Electronics — India Trademark Cases
50 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 50 total
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Hasmi T.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Hasmi T. regarding the alleged infringement of their trade mark 'VIDVIE'. The court granted an interim order restraining the defendant from using the disputed trademark on mobile phone accessories until the final hearing.
Atlas Radio Traders v.Vijay Marketing
Atlas Radio Traders filed a Notice of Motion alleging that Vijay Marketing was engaging in passing off by using the mark 'JZ CROWN' on electronic goods, which is deceptively similar to Atlas Radio Traders' prior trade mark 'CROWN'. The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or selling such goods until the final disposal of the suit.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.M/S Az Tech (India)
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier single judge's order that had restrained Intex Technologies from using the mark 'AQUA' for mobile phones. The court found that the respondent, M/S Az Tech, failed to establish a prima facie case of passing off. Crucially, the court noted the dishonest conduct of Az Tech in copying Intex's logo font and style during the pendency of the suit, which disentitled them from obtaining an injunction.
Larsen And Toubro Ltd. v.Lachmi Narain Trades And Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Larsen And Toubro Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off. The court found that L&T's name and abbreviation, having acquired distinctiveness over decades, were being used by the defendants (using marks like 'LNT'/'ELENTE') to sell electrical goods, thereby causing confusion among the public. This judgment reinforces the principle of protecting established goodwill and reputation against deceptive trade practices.
M/S Inder Industries v.M/S Gemco Electrical Industries
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision in favor of the plaintiff, M/S Gemco Electrical Industries. The core dispute revolved around who was the prior user and adopter of the trade mark 'WONDER' for electrical switches. The court found that the respondent-plaintiff had established continuous use since 1984, thereby establishing superior rights under passing off law. Consequently, the appellant-defendant was rightly restrained from using the identical trade mark in the same market.
Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Ms. Alka Gupta Trading As Guide Men Tape
The appeal challenged an order that allowed a trade mark application for 'CANON' label in Class 9, despite opposition from Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha. The appellant argued its prior use and ownership of the famous mark 'CANON'.
Larsen And Toubro Ltd. v.Lachmi Narain Trades And Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Larsen And Toubro Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off. The court found that L&T's name and abbreviation, having acquired distinctiveness over decades, were being used by the defendants (using marks like 'LNT'/'ELENTE') to sell electrical goods, thereby causing confusion among the public. This judgment reinforces the principle of protecting established goodwill and reputation against deceptive trade practices.
Bal Krishan Jindal v.Mohinder Singh And Anr.
Two applications were filed before the IPAB seeking rectification/cancellation of the trade mark 'Citizen' by both parties. Shri Kishan Jindal claimed prior adoption and use, while Mohinder Singh claimed his own rights to the mark. The Board found that the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding lack of distinctiveness or deception.
Bentec Electricals And Electronics v.Bentex Control And Switchgear Co.
The dispute concerned an opposition filed by Bentex Control & Switchgear Co. against a trademark application for 'BENTEC'. The core issue was whether the notice of opposition and the request for extension were within the statutory time limits, given delays in receiving the Trade Marks Journal.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Toshiba Appliances Co.
The appeal challenged the Deputy Registrar's order allowing rectification and removal of certain goods from Toshiba's registered trademark (No. 273758). The core dispute centered on whether the appellant had used the mark in good faith, or if its registration was merely an attempt to block the market for similar goods.
Jvc Industrial Corporation v.Victor Company Of Japan Limited And Shri ...
The dispute concerned the opposition by Victor Company of Japan Limited against the registration of the trade mark 'JVC' applied for by Jvc Industrial Corporation. The IPAB examined whether the goods—battery chargers/inverters versus audio/video equipment—were sufficiently distinct to prevent confusion.
Standard Electricals Limited v.Rocket Electricals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing off suit concerning the trade marks 'STANDARD' and 'MS STANDARD' used for electrical switchgear. Despite the plaintiff claiming prior use and reputation, the court found that the defendant had been operating in the market for a significant period (since 1979/1992) and that the word 'STANDARD' is common to trade and public juris. Consequently, the court vacated the ex-parte injunction sought by the plaintiff but directed the defendant to maintain proper audited accounts of its sales during the pendency of the suit.
Omega S.A. v.Avanti Kopp Electricals Ltd. And Anr.
The appeals challenged an order that rejected applications for interim injunctions, one based on trademark infringement and another based on passing off. The Madras High Court found that the learned Single Judge incorrectly approached the matter by focusing on passing off rather than trade mark infringement. Consequently, the court set aside the single judge's order and granted the plaintiff interim injunction pending trial.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Tosiba Appliances Company
Tosiba Appliances Company sought to register the trademark TOSIBA for electrical appliances. Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba opposed this registration, arguing that TOSHIBA is a globally renowned mark adopted since 1939. The Tribunal found that the applicants' mark was almost identical and would cause consumer confusion, leading to the refusal of the applications.
Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v.Fedders Corporation
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Fedders Lloyd Corporation seeking the rectification and removal of Trade Mark No. 175253, owned by Fedders Corporation. The petitioners argued that there had been no bona fide use of the mark for five years, allowing for its cancellation. However, the court found that the application was barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This ruling underscores the strict adherence to statutory timelines in IP rectification proceedings.
Spade Electro (P.) Ltd. v.Assistant Commissioner
The appeal primarily concerned whether Rs. 3,00,000 received by Spade Electro (P.) Ltd. from M/s. Elektro Flame Ltd. for surrendering exclusive know-how and the right to use the 'ELEKTRO' trademark was a capital or revenue receipt. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on certain issues.
Kabushiki Kaiha Toshiba (Toshiba) v.Toshbia Appliances Co.
This Calcutta High Court appeal addressed a challenge to the rectification of the 'TOSHIBA' trademark registration in Class 7. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent had the requisite locus standi to seek removal of the mark based on non-use, given that they had never manufactured or sold washing machines or spin dryers. While the court acknowledged issues regarding the application of Section 46(1)(a) versus other sections, it ultimately dismissed the appeal after the respondent conceded that the rectification should be limited only to the two specific goods in question.
Weston Electronics Ltd. v.Weston Industries And Another
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Weston Electronics Ltd. against Weston Industries And Another, finding that the latter was passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The court recognized the extensive reputation and continuous use of the 'WESTON' trademark by the plaintiff since 1966 across various electronic goods. Despite initial disputes regarding product categories, the court ruled that the defendant's use of an identical mark for cycle parts was likely to cause confusion and deception among the public.
N.V. Philliphs, Eindhoven, Holland And ... v.Banga Watch Company
This Punjab-Haryana High Court judgment addressed a suit for passing off concerning the 'Philips' trademark. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite their formal registration not covering watches and clocks, they had established immense goodwill and reputation in India through their extensive marketing of electrical goods. The court affirmed that the defendants dishonestly adopted the mark to mislead consumers into believing their watches were associated with the plaintiff's brand, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Central Camera Co. Private Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Central Camera Co. Private Ltd. appealed against the Registrar's refusal to register the trademark 'Solar' for photographic apparatus. The Registrar refused registration on two grounds: that 'Solar' was descriptive (Section 9(1)(d)) and that it conflicted with existing marks (Section 12(1)).
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.