Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited v. Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.

C.S.(Comm Div) No.217 of 2023

The Madras High Court judgment in India Cements Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd. (though the parties listed are Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.) resulted in the dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff, Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited, chose to withdraw the case on June 27, 2024, before a final judgment could be delivered. This action effectively ended the litigation regarding the use of the deceptively similar mark 'NOIDA SUPER KINGS' against the defendant.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
C.S.(Comm Div) No.217 of 2023
Judge(s)
P.Velmurugan

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark908-IAL-29744-21

Ageless Clinic Private LimitedvsAm Ageless Private Limited

The Bombay High Court granted further interim relief in favor of Ageless Clinic Private Limited against Am Ageless Private Limited. Despite previous orders, the Defendant failed to comply by continuing to use infringing business names on signage, maintaining deceptive domain names (like i-am-ageless-aesthetic-and-dental-centre.business), and active social media accounts. The Court made absolute the Leave Petition for Letters of Patent and issued a strong injunction restraining the defendant from using any mark or handle containing 'AGELESS' that could lead to passing off.

trademarkW.P. (IPD) No.31 of 2024

Mohammed Faisal T.P.vsThe Registrar of Trade Mark

The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Mohammed Faisal T.P. seeking an expeditious processing of his pending Trademark Application No. 5007957. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to ensure that the application is processed within a stipulated timeframe. This order provides clarity and urgency regarding administrative delays in trademark registration processes.

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.

trademarkCS(COMM) 440/2025

Montblanc-Simplo GmbhvsMs. Jasmin Chandrakant Vora & Ors.

In this trademark infringement suit, Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh sought permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for using its registered trademarks and devices. The court noted the parties' initial request for exemption from mediation but ultimately referred them to pre-litigation mediation. Subsequently, the defendants assured the court that they would withdraw infringing products from e-commerce sites within a week and were granted time to file an undertaking confirming their non-infringement intentions.

trademarkCMA(TM).No.3 of 2025

M/s. Effra Life SciencevsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of M/s. Effra Life Science's application for a device mark registration. The court found that despite both marks being in Class 35, the appellant's business (marketing pharmaceutical products) was fundamentally different from the cited prior mark's business (repair and installation of machinery). This distinction negated the likelihood of confusion, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.

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