FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 19 · 551 total
M/s.Power Soaps Limited v.M/s. C M Detergent
M/s. Power Soaps Limited filed a suit against M/s. C M Detergent alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('DK' and 'POWER') and copyright violation concerning the use of deceptively similar marks on detergent wrappers. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and accounts of profits. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit, leading the court to dismiss the case.
K.Ganesh Nadar / M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. / K.Ganesh Nadar
This Madras High Court judgment addresses two cross-suits concerning trademark infringement, passing off, and groundless threats related to the brand 'XTRA' in the FMCG sector. The court noted that the dispute was referred to mediation, which proved fruitful. Consequently, a common decree was passed based on a memo of compromise dated 17.02.2017. Under this agreement, the defendant committed to stopping the use of the infringing label and adopting an amended version moving forward.
M/S. Aero Club v.Mr. Sahibjeet & Anr.
M/S. Aero Club filed a suit alleging that Mr. Sahibjeet and others were selling counterfeit products bearing its trademarks, including WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE, and Woodland Label. The plaintiff claimed extensive use of these marks for over 25 years in manufacturing footwear and apparel. After the defendants failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court found they had no real prospect of defending the claim.
M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited v.M/S.KTC Ventures
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise settlement between M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited and M/S.KTC Ventures regarding trademark infringement of 'LASSI HOUSE'. The parties agreed to drop the suit in exchange for specific terms, including a permanent injunction against passing off, payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the defendant, and mandatory changes to the defendant's branding (displaying 'KTC VENTURES' below 'Lassi House').
Marina Food Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an ex-parte injunction granted by the Trial Court against Marina Food Products Private Limited for using the trademark 'MARIE' in relation to biscuits. The court found that the initial order met the legal requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, as sufficient reasons were recorded regarding potential public confusion and harm. Furthermore, the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts was dismissed, confirming the trial court's authority to proceed with the trademark infringement suit.
M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S G D Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd challenging a single judge's order. The appellant had sought to reject the original suit for permanent injunction on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked a registered trademark in Class 30, making the infringement claim unsustainable. The court upheld the initial decision, noting that when adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule II CPC (rejection of plaint), the court must rely solely on the averments made in the plaint.
Munish Kumar Singla Trading As: Chakshu Food Products v.Jollibee Foods Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Chakshu Food Products, setting aside a restrictive ex-parte injunction granted against it by the trial court. The core issue was whether Jollibee Foods Corporation could enforce its trademark and copyright rights over a bee image when it had not commenced business in India despite having registered the marks since 2005. The Court ruled that without actual use or entry into the Indian market, an ex-parte injunction against a local competitor is unwarranted, emphasizing principles from cases like Milmet Oftho Industries.
M/S Adiga Sweets v.M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court upheld a prior injunction decree in favor of M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd against M/S Adiga Sweets. The core issue was whether the use of 'ADIGA'S SWEETS' by the appellant constituted passing off against the respondent, who had established goodwill using variations of 'ADIGA'S' since 1993. The court found that due to the common food industry context and phonetic similarity, an average consumer is likely to confuse the two businesses, thus affirming the finding of passing off.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v.Bombay Rayon Fashions Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. against an order that vacated its ex-parte injunction. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'VOGUE' by the appellant and 'LINEN VOGUE' by the respondent in relation to magazines versus fabrics/apparel. The court held that the respondent's catalogues, which merely advertised their goods, did not constitute a commercial act of publishing for sale, thus finding no merit in the claim of infringement or passing off.
P.Maheswari (Propx. Venu Biriyani Hotel) v.Dindigul Venuu Biriyani
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by P.Maheswari against Dindigul Venuu Biriyani regarding the use of deceptively similar trade names for biryani services. Although the initial claim sought permanent injunction and damages, the court ultimately decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) signed between the parties. This resolution allowed both parties to settle their dispute outside of a full trial.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Guddu
Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully sought interim protection against Guddu, alleging that the respondent was manufacturing and selling soaps under the brand 'New Liberty' with trade designs, graphics, and color schemes deceptively similar to Lifebuoy. The court recognized the distinctive 'trade dress' of Lifebuoy in the competitive FMCG sector. Given the high potential for consumer confusion among unwary buyers, the Calcutta High Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the infringing goods and granted an interim injunction to preserve the petitioner's market reputation.
AVMH Corporation v.Subu Trade Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected a plea to dismiss a trademark suit. The respondent sought injunctions regarding their 'SACHA MOTI' trademark for food products, while the petitioners argued the suit should be dismissed due to parallel proceedings in the Delhi High Court and before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The High Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no illegality in allowing the suit to proceed.
Dharam Chand Ladha Mal v.Subhash Sabun Udyog & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dharam Chand Ladha Mal, finding clear similarity between the trade dress of the defendants' products (NIROKHA) and the plaintiff's registered trademark (NAULAKHA). The court granted permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and passing off. Furthermore, it directed each defendant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi
This batch of cases addressed the tax implications of franchise agreements under various state sales tax laws. The core dispute centered on whether the royalties received by franchisors for allowing franchisees to use their brand system constituted a 'transfer of the right to use goods' (trademark). The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the franchise agreements only grant a limited right to use, and do not constitute an outright transfer of IP rights. Consequently, the tax demands levied on these transactions were quashed.
Cholayil Private Limited v.Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt Ltd.
Cholayil Private Limited filed a suit against Aditya Birla Management Corporation and others, alleging infringement of its trademarks ('Medimix', Mortar and Pestle) and copyright in its product labeling. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and an accounting of profits due to the defendants' alleged unauthorized use of similar marks and artistic works on soaps and cosmetic products. Ultimately, both parties reached a Joint Memo of Compromise, leading to the suit being disposed of amicably.
