Agriculture — India Trademark Cases
19 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 19 total
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries and Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries, before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record and sought interim injunctive relief. Based on the defendants' own stand in their written statement that they do not use the SHAKTIMAN trademark and instead sell their harvester combine under the AS-930 mark, the court directed the defendants not to use SHAKTIMAN as a trademark in future.
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a judgment that revoked an interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's urgent relief application. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off between the appellant (using 'RALLI') and the respondent (using 'Really'). The court found that the appellant was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2018, based on participation in a fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges.
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a single judge's order that vacated an interim injunction and revoked leave granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant claimed infringement and passing off based on the defendant using 'Really' while the appellant used 'RALLI'. The court found evidence (participation in a 2018 fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges) establishing that the appellant was aware of the respondent's product use since at least 2018, dismissing the appeal.
Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt v.Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt Ltd and Others
The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for dishonestly adopting and using the impugned mark "SUPER AGRO-TECH" along with deceptively similar packaging and trade dress in relation to agricultural goods. The applicant sought dispensation of pre-institution mediation, arguing that urgent interim relief was necessary due to immediate market confusion and injury.
Agco International GmbH v.Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited
The Madras High Court heard multiple Original Applications filed by Agco International GmbH against Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited concerning trademark infringement, domain name misuse, and interference with licensed intellectual property. Despite the detailed prayers seeking interim injunctions to protect trademarks like 'Massey Ferguson' and associated livery, all parties subsequently filed withdrawal memos. Consequently, the court closed all related Original Applications without issuing a substantive judgment on the merits of the IP disputes.
Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. v.Maschio Crop Protection Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. against Maschio Crop Protection Llp, halting the latter's use of the 'MASCHIO' mark and similar variants. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given its global reputation and registered rights since 1998. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the brand while the main suit proceeds.
Jk India Eagritech Limited & Anr. v.Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jk India Eagritech Limited against Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, logos, and associated copyright content. This urgent order restricts the Defendants from using or operating any website, social media pages, or promoting marks deceptively similar to 'ChiniMandi,' 'Bio Mandi,' and 'Bio Energy Times.'
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
Nirmal Seeds Private Limited v.M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application leading to a consent decree between Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation. The settlement formalized that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'NIRMAL' trademark for seeds and agro products, and the Defendant agreed not to manufacture or market similar goods using deceptive trademarks. In exchange for these undertakings, the Plaintiff dropped its claims for damages, and the Court also ordered a 50% refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v.Crystal Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court modified an earlier ex-parte injunction in favor of Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. after Defendant No. 1 successfully argued that the initial court findings regarding prior communications were incorrect. The Court found that the notices sent by the plaintiff were not received by Defendant No. 1, leading to a variation of the injunction. While the defendant must avoid using 'CRYSTAL' as the principal brand mark on its agro-products, it is permitted to continue using its trade name 'CRYSTAL CORPORATION' and associated logo.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Navkar Agriculture Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Navkar Agriculture Industries. The court found a prima facie case regarding the alleged infringement of the 'SHAKTIMAN' trademark and associated artistic work/trade dress used on agricultural products like rotavators. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using similar marks or trade dresses, and the plaintiff was permitted to seize and seal all infringing material.
Ms Bharat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks Also Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed objections raised in a rectification petition concerning the trademark 'LUBI'. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the registration occurred in Ahmedabad and not New Delhi. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner's filing was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to a prior pending suit in the District Court at Ahmedabad. Given these complex jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court decided to renotify the matter for further consideration.
Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Foods Private Limited
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited filed a Transfer Application seeking to move its trademark infringement suit from the Principal District Court, Erode, to the specialized Commercial Court. The core dispute revolved around whether the nature of the intellectual property right—trademark infringement—automatically classified the case as commercial, irrespective of its low valuation (Rs. 12,000/-). The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer application, holding that while IP disputes are defined as commercial under Section 2(xvii), a suit must still meet the 'Specified Value' criteria to fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, thereby validating its original filing in the District Court.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Kishan Green Field Agritech & Ors.
In this trademark and copyright infringement suit, the defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over the case. The Calcutta High Court did not immediately rule on the jurisdictional challenge but instead granted the plaintiff an opportunity to file a detailed affidavit in opposition. Furthermore, the court directed the defendants to disclose all sales accounts related to the 'DOUBLE PAAN' trademark from the date of filing, ensuring that the core issues of infringement and jurisdiction would be addressed thoroughly.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Insecticides (India) Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd for passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'VICTOR 80' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'VICTOR', despite arguments regarding prior use and registration complexities. This judgment reinforces the principle that prior user rights can prevail over subsequent adoption, even if the latter is claimed in good faith.
M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd, which sought to overturn an order directing it to change its company name. The court upheld the decision that the petitioner could not use 'Vardhaman' as part of its name because Respondent No. 4 held a registered trademark for the word. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and acquiescence during a marketing agreement, the High Court concluded that using the similar name amounted to an attempt to usurp the established business of the trademark holder.
M/S Suttind Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Sutton & Sons India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Suttind Seeds Pvt. Ltd., preventing Sutton & Sons India Pvt. Ltd. from using the deceptively and confusingly similar trademark 'SUTTON SEEDS'. The court found that Suttind Seeds had established distinctiveness and goodwill, and the defendant's use risked deceiving consumers into believing their products originated from the plaintiff. This order protects the plaintiff's reputation while the main suit is pending.
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.