Schaeffler Technologies Ag And Co Kg v. Ms Gangason Enterprises

CS(COMM) 80/2022 & I.A. 5854/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Schaeffler Technologies (FAG) against Ms Gangason Enterprises for alleged trademark infringement. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute through an amicable settlement, which the court formalized into a decree. Under the terms of this settlement, the Defendant acknowledged FAG's exclusive rights and agreed to cease all use of the mark 'FAG,' withdraw related trademark applications, destroy infringing products, and provide an apology for the violation.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 80/2022 & I.A. 5854/2022
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

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 Schaeffler Technologies Ag And Co Kg vs Ms Gangason Enterprises is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkWP(IPD) Nos. 45 to 47 of 2025

Ms.Nischitha S Katta, Proprietor of SatvaDailyvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions filed by Ms. Nischitha S Katta seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to recognize her as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'SATVADAILY'. The petitioner sought the completion of assignments across various classes (29, 30, and 31) based on an Assignment Deed dated December 9, 2024. After considering the respondent's submission that they had already initiated the process, the Court closed the petitions but issued a clear directive to the Registrar to finalize the assignment exercise within eight weeks.

trademarkCS(COMM) 968/2025

Ultratech Cement LimitedvsAmbush Cement Private Limited

Ultratech Cement Limited filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to challenge the validity of trademarks registered by Ambush Cement Private Limited. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for a formal challenge to the defendants' trademark registrations before the Joint Registrar.

trademarkCOMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 23 of 2008 (Notice of Motion No. 22 of 2013)

Siyaram Silk Mills LimitedvsStanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited

The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.

trademarkCS(COMM) 10/2019

Surya Food And Agro LimitedvsOm Traders & Anr.

The Delhi High Court dismissed Surya Food And Agro Limited's suit against Om Traders and others, which alleged passing off based on similar packaging trade dress. The court found that despite the plaintiff's claims regarding distinctive packaging for 'BUTTER DELITE,' there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion with the defendant's product, 'BUTTER KRUNCH.' The judgment emphasized consumer perception principles (Gestalt Psychology), concluding that consumers recall products holistically rather than focusing on minute details of the packaging.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 575/2022

Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd.vsKothari Products Ltd. & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition concerning the trademark 'GOLDIE'. The court accepted an affidavit of undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated that they had never used the impugned mark in trade and that the claimed user date was incorrect. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel/expunge Registration No. 490303 within six weeks.

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