A. Ebrahim v.M/S. Ojin Foods Pvt. Ltd.
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction in an infringement suit. The defendant argued that relief of passing off should only lie where they ordinarily reside, but the trial court found it was ancillary to the main trademark infringement claim. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding, noting that since both trademark infringement and passing off were sought, the jurisdictional issue could not be definitively settled at this stage. Consequently, the original petition challenging the jurisdiction order was dismissed.
Mehra Cosmetics v.Ram Kumar Gulati & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mehra Cosmetics against Ram Kumar Gulati & Ors. The court found that the defendants were attempting to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff by using a deceptively similar mark ('BLUE CHEF' vs 'BLUE CLIFF'). Despite arguments regarding the unregistered status of the plaintiff's trademark and procedural issues, the court ruled that the similarity in sound and appearance constituted passing off. The defendants were ordered to cease using the infringing mark and change labels on their existing stock.
Krbl Ltd. v.Pk Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court overturned a lower court's decision regarding an application for interim injunction in a passing off dispute concerning rice brands. The appeal focused on the deceptive similarity of color combinations, not just the marks themselves. The High Court found that the trial court failed to adequately address the crucial elements of reputation and consumer confusion before dismissing the injunction request. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh hearing after both parties submit necessary documentation.
M/S P K Overseas Pvt.Ltd. v.M/S Bhagwati Lecto Vegetarians Exports
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, overturning a single judge's decision that had vacated an interim injunction. The court ruled in favor of M/S P K Overseas Pvt.Ltd., confirming the initial injunction against M/S Bhagwati Lecto Vegetarians Exports. The judgment emphasized that for passing off claims involving composite marks like 'India Salaam', both components must be considered, and established sales figures justified a prima facie case of reputation.
ITC Ltd v.Britannia Industries Ltd
ITC Ltd successfully obtained an interim injunction against Britannia Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Britannia's Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit packaging was deceptively and confusingly similar to ITC's Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive - All Good packaging, leading to a prima facie case of passing off. While granting the injunction, the court provided flexibility, allowing Britannia to adopt its international packaging or change the blue color scheme to another distinctive color, ensuring business continuity while protecting ITC's trade dress.
M/S Dharti Soap Factory v.M/S Navchetan Detergent Product
The Gujarat High Court addressed an application for review filed by M/S Dharti Soap Factory against a previous order concerning Section 142 of the Trademark Act. The court found that since the subject matter was already being litigated in related civil and trademark suits, any observations made under Section 142 were merely interpretations of law, not errors of fact. Consequently, the application for review was rejected as devoid of merits.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v.Essar Industries
In this trademark infringement suit concerning the 'MAGGI' brand, the Delhi High Court addressed applications regarding evidence submission. While rejecting a major application by the defendants to introduce extensive new documentation due to concerns over trial delay and adherence to Commercial Courts Act principles, the court did allow the defendants to summon witnesses for documents that had previously been shared with the plaintiffs. This ruling emphasizes judicial caution against late-stage document filing in commercial disputes.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr. v.Techno Plast & Ors.
Dart Industries Inc, through its licensee Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement of their proprietary designs and copyrights related to the popular 'Tupperware' storage containers. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants were copying these unique designs, leading to confusion in the market. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove the distinctiveness of the product shape for trademark purposes, thereby lacking prima facie strength in their claims regarding design protection, copyright infringement, and passing off.
A.P. Organics (P) Ltd., Ludhiana v.Assessee
The assessee claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as revenue expenditure for using the brand name "RICELA" from Ricela Health Foods Ltd., but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed it, treating it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payment was merely a license fee and thus a revenue expense.
Department Of Income Tax v.Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health ...
The appeal was filed by the Department of Income Tax against an order regarding assessment year 1997-98. The core dispute involved whether the Rs. 4.5 crore compensation received by Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health upon termination of the 'ENO' and 'Fruit Salt' trademark license agreement constituted a taxable income or capital receipt.
Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Abdul Mueed & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Qarshi Industries challenging the denial of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Hamdard in a passing off suit. The court found that given the complexity of the arguments—including issues regarding the descriptive nature of the Urdu words 'JAM-E-SHIRIN' and potential suppression of facts related to Pakistani trademark disclaimers—the prima facie case was not strong enough for an immediate injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, requiring both parties to complete their pleadings before further relief could be considered.
Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sanjay Kapur & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the tea seller, Mr. Sanjay Kapur & Anr., finding that Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. had infringed upon their trade dress. The court held that despite minor variations, the overall get-up and striking similarity between the packaging—specifically the fabric sleeve used over a rectangular cuboid packet—was likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces that the overall visual impression of a product's packaging is a critical factor in assessing trade dress infringement, even when trademarks are displayed.
Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v.Lavera Gmbh And Co.Kg
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Lavera Gmbh, affirming that Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. was a dishonest adopter of the trademark 'LAVERA'. Despite initial contradictions regarding trans-border reputation, the court found that Lavera's international registration and intent to market in India entitled it to protection. The judgment emphasizes that dishonesty at the inception of mark adoption is fatal, even if subsequent use by the alleged infringer continues.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt., Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed appeals against an order concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark rights. The dispute centered around Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.'s use of labels incorporating 'GLUCON-D VOLT' for their tangy orange flavoured glucose-based energy bites. The parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading to the disposal of the Original Side Appeals.
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.