Short Summary
This case involved allegations by Preeti (Kosmos Global) against Suresh R. Jain for infringing their registered copyright and passing off their hair colour products under the trademark 'BEAUTE BLANC'. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of a similar pack/carton design and the name 'Skenique'. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the joint memo.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Preeti / Kosmos Global vs Suresh R. Jain is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
G.ThirumoorthyvsEllora Kalyani Gold Covering
G.Thirumoorthy filed a suit against Ellora Kalyani Gold Covering seeking permanent injunctions for infringing his registered trade mark 'KALYANI COVERING' and copyrighted artistic work, as well as passing off. The plaintiff sought to prevent the use of the deceptively similar mark 'KALYANI GOLD COVERING' on gold covering ornaments. However, during the proceedings, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to file an affidavit confirming the survival of the cause of action. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
M/S Liberty Footwear CompanyvsM/S Liberty International
This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.
M/S.Godaddy.Com LlcvsM/S.Puravankara Projects Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute over domain name infringement brought by M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited against Godaddy.com LLC and its Indian subsidiary. While the court acknowledged the Plaintiff's trademark rights, it significantly curtailed the scope of the suit. The mandatory injunction seeking removal of infringing trademarks was rejected due to lack of necessary parties, but the Plaintiff was allowed to proceed regarding alleged liability arising from the Defendants' use of domain suggestion tools.
Havells India Ltd & Anr.vsAshok Kumar/ John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against various defendants regarding the misuse of its registered trademarks, HAVELLS and LLOYD. The court found a prima facie case that rogue websites and domain names were being used to mislead consumers and conduct fraudulent activities. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate blocking of specific infringing domains by ISPs and directed the disclosure of registrant details from the responsible parties.
Chitali Bottling LimitedvsBrihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chitali Bottling Limited seeking a temporary injunction against Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited. The core dispute revolved around the right to use specific country liquor brand names and labels. The court found that the Appellant's claim of an 'oral license' was a sham plea, especially given the existence of a written License Agreement from 2014. Furthermore, the court ruled that under the Trade Marks Act, perpetual oral assignment is not legally possible, concluding that the Appellant had no prima facie case.
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.
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.