Electronics — India Trademark Cases
109 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 4 · 109 total
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
Sterne India Private Limited v.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.
Sandisk Llc v.Jpy Mobile Phone Accessories & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court addressed persistent violations by JPY Mobile Phone Accessories despite an existing interim injunction. The court found that the defendants continued to sell counterfeit 'SanDisk' products, even after large stocks were seized and returned on superdari. Consequently, the court issued bailable warrants against the promoters of the defendant and directed the police to take custody of all previously inventoried infringing goods for the plaintiff's safe keeping.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd v.Mr Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd against Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals. The court found that the use of the 'VIVO' mark by the defendant, especially in similar logo forms, would cause confusion and dilution given Vivo's extensive global and domestic use of the trademark. Furthermore, the court allowed Vivo to file evidence supporting its claim that the VIVO marks are well-known trademarks in India.
Medal Electronics Private Limited v.M/S Goldmedal Electricals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Medal Electronics challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted against them in a trademark dispute. Despite arguments regarding prior use and alleged acquiescence, the appellants chose to withdraw their appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty for the appellants to file appropriate applications before the Trial Court, urging the lower court to expedite the decision on the interim injunction application.
Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. v.Sunil Kumar Saluja
The Delhi High Court dismissed Airtec Electrovision's appeal against the Commercial Court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. Airtec sought protection for its registered mark 'EIRTEC' against Sunil Kumar Saluja's use of 'AIRNET' on television sets, claiming deceptive similarity. However, the court found no sufficient phonetic or stylistic similarity and emphasized that common words like 'air' are often used in the electronics trade, ultimately upholding the lower court's decision.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Through Its Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Infiniti Retail Limited, granting a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and ordering the transfer of the domain name www.croma.in. The court found that the plaintiff's mark 'CROMA,' which is registered and declared well-known, was being illegally used by a third party who was profiting from its reputation through website squatting. This judgment reinforces the strong legal protection afforded to established, well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Urmilla Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Aditya Infotech Limited against Urmilla Jain. The Plaintiff, a leading security solutions provider, alleged that the Defendant was selling counterfeit CCTV cables using its registered trademark 'CP PLUS' and copying its trade dress. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, recognizing the potential harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill. This interim order immediately restrained the Defendant from further infringing activities until the final hearing.
Stanley Switchgear Products v.Sunil Agarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal filed by Stanley Switchgear Products challenging a Commercial Court order regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'STANLEY' mark used for wires and cables. The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of prior usage dates. Ultimately, the court facilitated an amicable resolution, with the respondents agreeing not to seek interim injunctions against the appellant's use of the mark. Furthermore, the court suggested a permanent settlement where both parties could distinguish their products by adding unique house marks.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Innovation Meditech Private Limited
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs (Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors.) and the Defendant (Innovation Meditech Private Limited) have reached a mutual understanding. The court noted that the parties were actively engaged in drawing up a settlement agreement to resolve the ongoing litigation. This indicates a cooperative approach toward resolving commercial disputes outside of full trial.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v.Union Of India And Ors
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe challenged the refusal of its trademark registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Registrar to treat the matter as a representation and reconsider the registration issue. This interim order allows Sony to address the concerns raised under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act without immediately litigating the merits in court.
Roland Corporation v.Sandeep Jain
Roland Corporation sued Sandeep Jain and others for passing off their trademark BOSS in relation to electronic musical instruments. Despite initially finding the plaintiff guilty of laches and acquiescence, the court ultimately balanced commercial interests against consumer protection. The judgment resulted in a decree restraining the defendant from using the mark 'BOSS' unless it was prefixed with 'Hi-Tone,' thereby limiting the scope of use while protecting consumers from confusion.
Ms Gip Development Sarl v.Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Ms Gip Development Sarl, the owner of the 'Blaupunkt' trademark. The petitioner sought relief after terminating a license agreement with Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited due to non-payment of minimum license fees. Given that the respondent had not challenged the termination and failed to pay outstanding dues, the court ruled that the respondent lacked authority to use the mark, thereby restraining them from manufacturing or selling products under 'Blaupunkt' until the final disposal of the case.
