Electronics — India Trademark Cases
199 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 7 · 199 total
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Ksc Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited against Ksc Industries & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' use of the mark 'EVERYDAY' was deceptively similar to Eveready's well-known trademark, 'EVEREADY', leading to potential infringement and passing off. Given the prima facie case made out by Eveready and the risk of irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Gm Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Gm Modular Pvt Ltd., successfully challenging the registration of a similar mark held by Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Impugned Mark was not genuinely used in commerce, despite the respondent's claims. Based on the lack of substantial evidence of use and potential confusion with the established 'GM' brand, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Mirshad C.E.502
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the opposition proceedings. The core issue was the Registrar's decision to dismiss the opposition as abandoned due to non-production of evidence. The court ruled that for an opposition to be validly initiated, the applicant must prove service of the counter statement on the opponent, and a mere assertion of email service without proof is insufficient under the Trade Marks Act.
Hmd Global Oy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trademark Registry
Hmd Global Oy successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its word mark 'PureDisplay' in the Madras High Court. The core issue was the Registry's finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness, despite the appellant providing evidence of global use and registration. The court found that the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by passing an order under a different section (9(1)(b)) without giving the appellant a hearing on that specific ground. Consequently, the rejection was set aside, and the application was remanded for final consideration.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Daichi International
In this trademark infringement suit, Western Digital alleged that Daichi International was rebranding and reselling used/refurbished HDDs originally manufactured by WD under the 'Daichi' brand. The Delhi High Court issued conditional interim directions, allowing sales to continue but mandating that all impugned products must carry a clear disclaimer stating they are used and refurbished goods. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to file detailed stock statements regarding the purchase and sale of these specific HDDs.
Su Kam Power Systems Limited v.Kunwer Sachdev & Anr. Kantaloop Communications & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple rectification petitions concerning the 'Su-Kam' trademark, pitting Su Kam Power Systems Limited against Kunwer Sachdev. The court noted that while the petitioner company holds a key registration, the defendant claims original conceptualization of the mark. Given the complex history involving insolvency and prior civil judgments, the court has directed both parties to file detailed notes and encouraged them to explore amicable resolution through mediation before listing the matter again.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Havells India Limited v.B R Engineering Works & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against B R Engineering Works & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement based on the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's well-known trademark 'STANDARD' and the defendant's mark 'STANDANGER', along with the adoption of similar trade dress elements. This crucial interim relief prevents the defendants from continuing to use the infringing marks while the main suit proceeds, reinforcing the protection afforded to established brands in the electrical goods sector.
M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses & Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd., which sought the removal of a trade mark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because the Registry's attempt to serve notice on the petitioner failed due to an incorrect address. Crucially, the Court allowed the petitioner to revive the petition since the failure was attributable to the Registry's inability to effect service.
Axon Enterprise, Nic v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Axon Enterprise against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'AXON'. The court found that through strategic use of consent letters and modifications to the description of goods (including disclaimers), the objections raised regarding conflicting marks could be overcome. Consequently, the registration application was directed to proceed to advertisement before acceptance, paving the way for eventual registration.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Sheik Azeez-Ur Rahaman Trading as Kramson and The Registrar of Trade Marks
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals filed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'KRAMSON' from the register. The court noted that the first respondent's mark had expired due to non-renewal. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition but granted liberty for it to be revived should the registration be renewed by the respondent.
Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology Corporation Limited v.G.Parthasarathi
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology. The petition sought to remove or rectify the registration of Trade Mark No. 1958762, specifically requesting that the applicant be recognized as the proprietor via assignment. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on the scheduled date, the petition was dismissed for default.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Riddhi Siddhi Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark suit against Riddhi Siddhi Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai. The court examined the jurisdiction clause and confirmed that Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, grants this court jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business location. Consequently, the court held that no special leave was required and made the petition absolute.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.C.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.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Kamal Electricals And Sanitary
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a suit against Kamal Electricals and Sanitary regarding trademark infringement. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai, while the defendants were operating outside the court's jurisdiction in Telangana. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
Smt. Harbans Kaur / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Ascent Electronics / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the original proprietor regarding the trademark 'TANASHI'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior rights through long-standing use dating back to 1993, despite subsequent registrations by the defendant. Crucially, the court held that a distributor is merely a permissive user and cannot claim proprietary rights over a mark belonging to the original owner. Consequently, the suit for infringement was decreed, and the defendant's conflicting trademark registration was cancelled.
