FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 17 of 19 · 551 total
M/S Friends Overseas v.Swadi Product U.K. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Friends Overseas against Swadi Product U.K. Ltd. and others, finding a prima facie case of infringement. The court held that the defendants had misappropriated the plaintiff's well-known mark 'SWADI HOMEMADE,' copying its artistic get up, layout, and trade dress. This action was deemed likely to cause confusion among consumers, thus warranting the continuation of the existing restraint order until the final disposal of the suit.
Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore
Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. transferred its intellectual property rights (trade marks, designs, and copyrights) related to 'Kwality' biscuits to M/s.Britania Industries Ltd. for ₹30 crores. The Assessing Officer taxed this receipt as long-term capital gains, arguing that the transfer included the right to manufacture. The Tribunal ultimately held that the right to market was distinct from the right to manufacture.
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v.Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the trademark 'KRISHNA' in dairy products. The court ruled that a common word, even if associated with a deity like Lord Krishna (who is linked to milk and butter), cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Furthermore, the court held that when a defendant uses a disputed mark prefixed by other words ('PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA'), confusion regarding the source of goods is unlikely, provided those prefix words are given equal prominence as the core trademark. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the interim relief granted to the respondent.
Smt K Nirmala Raghava Rao v.N G Subbaraya Setty
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and royalty recovery related to perfumes. The petitioner sought to stay a subsequent suit, arguing that the issues were identical to an earlier case where the trademark was assigned to a bank. However, the court ruled that the two suits involved distinct legal claims—one concerning injunction/royalty prior to assignment, and the other regarding damages post-termination of the agreement. Consequently, the writ petition seeking a stay was dismissed.
Thalappakattu Biriyani and Fast Food (temporarily called as "Chennai Rawther Thalappakattu Biriyani") v.M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement and passing off of the trade mark "Thalappakatti Naidu Biriyani Hotel" by M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas, which used the similar mark "Thalappakattu". The court examined the prior use and reputation of the Plaintiff's mark versus the Defendant's adoption of the similar name.
Drums Food International Pvt. Ltd. v.Euro Ice Cream & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled against Drums Food International in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'HOKEY POKEY'. The court held that even if a plaintiff starts using a mark after a defendant has filed an application for registration, the plaintiff cannot succeed in a passing off or infringement action. The judgment strongly affirmed the priority given to registered marks under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that registration provides a robust legal shield against subsequent users.
Siddhant Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Thanco Enterprises
The Bombay High Court rejected the defendants' attempt to set aside a prior injunction restraining them from infringing the plaintiffs' registered mark 'NATURAL' and passing off their goods. The court found that the application was not bona fide, noting that the defendants sought to rely on documents they could have easily accessed earlier. Consequently, the original order protecting the plaintiff's trademark and copyright was upheld and made effective immediately, with the defendants ordered to deposit proceeds from sales during the restricted period.
M/S Loreal v.Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Loreal against Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr., finding that the defendants were infringing upon Loreal's registered trademark 'L'OREAL'. The court determined that the use of the identical mark on similar cosmetic goods constituted both trademark infringement and passing off, noting a clear case of triple identity (same mark, same goods, same market). Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction against the defendants, although claims for damages were rejected due to lack of evidence.
United Breweries Ltd v.Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd
The Karnataka High Court addressed the complex interplay between design infringement and passing off in a dispute involving breweries. The court emphasized that while an action for design infringement is possible under specific conditions, the primary focus of the case involved establishing passing off. The judgment highlighted the distinct legal tests required for each claim, noting that passing off requires demonstrating deception by the public regarding the source of goods.
M/S Giani Gurcharan Singh & Sons v.Madhusudhan Singh And Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Giani Gurcharan Singh & Sons, finding that the defendant infringed upon their registered trademark and engaged in passing off. The court held that the use of 'GIAN'S' by the defendants was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'GIANI'S', leading to consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and awarded punitive damages.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v.Diat Foods (India)
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the use of the descriptive term 'Sugar Free' in packaging. While acknowledging Cadila Healthcare's distinctiveness, the court found that an absolute ban on using 'Sugar Free' would be overly restrictive, especially if used descriptively by the respondent. The judgment ultimately modified the injunction, allowing Diat Foods to use 'SUGAR FREE,' provided it is not given greater prominence or a larger font size than competing marks like 'SUGARLESS Bliss' or 'Splenda Brand.'
R.R. Proteins And Agro Limited v.Hari Shankar Singhania & Another
The plaintiff asserted exclusivity over its word mark 'Arati' in edible oil against the defendant's use of 'Sandhya Arati'. The court found that despite the addition of 'Sandhya', the prominent feature 'Arati' was incorporated, leading to infringement and passing-off. Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark.
Elbaik Food Systems Co. S.A v.Mr.Maideen Kutty
The Kerala High Court addressed an appeal filed by Elbaik Food Systems Co. S.A against a lower court's refusal to grant temporary injunction in a trademark suit. Recognizing that the case involved complex comparative evaluation of trademarks and was ripe for trial, the court chose not to rule on the merits of the dispute. Instead, it directed the lower court to expedite the trial process and ensure both parties receive sufficient opportunity to present evidence within six months.
Abdul Rashid (Partner Al Bake Arabic) v.Elbaik Food Systems Co.S.A.
