Apparel — India Trademark Cases
7 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 7 total
Puma Se v.Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.
Puma Se v.Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Tracking Shoes Company
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a suit against Tracking Shoes Company alleging that the latter was counterfeiting and infringing upon Nike's trademarks (NIKE, Swoosh Device) in relation to footwear and apparel. The court found that the defendant had adopted identical marks and was causing deception in the market.
Under Armour, Inc v.Shri Jagmeet Singh
Under Armour filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shri Jagmeet Singh and others for infringement and passing off related to its trademarks 'UA' and 'UNDER ARMOUR'. The plaintiff argued that these marks are well-known globally and in India, leading to violation by the defendants. The court found in favor of Under Armour, granting a permanent injunction.
The North Face Apparel Corp. v.Pranav Kant Sharma
The North Face Apparel Corp. filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the dismissal of its application for temporary injunction against Pranav Kant Sharma (North Face Adventure Tours), alleging trademark infringement due to deceptive similarity. The respondent argued that since they operate in different classes of goods (Class 39 vs. appellant's classes), there is no likelihood of confusion or deception. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that because the parties trade in different classes, the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Ram Pal Chauhan v.M/S County Apparels And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ram Pal Chauhan, proprietor of 'M/s. Classic Apparels,' who sued for passing off against M/S County Apparels and others regarding the trademark 'DEVIN.' The court found that the Plaintiff had established prior use and goodwill associated with the mark before the Defendants began using it to pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. Crucially, the judgment affirmed that a right of action for passing off exists even if the trade mark is unregistered, citing Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Prateek Trading Co.
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Prateek Trading Co. alleging clandestine manufacturing and supply of apparel under deceptively similar marks, including LEVI'S. The court found the plaintiff's case to be true based on un-rebutted testimony and documents.
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.