FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 19 · 551 total
M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v.ROHIT MARKETING Incense & Allied Products
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the registered trademark owner, M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, against Rohit Marketing. The court granted permanent injunctions, preventing the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Tri Cycle 3-in-1' for incense sticks and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff withdrew claims for accounting and destruction of stock, the core infringement and passing off allegations were upheld.
Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd v.M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favor of Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd against M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics, halting the defendants from using the trademark 'DOCTOR PILLOW' or any deceptively similar mark. Recognizing the need to prevent the removal of evidence, the court further appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' premises and seize all infringing products, including packaging materials. This order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand while the suit proceeds.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite procedural objections raised by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the 'trinity test' (prior user, reputation, and likelihood of deception) at the trial level. Crucially, the court noted that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was based on potentially forged documents provided to the trial court, leading the High Court to grant interim relief.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
Jolen Inc. filed two civil suits in the Madras High Court against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trade marks (JOLEN) and copyright in its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to deceptive imitation and passing off. However, on August 9, 2021, the court dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff had failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
This case involved Jolen Inc. filing multiple suits against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trademarks (JOLEN) and copyright in the artistic work and trade dress of its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks and designs. However, the court ultimately dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Krown Biscuit Private Limited v.Richfield Industries Private Limited
Krown Biscuit Private Limited filed a suit against Richfield Industries Private Limited alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WHITE MAGIK' and associated trade dress for biscuits, confusing consumers who were familiar with the plaintiff's established brand, 'BLACK MAGIC.' Based on the prima facie case presented by the plaintiffs regarding the similarity of the marks and packaging, the court granted an interim injunction.
Anuj Singhal v.Anupreet Kaur
This Delhi High Court case involving a trademark dispute between Anuj Singhal and Anupreet Kaur was successfully settled through mediation. The settlement agreement mandates that the respondent cease using specific trademarks, including 'NANDINI BLACK SALT,' and refrain from copying the petitioner's packaging and color schemes. Furthermore, the respondent agreed to withdraw all related trademark applications, leading the court to dispose of the suit in terms of the binding agreement.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech alleging infringement and passing off related to their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('113 GOLD COINS') and trade dress, infringing both the registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and the associated copyright in the packaging art. Although the suit involved multiple claims for injunctions and account of profits, the parties ultimately reached an amicable compromise.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
ICEBERG WALNUT FOODS (I) Pvt Ltd. v.Iceberg Icecreams Regus, Tower D, Rmz Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bangalore – 560016
This case involved a civil suit filed by Iceberg Walnut Foods Pvt Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ICEBERG'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the defendant, claiming unauthorized use of their registered mark and artistic work. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the actual registered proprietor of the relevant trademark ('ICEBERG ICECREAM') was M/s. Anjani Diary Foods Private Limited, not the named sole defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit for proceeding against a wrong person.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries alleging infringement of its distinctive original artwork, 'Elle 18 face,' used on nail polish packaging. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of similar artistic designs and potential passing off. Both parties amicably settled the matter before the Bombay High Court.
Emami Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Handsome' and 'Glow and Handsome,' Emami Limited sought an injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) in the Calcutta High Court. However, Emami decided to withdraw its current application (GA No.3/2021), stating that it had filed a substantially similar application earlier (GA No.2/2020). The court granted leave for withdrawal and directed that the original, pending application (GA No.2/2020) be taken up for hearing on July 5, 2021.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Vishal Products
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Vishal Products alleging infringement of copyright and passing off concerning the distinctive artistic label and trade dress of its 'WHEEL' detergent. The parties reached a consent order before the Bombay High Court, settling the dispute without pressing for damages or costs. Under the settlement, Vishal Products acknowledged HUL's proprietary rights, agreed to cease using the similar packaging, and committed to destroying all existing infringing stock.
Mahaan Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Calpro Specialities Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning trademark disputes, the court observed significant procedural difficulties on the part of the respondent. Despite being notified about the termination of key trademark license agreements, the respondent failed to provide a formal response and instead changed legal counsel without adequate instructions. Given these compounding issues, the bench decided to stay the operation of the impugned orders in the appeals, allowing time for the matter to be properly addressed.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.D S Foods & Ors.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd challenged an order that referred its trademark dispute against D S Foods & Ors. to arbitration. The petitioner asserted ownership of the trademarks "SAGAR," "RATNA," and "SAGAR RATNA" and alleged infringement by the respondents, who were franchisees. Despite arguments for arbitrability based on the franchise agreement, the Delhi High Court ultimately intervened, finding that the core dispute concerning trademark rights was not amenable to arbitration due to inherent jurisdictional limitations.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Amul-Franchise.in & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL) in its ongoing trademark infringement suit. The court allowed AMUL to implead new parties, including the domain registrar and Google LLC, to pursue fraudulent activities related to their brand. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com and directed the freezing of a specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Ganesh Department Stores
Ganesh Grains Ltd. filed a suit against Ganesh Department Stores seeking urgent interim relief under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny and granted leave for interim protection in the infringement and passing off suit.
Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachin Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sachin Gupta, preventing the use of similar marks and trade dress for spices. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of passing off based on long-standing prior use (since 1969) and significant goodwill associated with the 'GAI CHAAP' mark and 'COW' device. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating continuous, bona fide usage when asserting trademark rights in the FMCG sector.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed a suit against Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to their bathing soap packaging. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used an identical colour scheme, trade dress, and deceptively similar artistic work on its product 'ISIE', mimicking the successful brand 'IVA'. After examining the evidence, the Madras High Court found that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Ashique Exports, granting permanent injunctions and directing the destruction of infringing stock.
The Polo/Lauren Company L. P v.Reekha Bhati
The suit was filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L. P against Reekha Bhati for permanent injunction, alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks (POLO, POLO Ralph Lauren) on apparel and clothing goods. The court found that the defendant used identical/deceptively similar marks in relation to impugned goods, causing confusion and deception.
Good Life Industries v.J R J Foods Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by J R J Foods Pvt Ltd against an earlier order that granted interim injunction to Good Life Industries. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off, where Good Life claimed its mark 'MICHI'S' was being imitated by J R J Foods' mark 'MISHI'S'. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that in a passing-off action, the likelihood of confusion among an ordinary purchaser is key, regardless of actual damage or intent.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Amman Trader
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark dispute where M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited sought permanent injunctions against M/s.Amman Trader for infringing its registered mark 'DHEEPAM' by using 'SRI DEEPAM' on edible oil products, and for passing off inferior goods as the plaintiff's. The parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo, which was accepted and decreed by the court. This settlement ensures that the defendant will cease all infringing activities related to the plaintiff's brand.
Unilever Plc v.Radhe Cosmetics
The Bombay High Court passed an interim application order, confirming a previous order and granting a temporary injunction. The injunction restrains Radhe Cosmetics from manufacturing or trading cosmetic preparations using marks or trade dress deceptively similar to Unilever's registered trademarks (like LAKME NINE TO FIVE) and copyrighted artistic works.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The dispute involved allegations that the Defendant was illicitly using the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, including trademarks, trade dress, and copyright in label artwork. The Defendant claimed a license from a proprietor in Saudi Arabia.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The Plaintiff (Unilever Plc) filed suit alleging that the Defendant was illicitly using its trademark, trade dress, and copyrighted artwork on rival products. The court found prima facie evidence of violation, noting that the defendant's claim of an international license did not negate infringement rights in India.
Unilever PLC v.Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics
Unilever PLC filed an IP suit against Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics alleging infringement of its trademark, copyright, and common law rights related to product labeling and trade dress. The defendant claimed they were operating under a license in Saudi Arabia. The court found the use illicit but allowed the defendant to proceed by accepting their submission regarding the prayer clause.
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Kishan Hirji Gothi Sole Proprietor Of Bubalus Beverages
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Kishan Hirji Gothi for alleged infringement. The Defendant submitted to the decree terms, leading the Court to dispose of the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
M/S. B.R.Industries v.State Of Meghalaya & 2 Ors.
The Meghalaya High Court addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by respondents in a trademark infringement case involving 'Megha' cashew nuts. The court clarified that under the specific administrative rules governing tribal areas like Nongpoh, courts presided over by Deputy Commissioners and Additional Deputy Commissioners function as Principal Civil Courts of Original Jurisdiction. Consequently, these courts are deemed competent to try suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thereby upholding the petitioner's right to pursue the infringement claim.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Taparia Industries And Anr
The court addressed a Leave Petition filed by Everest Food Products Private Limited seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and infringement. The court directed that since the Defendants were in Jaipur, service must be effected by courier with proof of delivery.
Bajaj Electricals Limited v.Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd
Bajaj Electricals Limited filed an Interim Application against Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd for alleged trademark infringement related to the mark "BAJAJ SUPERMART". The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants that they would cease using the infringing mark pending the final disposal of the application and remove all associated signage.
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.