Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) v. Luxe Moto LLP

2025:KER:32771

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rajputana Investment and Finance Limited against a lower court's decision to deny a temporary prohibitory injunction. The dispute centered on whether the term 'LUXE,' used in the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BRD LUXE,' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'LUXE MOTO LLP.' The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, noting that the claim hinged on the exclusivity of a potentially descriptive term. Consequently, the court allowed the defendants to continue using their mark pending the full trial.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Kerala High Court
Case Number
2025:KER:32771
Decision Date
7 April 2025

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Kerala High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) vs Luxe Moto LLP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC/RA/43/2022

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsTrivigya Bioscience

In a trademark dispute concerning the 'KIND' family of marks, Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an undertaking from Trivigya Bioscience. The respondent acknowledged the propriety of Mankind's marks and voluntarily agreed to cease using the contested mark CDKIND in relation to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of as not pressed, resolving the conflict amicably.

trademarkCS 285 of 2009

Ajanta Pharma LtdvsUas Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd & Another

The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Ajanta Pharma Ltd in a case involving the trademark 'Sunstop' for sun-screen cream. The court found that Uas Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd had deliberately attempted to pass off its similar product as belonging to Ajanta, exploiting the plaintiff's established market reputation and substantial sales figures. Consequently, the court granted a decree restraining Defendant No. 1 from continuing this dishonest practice.

trademarkW.P.(IPD)No.35 of 2025

M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trademarks

M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention to compel the Registrar of Trademarks to decide an opposition petition and trademark application within a fixed timeframe. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition because the underlying matter had already been decided by the Trademark Office on July 9, 2025, rendering the petitioner's request moot.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/172/2023 (ORA/129/2015/TM/CHN)

M/s.Jupiter DrugsvsMrs.M.Sarojini

The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. Jupiter Drugs' petition seeking to expunge or limit the trade mark 'ZIPROVIT.' The court noted that the last registration was valid only until December 14, 2017, suggesting the petitioner might no longer be an aggrieved party. Furthermore, due to the absence of a current address for service on the petitioner, the court found it impossible to proceed with the matter.

trademarkOP(TM) No.60 of 2024

Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.vsRpd Workstations Private Limited

Lenovo successfully challenged the registration of the mark 'THINBOOK' belonging to Rpd Workstations Private Limited in the Madras High Court. Lenovo, asserting its status as the originator and exclusive proprietor of the 'THINK Family of Marks,' demonstrated that the impugned mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to its established brand. The court ruled in favor of Lenovo, directing the cancellation and removal of the infringing trademark from the Register, thereby protecting Lenovo's goodwill and reputation in the market.

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