Electronics — India Trademark Cases
109 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 4 · 109 total
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an adverse ruling by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) concerning the trademark T-SERIES. The court affirmed the initial registration granted to Super Cassettes, finding that there was no likelihood of deception or confusion between T-SERIES and the marks held by TELCO. The judgment emphasized that because Super Cassettes did not use the word 'TATA,' which is central to TELCO's branding, the similarity claim failed.
Eveready Industries India Ltd. v.Anil Gupta Trading As M/S. Shiva Lamps Industries
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute between two trademark holders, Eveready Industries and Shiva Lamps, concerning the use of the mark 'EVEREADY'. While both parties held registrations, the court found that the defendant was restrained from using the plaintiff's stylized form of the word mark. Furthermore, the court restricted the defendant's sales to their five registered states, while directing the transfer of pending rectification applications to ensure a speedy resolution of the underlying trademark disputes.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Mr. Wang Zhi Zhu Ce Yong Hu & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for using the deceptively similar domain name SUPERCASSETTES.COM. The court found that the registration of this domain name, which was created long after the plaintiff had established its brand identity, constituted an attempt to pass off their business and damage the plaintiff's goodwill. Furthermore, given the detrimental nature of the website's content (adult/pornographic), the court also awarded damages and directed the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff.
Casio India Co. Limited v.Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Casio India Co. Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's registration and use of the domain name www.casioindia.com was identical and confusingly similar to Casio's registered trademark. Citing the principle of passing off in the digital age, the judgment established that unauthorized use of a famous brand name in a domain name can mislead the public, even if the original distribution agreement has ended.
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.
Encore Electronics Ltd., A Limited v.Anchor Electronics And Electricals
The Bombay High Court upheld an earlier injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark 'Encore' was deceptively similar to the established plaintiff mark 'Anchor,' particularly when considered phonetically and visually in Indian languages like Gujarati and Devanagari scripts. Given the plaintiff's extensive reputation and investment, the court determined that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal
This case involved a composite suit filed by The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. against Sh. Ramesh Aggarwal, alleging infringement of trademarks, designs, and copyrights related to ceiling fans sold in the Middle East. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that since the infringing goods were manufactured and exported outside India, the Delhi High Court lacked competence for trademark and design claims. The court ultimately held that while it had jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim, it did not possess the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning trademarks, designs, or passing off.
Intel Corporation v.Anil Hada And Ors.
Intel Corporation sought an interim injunction against defendants using 'INTEL' in their corporate names, citing trademark infringement and dilution. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the applications for interim relief, finding that there was no prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants. The court noted the significant delay in filing suit (over 15 years) and balanced this against the defendants' established reputation, leaning the balance of convenience in their favor.
M/s.Bharat N.Parikh And Rajen A.Kamdar (Safe Earthing Electrodes / Kalpana Electric Co.) v.M/s.Ashok Tripathy (Ashlok)
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by M/s. Bharat N. Parikh and Rajen A. Kamdar against an injunction granted in a trademark dispute involving earthing electrodes. The core issue revolved around whether the plaintiff's unregistered mark 'S.E.E.' could prevent the defendant from using a similar mark, despite the defendant having prior registration rights for their own mark. The court emphasized that while infringement requires registration, passing off (a common law remedy) is available to prior users, allowing the matter to be remanded back to the trial court for a comprehensive review of all facts.
Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v.Mr. G. Choudhary And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Samsung Electronics against its distributors regarding the sale of 'grey market' ink cartridges/toners. Although the goods were genuine, they were imported outside India and did not conform to Indian market standards, leading to concerns about unauthorized distribution. The court recognized the risk of irreparable loss and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect, seize, and audit the inventory at the defendants' premises to prevent evidence destruction.
Intel Corporation v.Retd. Admiral B.R. Vasant And Anr.
Intel Corporation successfully sued Retd. Admiral B.R. Vasant and others for trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the name 'INTELSOFT'. Intel, a globally recognized brand in computing, argued that the defendant's use of a variation of its core mark created a false association with its products and services. The court found no evidence to contradict Intel's claims and decreed the suit ex parte, granting permanent injunctive relief against the unauthorized use of the name.
Tractors And Farm Equiptment Ltd. v.K.S. Sunil Kumar
The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Tractors And Farm Equiptment Ltd., allowing their appeal against a trial court decision. The court held that 'INSTA POWER' is a descriptive term related to instant power supply for UPS and inverter batteries, and thus cannot be monopolized by the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff was justified in filing suit under Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act due to threats against their use of the composite mark 'AMCO INSTA POWER'. The judgment granted an injunction restraining the defendant from issuing further threats.
Casio India Co. Limited v.Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction favoring Casio India Co. Limited against Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited regarding the unauthorized use of the trade mark 'CASIO' in a domain name. The court found that the defendant's registration of 'www.casioindia.com' was confusingly similar to the plaintiff's established brand, leading to potential public confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the trademarked name in its website, reinforcing the importance of protecting brand identity online.
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.
Osram Gesellschaft Mit Beschrankter v.Shyam Sunder And Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Osram, which sought to oppose Shyam Sunder's trademark registration for 'OSHAM' in Class 11. The court held that despite the phonetic similarity between 'OSRAM' and 'OSHAM', there was no tangible danger of confusion because the goods were distinct articles marketed through different channels. Furthermore, the court ruled that a prior registration in one class does not grant an exclusive monopoly over all related goods in another class.
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.
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.