Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. M/S Darzi On Call

M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd.vsHOTEL NAMMA AACHI

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.vsPerilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.

Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.

KT&G Corporation (Xx)vsYY

In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement in the tobacco sector, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners. The plaintiff, KT&G Corporation, sought protection for its renowned ESSE brand against counterfeiting. The court facilitated the execution of commissions to seize infringing products while ensuring procedural fairness, setting the stage for a full trial.

M/s. ARCEE ElectronicsvsM/s. ARCEEIKA

M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter used a similar name ('ARCEEIKA') for electronic goods showrooms. The core dispute centered on territorial jurisdiction, as Defendant No. 2 challenged the court's competence to hear the matter. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action had sufficiently been demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.

Bennett, Coleman And Company LimitedvsE1 Entertainment Television , Llc Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed the respondent's applications seeking to introduce a specific YouTube video into the rectification proceedings. The respondent argued that this video was crucial evidence supporting their claim of continuous use of the mark since the early 1990s, which directly counters the petitioner's request for trademark cancellation/rectification. The court ruled that since the link had been previously cited in the written statement, the video clip was not an 'additional document,' thereby allowing its admission to ensure a fair trial.