Unza International Limited / Cavinkare Private Limited (depending on the suit) v. Cavinkare Private Limited / Wipro Limited (depending on the suit)

C.S.Nos.1006 of 2009, 221 and 222 of 2010; W.P.Nos.23855 of 2012 and 15387 of 2013

This Madras High Court judgment, dated November 15, 2018, resolved multiple complex trademark disputes involving Unza International and Cavinkare Private Limited against Wipro entities. The court decreed Civil Suit No. 1006 of 2009 in favor of Unza International regarding the 'ENCHANTEUR' mark, while simultaneously dismissing other related suits (C.S.Nos. 221 & 222) and closing associated writ petitions based on a compromise memo signed by the parties. The ruling highlights how litigation can conclude through negotiated settlements.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
C.S.Nos.1006 of 2009, 221 and 222 of 2010; W.P.Nos.23855 of 2012 and 15387 of 2013
Judge(s)
M.M.Sundresh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Unza International Limited / Cavinkare Private Limited (depending on the suit) vs Cavinkare Private Limited / Wipro Limited (depending on the suit) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark(T)OP(TM)150/2023 ORA/239/2014/TM/CH & (T)OP(TM)151/2023 ORA/240/2014/TM/CH

Vedant Fashions Private LimitedvsRajul Devi Trading As Manyavar

The Madras High Court addressed petitions filed by Vedant Fashions Private Limited seeking the rectification of registered trademarks held by Rajul Devi Trading As Manyavar. The court noted that the dispute between the parties had been resolved through an out-of-court settlement agreement dated April 1, 2019. Consequently, both petitions were closed without any formal order regarding costs.

trademarkCCPO 22/2007

Independent News Service Pvt Ltd (India Tv)vsIndia Broadcast Live Llc

This case involved a dispute where India Tv, a prominent Hindi news channel, alleged that defendants were infringing its well-known mark 'INDIA TV' by using it prominently on their website indiatvlive.com. The plaintiff claimed the domain name constituted unfair competition and dilution of its brand. After initial injunctions, the court modified the orders, allowing the defendant to continue using the domain name provided they displayed a prominent disclaimer clarifying no affiliation with India Tv.

trademarkW.P.(IPD) No.31 of 2023

Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.

trademarkCS(COMM) 49/2024

Khadi And Village Industries CommissionvsMr Ashish Singh And Ors

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Mr. Ashish Singh and others. The Plaintiff, a statutory body protecting the 'KHADI' mark, alleged that Defendants were deceptively using similar marks like 'KHADI ORGANIC' on various products and websites to exploit public goodwill, particularly around religious events. The Court found a prima facie case for infringement and passed orders restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under infringing marks and mandating the suspension of the associated domain name.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/231/2023 (ORA/106/2016/TM/CHN)

Tempting Brands AgvsMr.Parasmal Purohit

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Tempting Brands Ag, ordering the cancellation of Mr. Parasmal Purohit's registered trademark (No. 1690863). The court found that the respondent had literally copied the petitioner's mark, making only a minor cosmetic change ('66' to '69'). The judgment strongly condemned this act as theft and dishonest adoption, reinforcing the principle of protecting prior rights against subsequent imitation.

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