FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 19 · 551 total
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.R. R. Trading Company
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Notice of Motion against R.R. Trading Company alleging that the defendant was using a label mark and trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive BROOK BOND RED LABEL/RED LABEL for tea products. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from passing off their goods.
M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates v.M/s.Very Good Foods
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates against M/s.Very Good Foods, upholding the original finding that no infringement occurred. The court found insufficient evidence to establish deceptive similarity between the labels 'Chakra' and 'VG', noting differences in product descriptions and names. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to adequately prove specific financial loss caused by the defendant's marketing.
Unilever Plc. v.Bhanu Chauhan
Unilever Plc. filed a Notice of Motion seeking restraining orders against Bhanu Chauhan and others for using logos and trademarks deceptively similar to Unilever's well-known brands (DOMEX). The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order.
M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass v.Ashok Kumar Sethi
The main suit involved a claim by M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass against Ashok Kumar Sethi for copyright infringement and passing off related to their Henna products bearing the mark 'AMIN'S'. The defendant filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sainath Enterprise
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial suit against Sainath Enterprise alleging that the defendant was using an identical or deceptively similar label mark and trade dress on their detergent powder, thereby passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order.
Joy Creators Pvt Ltd v.Natures Essence Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the use of 'Honey & Almonds' in cosmetic products. While the Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendant's use of the phrase, the court allowed the Defendant to continue using 'Almond and Honey' as a descriptive ingredient term. However, strict conditions were imposed on packaging design, ensuring that this descriptive phrase does not gain undue prominence over the Defendant's own trademark, 'Nature's Essence'.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd v.Ganesh Industries
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Ganesh Industries alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark (MAXX), copyright violation in packaging art, and passing off related to detergent products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for these illegal activities. Both parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Joshi Products
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP suit against Joshi Products alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic label and distinctive trade dress for its detergent powder, WHEEL. The Bombay High Court granted leave to defend the suit and subsequently decreed it in favor of HUL.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Lite Detergent Soap
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Lite Detergent Soap. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent and also granted specific interim reliefs sought by the plaintiff, which will remain in force until further orders.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jai Hind Gruh Udhyog
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP Suit against Jai Hind Gruh Udhyog alleging infringement of its distinctive WHEEL label and trade dress in the soap and detergent industry. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Suchit Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Suchit Industries alleging infringement related to the soap brand 'Karan'. The defendant, Suchit Murkute, admitted manufacturing soaps under the brand but undertook not to use the splat logo in the future. The Court granted leave and decreed the suit based on these undertakings.
M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan v.M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan, argued they had a strong prima facie case against the respondent for using a deceptively similar name ('Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House') for their restaurant business. While the High Court did not rule on the merits of the infringement claim itself, it intervened by directing the lower court to expedite the proceedings and pass necessary orders within 30 days.
M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v.M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
The Supreme Court set aside previous orders from the IPAB and High Court that had cancelled the 'NANDHINI' trademark registration held by M/S. Nandhini Deluxe. The dispute centered on whether the restaurant chain could use a deceptively similar mark to the established milk producer, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Federation Ltd. The SC found that the appellant was a concurrent user who adopted the mark early enough and did not attempt to take unfair advantage of the respondent's goodwill, thereby restoring the registration.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Habiganj Agro Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the interim injunction granted to Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against Habiganj Agro Ltd., finding that the defendants failed to establish a compelling case for vacating the order. Despite arguments regarding 'proposed to be used' status and prior ownership claims, the court noted evidence of slavish imitation in the defendants' packaging materials. The interim injunction remains active for 16 weeks while the main suit proceeds.
M/S.J.K.Oil Industries v.M/S. Adani Wilmar Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a composite suit involving both trademark infringement and passing off, contingent on a pending trade mark rectification application. The court ruled that while Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act applies specifically to infringement suits, allowing the stay there, it does not apply to claims of 'passing off.' Consequently, the suit for infringement was stayed until the final decision of the rectification petition, but the parallel suit for passing off must continue and be decided on its own merits.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.R-3 Organics Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim protective order in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against R-3 Organics Limited. HUL alleged that the respondent was manufacturing and selling detergent powder under 'PARAS STAIN FIGHTER' with labels deceptively similar to HUL's well-known trademark 'SURF EXCEL.' The court found a prima facie case of infringement regarding both the registered trade mark and the copyright in the distinctive getup and color scheme, leading to an order for inventory and seizure of infringing goods.
Ferrero Spa & Nr v.M/S Ruchi International & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ferrero Spa & Nr, finding that the defendants were infringing upon the well-known 'Ferrero Rocher' trademark and trade dress by selling look-alike chocolates under the brand 'Golden Passion.' Despite being aware of previous injunctions, Defendant No.2 continued to sell these infringing products. The Court awarded damages of ₹10.00 Lac against Defendant No.2, emphasizing that parties who evade court proceedings cannot benefit from their non-participation.
Manyavar Fashion Private Limited v.Manyavar Creations Private Limited
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed writ petitions filed by Manyavar Fashion Private Limited challenging a lower court's decision to issue only an emergent notice instead of granting immediate temporary injunctions. The petitioners sought protection for their registered trademark 'Manyavar' and copyrighted artistic work against alleged infringement and passing off by the defendants. The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the trial court to expedite the hearing on all interim applications and pass appropriate orders promptly.
M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Limited. v.M/s.S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise in an infringement suit concerning the bottle design and label color scheme for gingelly oil. The parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably, leading the court to pass a compromise decree. Key terms included the first defendant voluntarily amending its label by enlarging the logo and altering other features, agreeing to destroy remaining unused labels within three months, and ceasing deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's product.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.R.Shankar (Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food)
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against R.Shankar for passing off. Despite the defendant submitting an affidavit stating they had closed their business, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunctive relief under summary judgment proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade names and trading styles in the food service industry.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The plaintiff had initially sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles. However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'Thalappakatti' brand, M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas filed suit against Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food alleging passing off and seeking permanent injunction. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit entirely. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the litigation as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd. The suit, which alleged passing off based on similar trade names, was decreed with a permanent injunction. Although the plaintiff initially sought damages and surrender of goods, they subsequently withdrew those specific prayers after the defendant provided an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, resulting in its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori. The suit, which was initially filed for passing off, resulted in a summary judgment decreeing the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. This decision protects the established goodwill of the plaintiff's 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel' brand against deceptive use by the defendant.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using similar trade marks and trading styles. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food. The plaintiff had sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off their trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thiru A.Aboobacker
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thiru A.Aboobacker. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani, which sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the 'Thalappakatti Biriyani' trade mark. However, before any substantive arguments were heard, the plaintiff withdrew the suit upon instruction from their client. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles related to biryani products. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal by the court.
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.