Electronics — India Trademark Cases
199 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 7 · 199 total
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
V-Guard Industries, proprietor of the well-known 'V-GUARD' mark with a Kangaroo device, applied for registration of the label mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16 (Application No. 3254001). Kangaro Industries opposed the application but failed to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed time under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, instead seeking an extension under Section 131 read with Rule 109. The Assistant Registrar rejected the extension and held the opposition deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2). The single judge reversed this order, but the Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, holding that Rule 45 prescribes a specific time limit with express consequences for default, and Section 131/Rule 109 discretionary extension cannot override the mandatory provisions of Rule 45.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Havells India Limited, a well-known FMEG company, sued Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' mark 'HAVAI' was deceptively similar to their well-known trademark 'HAVELLS'. The court found that the defendants had cleverly modified the letter 'L' to 'I' to create phonetic and visual similarity, with the intent to encash on Havells' reputation. The court recognized HAVELLS as a well-known mark based on its extensive use since 1955, global presence across 60+ countries, and substantial sales and advertising expenditure. An ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks during the pendency of the suit.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Geonix International Private Limited
The appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) bearing their registered trademarks. The respondents purchase these HDDs after they reach an 'end-of-life' stage, are extracted from equipment abroad, and imported into India. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that neither trademark infringement nor reverse passing off was established.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Ankit Chaudhary Alias Ankit Sheoran
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'Dream 11'. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead NameCheap, Inc. and the unknown domain registrant as new defendants, recognizing the need to pursue those controlling the infringing domain 'dreamtips11.com'. Furthermore, the existing interim injunctions were extended and reinforced against these newly added parties, mandating them to cease trademark misuse and disclose relevant KYC details.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Nalathoti Ramu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC and its affiliates against Nalathoti Ramu. The court found that Verizon holds a well-known registered trademark for 'VERIZON' and that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs. This interim order restrains the defendant from using, marketing, or advertising any marks identical or similar to VERIZON across various platforms, including domain names and social media handles.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Dpac Ventures Llp v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between Dpac Ventures LLP and Exotic Mile Private Limited, modifying the Commercial Court's order that had granted an ex parte temporary injunction against 'GOBOULT'. Recognizing the defendant's significant business turnover (Rs. 188.94 Crores) and operational impact, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to dispense with pre-institution mediation while permitting the defendant to continue using its trademark subject to filing weekly accounts. This decision emphasizes balancing IP rights protection against commercial viability during litigation.
Kei Industries Limited v.M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kei Industries Limited against M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, recognizing the urgent need for protection. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with seeking an ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the premises, allowing the Plaintiff to gather evidence of alleged trademark infringement related to 'KEI' and 'HOMECAB-FR'.
Havells India Limited v.Aman Virmani
Havells India Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Aman Virmani before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Havells' rights in 'REO', committed to ceasing all use of similar marks like 'RIEO', and agreed to destroy all infringing products. Furthermore, the defendant consented to withdraw his pending trademark application (No. 5774240), leading to the suit being decreed based on these mutual terms.
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Taurus Powertronics Private Limited v.M.K Srinivasan
The Karnataka High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Commercial Court order that restrained the use of the trademark 'TAURUS'. The court clarified that the restriction on using the name 'TAURUS' remains in effect as directed by the lower court. However, it also ensured that all other rights and contentions between the parties remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, providing a nuanced resolution to the dispute.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Western Digital Technologies Inc. against M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was selling manipulated and refurbished HDDs bearing the Plaintiff's trademarks, thereby infringing on their brand rights and engaging in passing off. This interim relief prevents the defendant from further tampering with or commercially dealing in the branded products until the final hearing.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter used a similar name ('ARCEEIKA') for electronic goods showrooms. The core dispute centered on territorial jurisdiction, as Defendant No. 2 challenged the court's competence to hear the matter. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action had sufficiently been demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA and Ors.
