Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v. Mohan Kumar Kotana

CS(COMM) 91/2024, I.A. 2223/2024

The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs (Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.) an interim permanent injunction in their suit against Mohan Kumar Kotana. The case involves alleged infringement of Tata's intellectual property rights related to its mineral water products, 'TATA COPPER+' and 'TATA WATER PLUS'. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing goods and materials, and demand disclosure of sales records, significantly advancing the plaintiffs' claim for protection against IP misuse.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 91/2024, I.A. 2223/2024
Decision Date
31 January 2024

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 Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. vs Mohan Kumar Kotana is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM)No.285/2020 & I.A. No. 6277/2020

Makemytrip India Private LimitedvsWing In Travel Advisory Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Makemytrip against Wing In Travel Advisory and others. After hearing arguments, the court accepted an assurance from Defendant No. 1 that it would not bid for, adopt, or use Makemytrip's registered trademarks (MakeMyTrip/MMT) or any deceptively similar variants. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on these terms, without awarding damages or costs to the plaintiff. The court noted that the remaining defendants could not be proceeded against in the current form of the suit.

trademarkFAO(OS) (COMM) 32/2025

Adyar Gate Hotels LimitedvsITC Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the trademark 'Dakshin'. The court found that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was independently using the mark since 2015 and had shifted premises recently. This decision allows the matter to proceed on merits, requiring the appellant to file a formal response before the case is heard fully.

trademarkCRP-IPD 5/2023

M/S S. S. HospitalityvsM/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd

This revision petition challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Commercial Court regarding a trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd against M/S S. S. Hospitality. The petitioner argued that since the cause of action arose in Chandigarh, and the respondent had subordinate offices there, the suit should have been filed in Chandigarh. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent-plaintiff did not possess a subordinate office in Chandigarh, thus validating the original court's decision to allow the suit to proceed in Delhi.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 118/2024 & I.A. Nos. 33856/2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 119/2024 & I.A. No. 33859/2024 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 120/2024 & I.A. No. 33861/2024 & 33862/2024

Pernod Ricard India Private LimitedvsJagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.

trademarkIPDATM/129/2023 (Application No.247502 In Class 32)

M/S. SONA BEVERAGES PVT LTDvsTHE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND ANR

The Calcutta High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S. Sona Beverages Pvt Ltd seeking the removal of the mark 'SIMBA' registered in favor of The Coca-Cola Company. The court found that the trademark, which had lapsed on February 24, 2020, was never renewed despite receiving official notices from the Registry. Consequently, the court directed the expunging of the expired registration.

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