FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 19 · 551 total
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (Plaintiffs) seeking to amend their plaint to enhance the suit's pecuniary valuation. The plaintiffs, who had initially valued their passing off suit at a lower amount, sought to reflect the actual high market value of their intellectual property rights. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for correction is made out.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (the plaintiff) seeking to amend its plaint to enhance the valuation of a commercial dispute. The suit, originally concerning passing off, was valued low, but due to re-assessment of potential damages and profits, the plaintiffs sought to increase the value significantly. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Laxmi Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Akshar Food Products
Laxmi Snacks Pvt Ltd challenged Akshar Food Products for allegedly copying its distinctive packaging design, getup, and style used for ready-to-eat Namkeen products like Ratlami Sev. The appellant claimed their unique visual identity, including color scheme and mascot, was infringed upon by the respondent's similar product presentation. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement based on trade dress, it ultimately dismissed the appeals, directing the respondent to provide sales records for further scrutiny.
Shoppers Stop Ltd v.Shoppers Shop
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Shoppers Stop Ltd and Shoppers Shop following a successful mediation process. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Shoppers Stop's exclusive ownership of the 'SHOPPERS STOP' trademark and 'SS LOGO'. As part of the agreement, the defendant agreed to cease using the marks and pay a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs to the plaintiff.
Priya Food Products Ltd. v.Satya Sai Agroils Pvt Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed a passing off dispute concerning the use of the mark 'Priya' for Soya Chunks. While acknowledging the respondent's prior general use of the mark, the court found that the petitioner had established significant and localized presence in the Eastern part of the country. Consequently, the court granted an interim protective order restraining the defendant from using the word Priya specifically in relation to Soya Chunks within that region.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v.Italian Edibles Pvt. Ltd.
Nestle filed a suit against Italian Edibles alleging passing off and misuse of its well-known trademark, "MAGGI HUNGROOO." The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that their business was conducted outside Delhi. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Nestle, holding that since the plaintiff had an office in Delhi, the goods were advertised on a website accessible in Delhi, and there was an imminent threat of market entry in Delhi, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Reckitt Benckiser Health Care (India) Pvt. v.Emami Ltd & Ors.
The appeal challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court, which restrained the defendant from displaying an advertisement for 'MOOV' that compared it to the plaintiff's product, ZANDU BALM. The High Court examined whether such comparative advertising amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited sought an interim injunction against Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark and tag line infringement regarding their glucose-based energy products. Wipro claimed that the defendant's use of 'VOLT' and similar tag lines was a deliberate attempt to trade on its goodwill associated with 'BOLTS.' However, the Madras High Court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, finding that Wipro had not established a prima facie case at this stage. The court held that the issue of protecting descriptive taglines like 'ANYTIME ANYWHERE' requires extensive evidence and must be decided during the full trial.
Mw Eat Ltd v.New Masala Zone & Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Mw Eat Ltd against New Masala Zone & Anr, resolving a dispute over trademark infringement. Although the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement where the defendants agreed to cease using their name, the court formally granted the decree. The judgment specifically restrained the defendants from using 'New Masala Zone' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to restaurants and hospitality services, thereby protecting the plaintiff's trademark 'MASALA ZONE'.
M/S Today Tea Ltd v.M/S Aggarwal Tea Co.& Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit between M/S Today Tea Ltd and M/S Aggarwal Tea Co. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The defendants agreed to pay a balance sum, cease using the disputed trademarks ('T-STAR' vs 'TODAY/TODAY STAR'), and further committed to destroying all infringing tea and coffee packaging material at a designated premises under court supervision. This judgment underscores the effectiveness of mediation in resolving complex IP disputes.
M/S Rspl Health Pvt. Ltd. v.Giani Ram Mittal & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement of its trade mark XPERT and copyright, claiming prior adoption in respect of laundry products. The defendants countered by asserting their own established use of the 'SAGAR' trademark and arguing that the marks were dissimilar. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, .S.A. v.Sapan Kumar Bhatia & Ors
In this Delhi High Court case involving Nestle and Sapan Kumar Bhatia, the parties reached an amicable out-of-court settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants acknowledged Nestle's ownership rights over the 'MAGGI' trademark, domain name (www.maggi.in), and copyright in the logo and label. Consequently, the court allowed a compromise application, decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms, which included a final payment of ₹2,00,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs.
M/S Dabur India Ltd. v.M/S Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction sought by Dabur India Ltd. against Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'PACHMOLA'. The court found that, based on prima facie examination of trade dress and product features, there was no immediate possibility of consumer deception or confusion between 'HAJMOLA' and 'PACHMOLA'. While not ruling on the merits of the full suit, the court directed the defendant to maintain and file quarterly sales accounts, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.M/S. Deep Industry
The Delhi High Court confirmed an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Rspl Health Private Limited against M/S. Deep Industry. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case, asserting that the defendant's use of the 'POSH' label was deceptively similar to its registered trademark and artistic work, 'XPERT.' Despite the defendant raising objections regarding jurisdiction and delay, the court found both arguments untenable, upholding the initial order against infringement and passing off.
Mr Arnab Basu & Ors. v.Monginis Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court modified an existing ex parte interim order in the dispute between Mr Arnab Basu & Ors. and Monginis Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court acknowledged the long-standing use of the 'Monginis' brand by the plaintiffs since 1989, despite their manufacturing other products. To balance the interests of both parties, the court mandated that the plaintiffs must continue to dedicate at least 80% of their manufacturing capacity and display Monginis products in proportion within their outlets, ensuring no interference with the plaintiffs' business while protecting the defendant's brand rights.