This Commercial IP Suit was filed by M/s. ARCEE Electronics alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and passing off against Defendants, who were operating a showroom named 'ARCEEIKA'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite the Plaintiff arguing that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the court examined the evidence regarding sales and delivery locations. Ultimately, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action was sufficiently demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit against M/s. ARCEEIKA alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off, concerning electronic goods. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite arguments from the Plaintiff that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the Court found that the Plaint failed to adequately plead or demonstrate that either the Plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai or that any part of the cause of action arose within its limits. Consequently, the suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code.
Western Digital Technologies Inc v.M/S. Everstore Through Its Proprietor Mr. Tarun Sachdeva & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several interlocutory applications related to a trademark infringement suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc against M/S. Everstore. The court disposed of multiple applications as not pressed due to compliance or changed circumstances. Crucially, the existing interim injunction was made absolute until the final disposal of the suit, strengthening the Plaintiff's position in the ongoing litigation.
Hi Tech Products Private Limited v.Gopal Radios
The suit was filed by Hi Tech Products Private Limited, which uses the registered trademark FALCON for electrical goods since 1977. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Gopal Radios, adopted and used the deceptively similar mark 'FALCON' on products, including counterfeit electric wires and cables. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Upgrid Solutions Private Limited v.Vikas Pal And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Upgrid Solutions against Vikas Pal and others. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial evidence, including GPS-tagged photographs of unauthorized swap stations and true-caller screenshots, citing the need for substantial justice. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of protecting its 'Battery Smart' brand, the Court granted an interim injunction through the appointment of Receivers to secure the plaintiff's assets and prevent further infringement.
Bishan Purohit v.Mr Nensingh & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Bishan Purohit following an amicable settlement reached with Defendants 1 through 4. The defendants admitted the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in registered trademarks (MONITOR LABEL & MONITEC LABEL) and trade names, agreeing to cease using deceptively similar marks like MONTEIL LABEL. Furthermore, the court also passed a decree against Defendant No. 5 due to their default and withdrawal of relevant trademark applications, reinforcing the plaintiff's exclusive rights.
Orient Electric Limited v.R. R. Kabel Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Orient Electric Limited seeking the removal/cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by R. R. Kabel Limited in Class 11. The court initiated the formal proceedings, issuing notices to the respondents and setting detailed timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and conjoint written synopsis. This order moves the case forward into the substantive phase of challenging the existing trademark registration.
Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd. v.Vivekananda Chintapalli
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd., directing the removal of a confusingly similar trademark registration held by Vivekananda Chintapalli. The court found that the petitioner's inherently distinctive mark, used for e-gaming computer hardware, was strikingly similar to the respondent's registered mark in Class 9. Given the substantial turnover and commercial presence of the petitioner, the continued existence of the impugned entry was deemed likely to cause public confusion or deception.
Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikas Pal And Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Delhi High Court, Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. sought various reliefs, including permanent injunctions and damages against Vikas Pal and others. The court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the case's progression. Crucially, the court granted the Plaintiff liberty to file necessary additional documents within three weeks, allowing the litigation process to move forward while addressing procedural requirements.
Mittal Electronrcs v.Shashi Kant Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mittal Electronrcs against Shashi Kant Garg & Ors. The court found that the defendants were using the identical registered trademark 'SUJATA' for allied and cognate goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion and the irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark until the final hearing.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Rashi Santoshi Soni & Anr. v.Prince Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Mr. Niraj Nirottamsingh Chavhan
In a trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing the defendant (Prince Enterprises) to de-seal the premises and access materials. The court permitted the removal of non-infringing goods while mandating that infringing products bearing the 'SURYA/SURYA GOLD PLUS' mark be kept separate under the supervision of the plaintiffs' representative. Furthermore, the court set a date for the vacation of an earlier ex-parte injunction order, indicating the matter will proceed to further hearings.
M/S Mittal Electronics v.Mr. Rohit Rana
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Rohit Rana. The settlement involved the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'SUJATA' trademark, apologizing for infringement and passing off, and undertaking not to use similar marks in the future. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as costs and Rs. 10,00,000 as liquidated damages in case of any breach.
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.