Vivek Verma & Ors. v. The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2025

The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of the trademark 'PALANG TORE MARD CHOURI PATTI' in favor of Vivek Verma & Ors. The court found that the Impugned Mark is identical or deceptively similar to the Appellant's existing marks, particularly considering the nature of the goods (chewing tobacco/gutkha) and the consumer base (illiterate sections). This decision highlights the high risk of market confusion when identical marks are used for related products.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2025
Decision Date
1 December 2025

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 Vivek Verma & Ors. vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 561/2022

Sanjay MehravsSharad Mehra & Ors.

The Delhi High Court addressed competing claims regarding the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit versus an arbitration clause contained in a family settlement agreement. The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, particularly concerning the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Instead of immediately granting or denying interim relief, the judge directed both parties to file replies to the pending applications (I.A. 12874/2022 and I.A. 13127/2022) before listing them for a final hearing.

trademark2024:BHC-OS:1071

Gold Medal Electricals Pvt LtdvsC.K. Electricals

Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.

trademarkCS(COMM) 715/2019 & I.A. 474/2020

M/S Liberty Footwear CompanyvsM/S Liberty International

This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 83/2023

Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd.vsMount Shivalik Industries Ltd. & Anr.

Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of an identical trademark from the register, arguing that their own mark was already registered. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Inbrew but granted Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. an opportunity to respond before making a final decision on the removal prayer. This interim order sets the stage for further litigation regarding trademark rights.

trademark(T)OP(TM) No.223 of 2023 (ORA/79/2016/TM/CH)

Diageo North America, IncvsVenkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd.

Diageo North America filed a petition seeking rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BULLET MALTED WHISKY' registered by Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd., alleging that it is deceptively similar to Diageo's well-known mark 'BULLEIT'. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioner had established a case for cancellation.

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