Imagine Marketing Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
Imagine Marketing Limited (boAt) successfully secured an interim injunction against several defendants accused of trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court recognized that the defendants were using deceptively similar domain names and creating fake websites to sell counterfeit or fraudulent consumer electronics, causing irreparable harm to boAt's goodwill. The court restrained these parties from operating such domains and ordered registrars to suspend the infringing sites within ten days.
M/S Arm Limited v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Arm Limited, setting aside a previous refusal order that blocked the registration of their trademark 'AMBA'. The court accepted the reasoning from the dissolved IPAB and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 2) to proceed with the advertisement and registration process within four weeks. Furthermore, the Court highlighted systemic issues regarding the retention and authentication of records from defunct tribunals, mandating a status report on this matter.
Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
M/s Meenu Electric Co. v.M/s Dynamic Electricals; M/s Golden Cab Industries; M/s Vijay Cable Co.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside a trial court's order that had stayed an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the defendants could invoke Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to halt proceedings pending rectification before the IPAB. The Court ruled that merely having rectification applications filed during the pendency of the suit is insufficient; the plea of invalidity must be raised specifically and before the commencement of trial, otherwise, it is deemed abandoned.
Tvs Electronics Limited v.Jitender Kumar
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tvs Electronics Limited against a lower court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. The plaintiff, owner of the 'TVS Electronics' mark, sought restraint against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to CCTV cameras. However, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised regarding the balance of convenience, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark subject to maintaining accounts.
Vega Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Sagar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Vega Industries challenging the registration of the trademark 'VIGA' by Vinod Sagar Jain. While noting that the correct remedy for the appellant might be rectification, the court preliminarily found no cause for grievance if certain listed products were excluded from the scope of goods. The stay application filed by Vega was ultimately rejected, and the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Jogaram Sirvi And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement. Crucially, the court affirmed that the 'ATOMBERG' brand qualifies as a well-known trademark across all classes of goods and services. This landmark decision reinforces the high level of protection afforded to coined and inherently distinctive marks with established national reputation.
Joseph Taheny v.Tektronix Inc.
Joseph Taheny challenged an arbitral award that directed him to transfer the domain name 'tek.in' to Tektronix Inc., arguing that his registration predated the respondent's trademark filing. The petitioner contended that the domain was registered as a generic Turkish term and not in bad faith. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the arbitral award. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing that the complainant only needed to be a registered proprietor of the mark for the INDRP rules to apply.
M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses and Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd seeking removal of a trademark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to repeated difficulties in serving notice and locating the petitioner at the specified address. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Legrand France and Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.Praveen Kumar Jain (Trading as Biocon Tapes India) and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the trade mark register, successfully canceling an identical registration of 'LEGRAND' held by Praveen Kumar Jain. The court found that the petitioner, Legrand France, had prior and extensive use of the arbitrary mark since 1970 in India, while the respondent's goods (adhesive tapes) were complementary to the petitioner's electrical products (switches). Given the identical nature of the marks and the likelihood of public confusion due to overlapping distribution channels, the court ruled that the later registration was made without sufficient cause.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Sharp Industries & The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha challenging an earlier order that allowed a competitor, Sharp Industries, to register the mark 'SHARP' for pumps. Despite presenting extensive evidence regarding its global reputation and prior use of the trademark, the court upheld the original decision. The core reasons for upholding the registration were that the goods in question (pumps) were deemed dissimilar from the appellant's primary products, and crucially, the appellant failed to definitively establish that 'SHARP' was a well-known mark within India as required by the Trade Marks Act.
Exide Industries Ltd / Chloride Group Limited v.Vertiv Company Group Limited / R.G. Kapadia & Others
The Delhi High Court decreed two consolidated suits concerning the trademark 'CHLORIDE' after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute involved Exide Industries Ltd (and Chloride Group Limited) against Vertiv Company Group Limited regarding the unauthorized use of the mark on UPS products. Under the terms of the settlement, Vertiv agreed not to use the 'CHLORIDE' trademark or its variants directly or indirectly, effectively resolving the long-standing infringement claims.
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited v.M/s. Seasco Dae Jong Bldg & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier opposition order related to a trademark application in Class 9. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Madras High Court accepted the memo of withdrawal and consequently dismissed the appeal without passing any orders regarding costs.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Mr. Kunhimoideen Kazhungumthottathil
The Delhi High Court issued an order on October 31, 2023, directing the parties to proceed with the completion of pleadings in the trademark dispute. The court set a date for further proceedings while granting specific opportunities for both the plaintiff and defendant to file rejoinders in various interlocutory applications (IAs). This procedural step indicates that the case is moving forward through the discovery and pleading phase.
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.