FMCG — India Trademark Cases
541 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 19 · 541 total
ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v.CHARANJEET SINGH
The plaintiff, Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling perfumes under deceptively similar trademarks ('DAVIDOFF'/'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER'). The court found that the defendant's use of the mark caused confusion and injury to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, ordered delivery up of goods, and awarded damages.
Vikas Jain And Anr. v.State Drugs Controller Haryana & Ors.
This petition challenged an order issued by the State Drugs Controller, Haryana, which directed the petitioners to cease using two cosmetic brand names, 'COSMO SILKY' and 'COSMO'. The controller had acted based on the lack of ownership proof in a family dispute pending before the Delhi High Court. The Punjab-Haryana High Court set aside this order, ruling that the regulatory authority overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing a blanket ban while complex trademark disputes were still sub judice.
Capital Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Radiant Indus Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. While the court found that 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' is likely a descriptive and common term, thus denying the injunction against the mark itself, it granted protection for the plaintiff's trade dress/packaging and marketing content. This mixed ruling highlights the distinction between protecting generic product descriptors versus unique visual branding elements in IP law.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
Harjit Kaur & Ors. v.Jaywantjit Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'CAMPA,' which is registered to Plaintiff No. 2 (Campa Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, despite not being a shareholder or director, was filing numerous new trademark applications using the CAMPA prefix and managing brand operations. While the court allowed an exemption from filing original documents, it primarily focused on procedural steps for the main suit. Crucially, the court established that Defendant No. 1 is bound by his statement that he has not commenced use of the mark until a final decision is rendered in the ongoing litigation.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Amul Franchise.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. against various parties operating fraudulent websites using the 'AMUL' trademark. The court found that these entities were impersonating and deceiving the public by offering fake dealerships, jobs, and distributorships, thereby causing irreparable harm to the brand. Furthermore, the registrars of the infringing domains were directed to immediately suspend or block the sites, while banks holding accounts related to the fraudulent operations were ordered to disclose account holder details.
McDonalds Corporation And Anr v.National Internet Exchange Of India And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of McDonald's Corporation against various defendants accused of fraudulent activities. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiffs, recognizing that the defendants were misusing the 'McDonald's' trademark, Golden Arches Logo, and associated domain names to offer fake franchise opportunities. This crucial order restrained the defendants from infringing on McDonald's intellectual property rights and directed them to freeze relevant bank accounts.
Anhueser Busch Llc v.Rishav Sharma & Ors
Anhueser Busch LLC successfully obtained an ad interim injunction against Rishav Sharma and others in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory videos published on social media platforms were infringing its registered 'Budweiser' trademark and causing commercial disparagement by falsely depicting employees urinating in the beer. The court found a prima facie case existed, granting immediate relief to prevent further harm until the final hearing.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. v.Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in the Delhi High Court against Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding the use of a similar mark for infant food products. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark DEXOLAC, alleged that former employees were manufacturing and selling competing products under the name HEXALAC. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss while the suit proceeds.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Amber Confectionery Pvt Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil suit concerning trademark infringement related to the 'TANGY TWIST' tag line and accompanying trade dress. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court formally accepted and decreed. Crucially, the judgment noted that this settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by the defendants and will not bind any third party.
Mount Everest Breweries Limited v.State of Madhya Pradesh
Mount Everest Breweries Limited and United Breweries Limited filed a Writ Petition challenging the inaction of the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the infringement of their IP rights. The petitioners alleged that unauthorized breweries were illegally using their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrighted artistic features on bottles, often replacing them with products from other manufacturers. This practice was causing significant losses and consumer risk due to faulty bottling. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the State authorities to take appropriate action and provide a reasoned response to the petitioners' prior representations within sixty days.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Mahadev Confectionery & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters concerning trademark disputes between Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. and Mahadev Confectionery & Ors. In the main suit, the matter was adjourned to allow further negotiation regarding a proposed change of trademark by the defendants. Separately, the court issued notice for an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, setting a date for the defendant's reply.
Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico, S. De R.L. de C.V. v.Whiskin Spirits Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico regarding its registered trademark 'CORONA'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using social media advertisements that disparaged its product by likening it to Coronavirus. The court found a prima facie case for disparagement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff's statutory and commercial interests, temporarily halting the offending advertisement.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling fruit candies under a phonetically similar mark ('PULLS') and using deceptively similar packaging to the registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and granted relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd v.Chetan Gupta
In a trademark infringement suit concerning confectionery products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('PLUSS+') and trade dress for their fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the registered 'PULSE' brand. Citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendant from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. against Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a phonetically and visually similar mark ('PLUSS') and trade dress to sell fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that granting relief was necessary to protect its commercial interests.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D S Foods And Ors.
The plaintiff, M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunction and recovery against its franchisees (defendants) for unauthorized use of the 'Sagar Ratna' trademark after termination of the franchise agreement. The defendants argued that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause in the original agreement, making the court suit non-maintainable.
Izhar Ali & Anr. v.M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar, Palri Bagh, Bahraich & Anr.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a civil revision filed by Izhar Ali & Anr. against M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar. The defendants argued that since 'Sikka Namkin' was not registered as a trademark, the suit seeking injunction was barred by law. However, the court clarified that under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a claim for passing off action can be maintained even in respect of an unregistered trademark. Consequently, the challenge to the lower court's rejection of the application failed.
Unilever Plc. v.Deepak Talreja
The petitioner, Unilever Plc., filed an interim application seeking various reliefs. The court granted leave for the plaintiff to combine the cause of action of passing off with that of infringement. Ad-interim orders were continued, including a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using trade dress or marks deceptively similar to 'BROOKE BOND RED LABEL and the U-Logo' in the tea industry.
S.Sudhakar / Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods P Ltd. v.Priya Krishnakumar / Krishnakumar
This Madras High Court case addresses a complex dispute involving alleged infringement of registered trademarks and copyright in the food product sector. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks ('UDAYA MASALA' vs 'UDHAIYAM') and infringing on the artistic work/logo associated with their masala powders. While the suit sought various injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits, the judgment provided a preliminary decree addressing these claims.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
Hindustan Unilever Limited appealed an order that allowed Sree Annapoorna Foods to amend its plaint to include a claim for rendition of accounts. The appellant argued that this amendment changed the nature of the suit and was contrary to Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the single judge's finding that the amendment did not fundamentally alter the character of the original infringement and passing off suit.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation related to edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Sun O Gold' on their product, mimicking the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and its associated trade dress. Although the suit initially sought various permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
M/S Parle Products Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.M/S B&B Bake Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court overturned an injunction restraining the appellant from using 'AMERICANA' for butter cookies. The court held that since 'AMERICANA' is a common dictionary word, its legal protectability is lesser, especially when it is not registered exclusively by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court found no prima facie case of passing off because the products (cookies vs. burger buns) had distinct looks and packaging, making consumer confusion unlikely. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
M/s.Ambika Appalam Company v.Nandi Food Products
M/s. Ambika Appalam Company filed a civil suit against Nandi Food Products, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AMBIKA APPLAM' and copyright over the associated artistic work and trade dress. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of similar labels like 'AMBUJA APPALAM'. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s Anitha Marketing
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s Anitha Marketing alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'The Gold Drops' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
The plaintiff, Marico Limited, filed a Notice of Motion seeking various reliefs against the defendant, Chandrakant Gholap. The court granted leave to the Plaintiff and further granted prayer clause (d) of the Notice of Motion, which sought an injunction against the Defendant for using counterfeit PARACHUTE trade marks or trade dress in relation to edible oil preparations and other FMCG goods.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
Marico Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave and an interim injunction against Chandrakant Gholap regarding the use of the PARACHUTE trade mark and trade dress. The Court granted the leave sought by the Plaintiff and further granted the prayer for an interim injunction, restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or distributing packaging materials bearing the infringing trademark/trade dress.
M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd v.Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed disputes concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off between Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. The core dispute revolved around the similarity of trademarks 'AROKYA' and 'AAROGYA', particularly in relation to biscuit products. While the lower court had vacated an interim injunction, the appellate court focused on the procedural aspect of a Summary Judgment application filed by the defendants. Finding that the Single Judge dismissed the summary judgment request without sufficient reasons under commercial courts law, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
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.