Titan Company Ltd. v. Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd.

(T)CMA(TM)/188/2023

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Titan Company Ltd. against Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the trade mark in question, No. 925369 (Class 20), had not been renewed since May 17, 2010. Since the long stop date for renewal had expired, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T)CMA(TM)/188/2023
Judge(s)
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Titan Company Ltd. vs Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkRFA-IPD 3/2022, CM 274/2025 & CM APPL. 25635/2019

Docbel Industries & Anr.vsBraun Aktiengesellschaft

The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Docbel Industries and Braun Aktiengesellschaft based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court accepted the compromise, which involved the formal assignment of Trademark registration no. 405367 (the mark BRAUN) from Appellant No. 2 to the Respondent. Furthermore, the parties agreed to the handover of all related documents and financial considerations, effectively resolving the underlying litigation.

trademarkCS(COMM) 22/2023

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd.vsAnil Pendela

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Anil Pendela regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Dream11' brand, successfully argued that the defendant's use of 'Dreamz11 Sports' and the tagline 'Khelo Dil Se' was deceptively similar to their registered marks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using these infringing marks and ordered the suspension of the associated domain name and takedown of social media pages.

trademarkCS(COMM) 83/2024 & I.As. 2119/2024

Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd.vsFly- Hi Maritime Travels Private Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction in a trademark dispute between Frankfinn Aviation Services and Fly-Hi Maritime Travels. The court allowed the defendant to use its logo mark 'FLY HI' for its current, specified services, subject to plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, the defendant was granted conditional liberty to use the word form 'FLY HI' only as a reference in its normal course of business, provided it identifies specific, necessary circumstances and avoids trademark usage.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 38/2024

Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr.vsSmt Krishnaben Dipesh Gol & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted a significant victory to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar 'AMUL' trademark registered by the respondents in Class-06. The court recognized AMUL as a well-known trademark entitled to high protection across classes, thereby preventing unauthorized use and protecting the brand's integrity. This ruling reinforces the robust legal standing of established national brands against subsequent registrations.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2025

Grena LimitedvsAxon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.

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