Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v. Garima Singh & Anr.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 199/2023

In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of a 21-day delay. The petitioner, Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited, expressed no objection to the delay being excused. Consequently, the court allowed the application, allowing the respondent's reply to be taken on record and granting time for filing a rejoinder.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 199/2023
Decision Date
7 November 2023

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 Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited vs Garima Singh & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkW.P.(C) 19029/2025

Max India Investment Services Private LimitedvsUnion Of India & Ors.

The Delhi High Court stayed an order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that had directed petitioner, Max India Investment Services Private Limited, to change its name. The dispute arose because a respondent company claimed the petitioner's name was too similar to their registered trademarks ('MAX' and 'Max India Limited'). The court found that since the petitioner has been using the name incorporating 'Max India' since 2007, it established a prima facie case for interim relief. Furthermore, the parties were referred to mediation to explore an amicable resolution.

trademarkC.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 5/2021

Excitel Private LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.

trademarkCMA(TM).No.23 of 2024

M/S. Nichino Private LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trademarks

The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Registry's refusal to register the word mark 'METAMORPH' in Class 5 (pesticides/herbicides). The court found that the Registrar erred by assuming prior long-term use of a cited mark, especially since that application was initially filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The judgment mandates the Registry to re-examine the case, considering the appellant's claims regarding non-similarity and potential entitlement under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act.

trademarkCivil Revision Petition No.3961 of 2025

M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. LtdvsM/S. Sri Tulasi Industries

The Telangana High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd against an order passed by the District Judge, Kamareddy. The petitioner argued that their application seeking a stay of proceedings in a trademark infringement suit should not have been dismissed as infructuous while a higher court's stay was still pending. The High Court found the trial judge's dismissal erroneous and set aside the impugned order, directing the lower court to reconsider the applications.

trademarkFAO(OS) (COMM) 40/2023, CM APPLs. 9508/2023, 9509/2023 & 13777/2023

Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd.vsSona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to a trademark dispute involving the 'SONA' mark. While one application seeking to introduce public record documents was allowed, another crucial application filed by Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. (the appellants) was dismissed. The court found no merit in the appeal against the interim injunction granted to the respondents, citing factors such as the non-perishability of goods and potential grave prejudice to the successful respondent if the injunction were lifted.

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