patanjali Foods Limited. The petitioners sought to challenge a previous dismissal order, which was related to their application under Section 151 CPC. Recognizing the core dispute involves trademark rights (infringement and passing off), the court directed that the petition be re-registered as CM(M)-IPD to ensure proper classification within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.

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