Sap Se v. Sanjay Kumar Goel & Anr.

CS(COMM) 287/2021 & IA No.7454/2021

In a trademark dispute concerning the names 'SAP' and 'SAPPY', the Delhi High Court took two key actions. First, it confirmed an existing interim injunction after the defendants withdrew their trademark applications, thereby protecting the plaintiff's interests temporarily. Second, recognizing the parties' willingness to resolve the conflict amicably, the court directed both sides to participate in mediation, signaling a move towards settlement for the ongoing commercial suit.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 287/2021 & IA No.7454/2021
Judge(s)
Jayant Nath

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 Sap Se vs Sanjay Kumar Goel & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark914-NMCDL-460-2019

Hindustan Unilever LimitedvsDhananjay Gruh Udyog

Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Dhananjay Gruh Udyog alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered 'SPLAT device mark'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. The court issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks on detergent preparations and ordered the destruction of all bearing goods.

trademarkO.S.A.No.127 of 2024

Bibin JohnvsLifestyle International Private Limited

The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.

trademarkCS(COMM) 815/2022

Apollo Tyres LimitedvsGlory Enterprise & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Apollo Tyres Limited against Glory Enterprise & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's 'APOLLO' mark and the defendants' 'OPOLLO' mark used on automotive tyres and tubes. Furthermore, the Court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct comprehensive searches, seizures, and inventories at the defendants' manufacturing premises to gather evidence against the alleged counterfeit operations.

trademarkFAO(OS) (COMM) 20/2020

Exotic MilevsImagine Marketing Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court reviewed an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. While the court affirmed the injunction against Exotic Mile's use of certain specified marks, it quashed the restriction on the tag line "UNPLUG YOURSELF" because the original plaintiff had not sought that specific restraint. Furthermore, the court clarified that since the mark GOBOULT was never subject to an injunction, Exotic Mile remains free to use it unless a separate cause of action is filed.

trademarkCS(COMM) 19/2024, I.A. 396/2024, etc.

Eastman Auto And Power LtdvsMr. Amritpal Singh Proprietor Of Akai Battery House

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Eastman Auto And Power Ltd against Mr. Amritpal Singh Proprietor Of Akai Battery House. The plaintiff, a major battery manufacturer, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks by using confusingly similar marks like 'EASTPOWER' on batteries. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.

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