Bharat Bhushan Gupta Prop. Bharat Light Machines v.Nitin Mittal Prop. M/S G.K. Trading Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bharat Light Machines regarding its trademark OZOMAX. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deceptively using a similar mark, OZOWAX, and copying the artistic packaging for body massagers. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and the clear imitation of the product packaging.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against the defendants, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks and logos (like STANDARD, STANGUARD, and HOMESAFE) by the respondents for electrical products. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess common law rights in these brands due to long-term usage. Consequently, the defendants were directed to suspend exports and disclose their manufacturing sources pending further hearings.
A.Kumar v.Radhakrishnan
A.Kumar filed a civil suit against Radhakrishnan and two other companies, M/s.Ashcom and German Refilling Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of their trademarks and passing off concerning inkjet, laser, and toner cartridges. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits. However, on the date of hearing, no counsel appeared for A.Kumar, leading the Madras High Court to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.
M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd v.M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd, finding that Asus Technology and others had infringed upon its trademark rights through passing off. The court determined that the defendant's adoption of 'ZENFONE' was deceptive because it incorporated the plaintiff's dominant mark 'ZEN' for identical goods (mobile phones). Given the plaintiff's prior use, significant market reputation, and large advertising expenditure, the court granted a permanent injunction to prevent further misuse of similar marks.
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.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.Omex Cables Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, despite the plaintiff claiming trademark infringement and passing off against 'OMEXGOLD.' The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2006 when it filed a trademark opposition. Due to this significant delay in approaching the court (from 2006/2015 until 2017), the court held that the plaintiff was disentitled to discretionary relief, citing established legal precedents regarding laches and acquiescence.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Euro-Solo Energy Systems Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited, finding that Euro-Solo Energy Systems Limited had infringed upon its intellectual property rights. The court determined that the defendant's dry-cell batteries were deceptively similar to Eveready's products, specifically noting the adoption of the exact color scheme and substantially similar trade dress. Consequently, a clear case of passing off was established, leading to a decree for the plaintiff.
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.
M/S. Jai Durga Electricals v.Mex Switchgears Pvt Tld.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing specific directions to expedite the trademark matter. The court mandated that the Deputy Registrar re-hear the parties and allow them to lead fresh evidence. Furthermore, strict timelines were set for both petitioner and respondent to file their respective evidence in reply and rebuttal, ensuring a structured path toward final adjudication.
Symphony Limited v.Roman Marketing & 12
The Gujarat High Court granted interim relief in favor of Symphony Limited concerning the manufacture and sale of aircoolers. The court considered an agreement involving the custody of a cooler mould and referenced a prior restraint order from the Mumbai High Court against one of the respondents for trademark infringement and passing off related to the design. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff while the appeal proceeds.
Dgt Holding B.V. v.Ravi Scientific Industries
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Dgt Holding B.V., finding no grounds to vacate the order restraining Ravi Scientific Industries from selling deceptively similar chess clocks. The court clarified that even if a design is registered under the Designs Act, a plaintiff can still pursue remedies for passing off and copyright infringement against competitors who are misusing their goodwill and trade dress. This ruling reinforces the availability of common law protections alongside statutory IP rights.
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.
M/S Fastrack Communications Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Singhal
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Fastrack Communications against Manish Singhal regarding the use of the mark 'LEMON'. Although the plaintiff argued for an injunction based on prior usage and apprehension of passing off (a qua timet action), the court noted that the defendant had categorically stated he would not launch or use the trademark until his own registration application was decided. Given this stand, the court found no further basis to sustain the suit, despite acknowledging the plaintiff's right to file such an action.
Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd. v.Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd.'s appeal, upholding the rejection of its trade mark application for 'Philips' in respect of non-electrical pressure cookers. The court found overwhelming evidence that Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv had established extensive goodwill with the mark since 1950 across related goods like electrical appliances. Given the similarity of the product categories and the common consumer base, the court concluded that Kunj Aluminium was engaging in commercial dishonesty by trading upon Philips' established reputation.
Davinder Kumar Jain & Ors. v.Sanjeev Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the 'LUXOR' trademark, finding that defendants were infringing upon their rights by using the mark on electric bulbs. The court established both trademark infringement and passing off, noting that allowing continued use would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and punitive damages.
M/S Sancheti Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D.K. Electricals AC+ (and others)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim temporary injunction in favor of Sancheti Appliances Pvt. Ltd. against several defendants, including D.K. Electricals. The dispute centered on alleged passing off concerning the trademarks "PRETTY" and "WINNER," used for electrical appliances. The court found that Sancheti had established a prima facie case of prior usage and reputation for these marks since the 1980s. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using similar marks until the final disposal of the suits.
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.