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. v.Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Procter & Gamble against an interim injunction granted to Anchor Health & Beauty Care. The court upheld the protection of Anchor's trademark 'ALLROUND,' finding that the phrase 'ALL-AROUND PROTECTION' was not merely descriptive but indicated a peculiar quality and feature unique to Anchor's product. This ruling reinforces the principle that suggestive marks, even if related to general product characteristics, can be protected against imitation.
Neo Milk Products Private Limited v.Neo Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Neo Foods Private Limited (the registered trademark owner) against Neo Milk Products Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had established a reputation for its registered mark 'NEO' under Class 29, and the defendant's use of the identical mark in relation to milk products was likely to dilute the distinctive character of the original mark. Crucially, the court dismissed the defense of prior use (Section 34) because the appellant failed to provide prima facie evidence of continuous usage predating the plaintiff's registration.
Suresh Chand Purwar (Karta) v.Vivek Purwar & Ors.
This appeal challenged a trial court's decision to return a plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, which held that the Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction over trademark infringement claims concerning 'HARI' and 'HARISONS'. The appellant argued that the trial court made a finding of fact on disputed sales without allowing parties to lead evidence. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that jurisdictional questions must be decided after both parties have had the opportunity to present their case through evidence.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The dispute involved multiple suits where both parties objected to each other's advertisements, alleging disparagement. The ads compared products like Dettol antiseptic liquid, Vim cleansing liquid, Lifebuoy soap, and Dettol cleaning liquid regarding their germ-killing or protective effects.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Reckitt Benckiser India Limited
This appeal involved a dispute over alleged disparagement of Reckitt's DETTOL soap by an advertisement featuring HUL's LIFEBUOY soap. Reckitt contended that the ad intentionally tarnished its brand reputation, particularly regarding the distinctive shape and packaging of its product. The Delhi High Court examined the malicious intent behind the advertising campaign and upheld the permanent injunction against disparagement.
M/S. Pachranga International Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S. Pachranga International Pvt. Ltd., which sought to overturn an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order directing the removal of its 'Pachranga International' trademark. The court found that due process was not followed in the alleged expulsion of a former partner, leading it to conclude that the petitioner could only use a modified version of the mark, not the original unregistered trademark. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim regarding the validity of an assignment deed involving their wife.
R.M. Dhariwal (Huf) v.Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-III
The appellant challenged an order confirming a demand for Rs.64,17,003/- based on providing scientific/technical consultancy services related to the use of the 'Manikchand' brand and its formulae. The appellant argued that the transfer of intellectual property rights (trade name and formulae) was covered under service tax from September 2004, making the demand for the prior period unsustainable.
Dandi Salt Pvt Ltd v.Indo Brine Industries Ltd.
This appeal challenged an order that granted injunction reliefs against Dandi Salt Pvt Ltd and its directors. The core dispute revolved around the alleged trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'DANDI NAMAK' mark used for salt products. The Gujarat High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, quashing the trial court's order. The court noted significant issues regarding the plaintiff's conduct, including suppression of facts and filing multiple suits with identical causes of action.
Dabur India Ltd v.M/S Mughals Herbal Products & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dabur India Ltd in a passing off suit against M/S Mughals Herbal Products. The court found that the defendant's rose water packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established 'DABUR GULABARI' trade dress, specifically noting similarities in color combination and overall configuration. Given Dabur's long-standing reputation, extensive advertising spend, and market presence, the court granted a permanent injunction, affirming the protection of distinctive trade dress under common law.
Eatman Foods India Private Limited v.M/s Savorit Ltd.
Eatman Foods India Private Limited appealed the dismissal of its injunction application against M/s Savorit Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off due to the phonetic and visual similarity between their trade marks ('Tastee Masala' vs 'TASTII'). The respondent argued that the products were different, and since only the label was registered, no exclusive right could be claimed over individual words. The High Court upheld the single judge's decision.
M/s.Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt., Ltd. v.Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga
The Karnataka High Court addressed multiple writ petitions filed by M/s Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga regarding the use of the 'Adigas' trademark. The petitioners sought an ad-interim injunction to prevent infringement, challenging a lower court order that allowed the respondent time to file objections. While the High Court did not grant the immediate injunction requested, it directed the trial court to expeditiously consider and dispose of the temporary injunction applications filed by the plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.Adani Wilmar Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed Marico Limited's application for an interim injunction against Adani Wilmar Ltd, which sought to stop the broadcast of competitor advertisements. Marico alleged that Adani Wilmar's 'Fortune' ads disparaged its 'Saffola' brand with false health claims. However, the court emphasized that advertisers must be given latitude in their messaging and held that unless claims are totally unsubstantiated, courts should avoid a hyper-technical view. The decision allowed the advertisements to continue pending final adjudication.
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited v.Union of India
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited challenged an order directing it to change its corporate name due to perceived resemblance with another entity. The dispute centered on whether the similarity in names, particularly involving the 'VOV' mark used in cosmetics, mandated rectification under the Companies Act. The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing that mere similarity is not sufficient grounds for mandatory rectification and directing a fresh hearing.
United Breweries Ltd v.Khodays Breweries Limited Industries Ltd
United Breweries Ltd appealed a trial court judgment that dismissed its suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Khodays Breweries Limited. The suit alleged infringement and passing off based on the use of 'Hercules Black Label' by the respondent, which was deemed deceptively similar to the appellant's registered trade mark 'Kalyani Black Label'. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision.
M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Shri Bihari Ji's & Ors.
The plaintiff, M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., filed an application seeking an interim stay against the respondents for allegedly misusing its proposed brand names ('Ratnam', 'Sagar Ratnam') and breaching a franchisee agreement. The dispute centered on the use of similar brands like 'Shree Rathnam' by the defendants, who were former employees.
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.