FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 19 · 551 total
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd. v.Om Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Ms Pas Agro v.M/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
CavinKare Private Limited v.Maha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a rectification petition seeking removal of the trademark 'VNYABAIE' (application no. 5055762 in Class 3), primarily objecting to the letter 'V' being displayed in a different colour from the rest of the mark. During proceedings, the petitioner clarified that it had no objection if the respondent used the letter 'V' in the same colour as the remaining alphabets, even in a different font. Respondent No. 1, appearing in person, agreed to change the colour of 'V' to match the rest of the mark, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
M/S Dindayal Industries Ltd v.M/S Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the framing of issues in a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'Dindayal' used by both parties for Ayurvedic products. The court deleted Issue No. 10, holding that opposition to a trademark application (No. 2885787 in Class 05) cannot be adjudicated in a civil suit as it is pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The court further modified Issue No. 12 to expand the scope of the passing off inquiry beyond narrow ocular similarity of packaging, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Parle Products v. J.P. and Co.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
This is a review application filed by the respondents seeking review of an order dated 23rd March, 2018, in a rectification proceeding. The review application was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) but stood transferred to the Calcutta High Court following the abolition of IPAB under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Court directed the matter to be listed in November 2026 and asked the advocates to resolve discrepancies in the arrangement of papers in the paper book.
S. Purushottam, Sashibhushan & S. Nagraj, Trading as M/s. Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries v.ITC Limited & The Registrar of Trademarks
This case involves an application filed by the applicants, trading as M/s.Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries, seeking permission to mark additional documents in a trademark opposition proceeding against ITC Limited. The applicants sought to introduce documents including an invitation card, income tax returns, advertisements, and trademark prosecution records. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, as evidence and cross-examination had already been completed. The Madras High Court allowed the application, permitting the documents to be marked subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility.
Onesto Labs Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Onesto Labs Private Limited, a Delhi-based personal care products company operating under the house mark 'Innovist' and brands including 'Chemist at Play', filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademark, logo, trade dress, and domain name, as well as passing off. The suit was filed on a John Doe basis against the operator of the infringing website www.chemistatplay.com. Since the domain name Registrar (defendant no.4) agreed to transfer the impugned domain to the plaintiff and there was no contest, the court made the temporary injunction absolute and decreed the suit against defendant no.1.
Ankur Mahajan v.VRV Sattvic Private Limited & Ors
The petitioner, Ankur Mahajan, filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation/removal of the respondents' trademark registration no. 3197787 in Class 32 from the Register of Trade Marks. The court allowed the petitioner's application for leave to file additional documents and issued notice to all respondents, who accepted notice through their respective counsel. The matter was adjourned with directions for filing of replies and rejoinders, and re-notified for hearing on 15.01.2027.
Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, Ashique Exports Pvt.Ltd., proprietor of the registered trademark 'Dr. WASH' (Registration No. 1130214) for washing soap, sued the defendants, Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt.Ltd. and Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off through their use of the mark 'Dr. BRIGHT'. The defendants additionally filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to expunge the plaintiff's trademark registration. The Madras High Court dismissed both the suit and the rectification petition, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
This intra-court appeal (LPA 688/2026) was filed by Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against the decision of a Single Judge who had set aside the rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the application had not reached the stage of acceptance and that the statutory authorities were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
An Original Petition was filed by M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. before the Madras High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 (Class 30) granted in the name of the first respondent. The matter was listed under the caption 'memo of compromise,' and both parties submitted that they had arrived at an amicable settlement. The Court recorded the joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026 and disposed of the petition, with no order as to costs.
Braj Mohan Rathore v.Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd & Ors
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 685/2026) was filed before the Delhi High Court by Braj Mohan Rathore, who claimed he was not a party to the original proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant contended that respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were the original parties, were his predecessors in interest, having assigned the rights in the trademark 'GOLDY' to him. The court directed the appellant to file supporting documents and an affidavit regarding his relationship with respondent nos. 3 and 4, while noting a potentially contradictory affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 before the Registrar of Trademarks.
Fifth Generation Inc. v.Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court of India disposed of two transfer petitions filed by Fifth Generation Inc. (makers of Tito's Handmade Vodka) against Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited after the parties reached a mediated settlement. The dispute concerned the use of the 'TITO'S' trademark in India across liquor and hospitality businesses. The Court recorded the settlement agreement dated 04.08.2026, which established terms for coexistence, restricted use of the mark in specific business segments, and mandated withdrawal of all pending opposition, cancellation, criminal, excise, and civil proceedings between the parties.
Merchint Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Samtani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to institute a suit against the respondent. The petitioner argued that despite the respondents residing outside the court's jurisdiction, the transactions and effects of trademark infringement and passing off were felt within Mumbai. The Court granted leave for the proposed suit.
Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties v.M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre
This matter originated from a civil suit filed by M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre seeking an injunction against Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties for trademark infringement. The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of their application regarding mandatory pre-litigation mediation proceedings. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the impugned order was passed by a Civil Judge below the rank of a District Judge, necessitating an appeal to the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court.
Marico Limited v.Essen Products India Limited
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Marico Limited against Essen Products India Limited. The court allowed a leave petition to combine claims for passing off with trademark and copyright infringement. Based on prima facie evidence, the court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to Marico's well-established brands (Parachute and Nihar) and depicted in pirated artwork. Consequently, an injunction was issued preventing the defendants from using similar marks or trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Kirti Dal Mills Limited v.Rajesh Lunkad
Kirti Dal Mills Limited challenged an order that stayed its Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024, citing the pendency of a previous suit. The core dispute involved claims of passing off and copyright infringement related to edible oils under the brand 'CHAMPION'. The High Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act while applying Section 10 CPC. Consequently, the impugned stay order was quashed, allowing the commercial suit to proceed.
Super Milk Products Private Limited v.Pyare Lal Laxmi Narayan And Sons
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for trademark infringement after the Franchise Agreement terminated. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was clandestinely using a deceptively similar brand name, 'Cuppa Kevanter', which led to passing off of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'Keventers'.
Danone And Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.Alvo Life Sciences And Ors & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark infringement suit involving Danone And Pacific Holdings and Alvo Life Sciences. The court formally decreed the suit against defendants 1 through 7 based on a previously executed Memorandum of Compromise, which included payments and undertakings to cease infringing use. Furthermore, the court accepted an offer from defendant 11 to settle the dispute, directing them to deposit damages, thereby facilitating a resolution for all parties involved.
KT&G Corporation (Xx) v.YY
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement in the tobacco sector, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners. The plaintiff, KT&G Corporation, sought protection for its renowned ESSE brand against counterfeiting. The court facilitated the execution of commissions to seize infringing products while ensuring procedural fairness, setting the stage for a full trial.
Pachranga International Inc. v.Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries
Pachranga International Inc. filed an application alleging that Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries willfully disobeyed a prior court order dated 11.03.2025, which restrained the defendant from dealing in products bearing deceptive labels and infringing on the plaintiff's registered design, copyright, and trademarks. The plaintiff alleged continued violation through manufacturing and online sales using similar branding. In response, the defendant undertook to modify the trade dress of its label by changing the color and font, while also confirming the removal of specified URLs.
M/S Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v.Mohini Chaddha Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute, notably vacating an earlier ad-interim ex-parte injunction order against Defendant No. 2. The court found that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction by presenting inaccurate facts regarding the termination of a franchise agreement. Furthermore, the disputes between the original parties (Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2) were referred to arbitration. Separately, the Court allowed additional documents for evidence while permitting Defendants No. 3 and 4 to join proceedings after recalling an ex-parte order.
Mr.Suraj Sharma v.Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd.
This matter involved a trademark dispute between Mr. Suraj Sharma and Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd., which was initially litigated before the Madras High Court. Following a compromise reached between both parties, formalized by an agreement dated 12.08.2025 and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court, the pending appeals were listed for compliance. Consequently, the court dismissed the intra-court appeals as withdrawn.
M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. v.Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes between M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. and Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors. The dispute centers on the use and protection of trademarks, specifically 'GHADI' and 'GHAR'. While several interlocutory applications were disposed of, the court formally allowed the suit to proceed, setting timelines for both parties to file their written statements and replies, thereby moving the matter into the substantive litigation phase.
Pachranga International Inc. v.M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark dispute, Pachranga International Inc. sought interim relief against M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd for the continued use of the mark 'PACHRANGA' on social media and in its corporate name. The Court directed the defendant to ensure all remaining infringing listings are removed within one week upon receiving specific examples from the plaintiff. However, the court deferred a final decision on the issue of the defendant using the trademark as part of its corporate name, requiring further consideration after the injunction application is determined.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute arising from a family arrangement, involving the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal', constituted a 'Commercial Dispute'. The plaintiff argued that the matter was purely familial and not commercial. However, the court found that the reliefs sought—specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using or permitting others to use the trademark—manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit must be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court under the Act of 2015.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited v.Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.
Herbalife International Inc. v.Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing interim injunction against Herbalife's trademarks to a newly impleaded defendant (Mr. Narayan Lal Kumawat) after relying on a local commissioner's report indicating counterfeit activity. The court also issued strict directives, requiring all involved parties to discontinue selling infringing goods on Flipkart and disclose detailed transaction information related to the alleged trademark infringement.
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.