Short Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Signatureglobal (India) Limited, a leading real estate developer. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off by various online entities imitating its brand 'SIGNATUREGLOBAL'. Consequently, the defendants were directed to immediately take down or block all infringing websites and were restrained from registering similar domains, protecting the company's digital presence and consumer trust.
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 Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Signatureglobal (India) Limited vs Ashok Kumar And Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P LtdvsRekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma concerning the similar corporate names 'REXCIN' and 'REKIN'. The court noted that while Rexcin holds registrations for 'REXCIN', they are not currently using it commercially, whereas Rekin has registered 'REKIN-SP' in Class 05. To resolve the conflict, the Court proposed a potential settlement where both parties could agree to restrict the use of the disputed term only as part of their corporate name, rather than as a trademark or trade name. Both counsels agreed to consult their clients on this proposal and were directed to consider mediation.
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private LimitedvsAshok Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited against Ashok Kumar and others. The court found a prima facie case that the respondents were illegally imitating, impersonating, and infringing upon the petitioner's registered trademarks ('Cordelia Cruises') and copyrighted material related to its cruise services. The order specifically restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff's marks across all media platforms and directed the blocking of an offending website until the final hearing.
Bisleri International Private LimitedvsM/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
Swasth Digital Health FoundationvsTrade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals LimitedvsRidley Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's attempt to reopen evidence regarding costs and damages in a trademark infringement suit. The court noted the defendant's history of 'abysmal conduct,' including being a 'habitual offender/rank infringer' who repeatedly infringes third-party products. Given that the defendant had ample opportunity to present their case previously, the court found the late application was not bona fide and aimed only at delay.
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.