This appeal before the Kerala High Court concerned a challenge to an interlocutory temporary injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit. The court acknowledged that the matter involved complex issues regarding the comparative evaluation of trademarks and the ongoing trial proceedings below. While refusing to overturn the existing injunction, the judges directed the lower court to expedite the full trial process and dispose of the suit within six months, ensuring neither party was unduly hindered by the interim order.
Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v.Ammini Karnan
The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal in a passing off action, setting aside the lower court's decree. While the case was remanded back to the District Court for a comprehensive re-evaluation, the High Court simultaneously granted an interim injunction. This order specifically restrained the defendants from using similar marks on rice and rice products, acknowledging the plaintiffs' prima facie case regarding their reputation in that sector.
Marico Limited v.Agro Tech Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Marico Limited's appeal against an order that rejected its injunction application regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the respondent's use of 'LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY' did not constitute deceptive similarity or passing off, primarily because the expression is descriptive in nature. This ruling emphasizes that registration alone does not guarantee a prima facie case for infringement if statutory defenses are validly raised.
Foodworld v.Foodworld Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing off suit filed by Foodworld against Foodworld Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the 'FOODWORLD' trade name in the food business. The court found that while the Defendant could continue its current operations, it was granted a conditional injunction. This means the Defendant is prohibited from using the mark if it enters the highly similar fields of institutional and outdoor catering services, thereby protecting the Plaintiff's goodwill.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v.Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Cadila Healthcare Ltd.'s appeal against an injunction sought to protect its 'Sugar Free' trademark. The court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that 'Sugar Free' is inherently descriptive and has become publicis juris in the food industry. While acknowledging a potential risk of consumer confusion regarding ingredients, the court found that the existing restriction on font size was adequate to prevent misrepresentation at this interim stage.
Gufic Pvt. Ltd. v.Clinique Laboratories, Llc
The Delhi High Court stayed a previous injunction that had restrained Gufic Pvt. Ltd. from using the word 'Cliniq' in its trademark, citing issues of deceptive similarity and balance of convenience. The court found substantial differences between the two trademarks ('Clinique' vs. 'Skin Cliniq Stretch Nil'), including price disparity (4-8 times difference), product type (Ayurvedic cream vs. non-Ayurvedic product), and distinct packaging styles. Furthermore, considering Gufic's long operational history since 1998/2001, the court ruled that a running business should not be stopped at this stage.
M/S Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Private Limited v.M/S Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, M/S Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Private Limited, against M/S Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning rice products using similar trade marks ('Double Deer' vs 'Deer'). The court ruled that despite differences in artistic features or geographical scope, the similarity of the core mark and the nature of the goods (rice) create a high risk of consumer confusion, thus warranting immediate restraint.
Bureau Of Indian Standards v.Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned whether Pepsico's use of specific terms ('PURE', 'PURITY GUARANTEED') and a pictorial device (snow-capped mountain) on its packaged drinking water label, Aquafina, was misleading. The Bureau of Indian Standards argued that these elements suggested the product was mineral water from mountains, which was untrue for standard packaged drinking water. After considering the statutory powers of BIS and consumer protection concerns, the court partially allowed the appeal.
K. Narayanan And Anr. v.S. Murali
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that merely filing a trade mark application does not constitute a cause of action for a suit based on passing off. The judgment emphasized that an action for passing off requires established grounds demonstrating deception or injury to goodwill, which cannot be derived solely from a pending registration application filed by the alleged infringer. This ruling reinforces the legal requirement for concrete evidence of misrepresentation when seeking relief against passing off.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Diat Foods (India)
The Delhi High Court dismissed Cadila Healthcare Limited's application seeking an interim injunction against Diat Foods (India) for alleged passing off. Cadila claimed ownership and distinctiveness over the 'Sugar Free' mark, arguing that Diat was misleading consumers. However, the court found that Diat used 'Sugar Free' merely as a descriptive attribute on its packaging, coupled with clear disclosures like 'Sweetened with Splenda.' The court concluded that no consumer would be misled into believing the defendant's product was connected to the plaintiff, thus failing to establish the elements of passing off.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Dabur India Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Cadila Healthcare Limited's request for an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, finding that the use of 'Sugar Free' by the defendant did not constitute passing off. The court held that the expression was used purely descriptively to indicate a product attribute (no added sugar), rather than as a trademark intended to mislead consumers into believing a connection with Cadila’s goodwill. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of misrepresentation required for a passing-off claim.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for an interim injunction, finding that the defendant's use of 'Sugar Free' did not constitute passing off. The court held that the expression was used descriptively to indicate the absence of added sugar in the Ayurvedic tonic, rather than as a trademark attempting to mislead consumers into believing it was connected to the plaintiff’s products. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for a prima facie case of misrepresentation or injury to goodwill.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for an interim injunction, finding that the defendant's advertisement did not disparage the plaintiff's product. The court used a Venn diagram analogy to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s thick cleaner does not fall into the category of thin and blue cleaners targeted by the ad. This ruling reinforces the principle that comparative advertising is permissible as long as it does not directly denigrate another trader's specific goods.
Shri Pankaj Goel v.M/S. Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Shri Pankaj Goel's appeal against an ex-parte injunction granted to Dabur India Ltd. The court found that despite arguments regarding prior use and commonality of the suffix 'MOLA,' the Respondent's registered mark, HAJMOLA, was distinctive and well-known. Furthermore, the court rejected the defense of laches or acquiescence, noting that passing off is a recurring cause of action and delay would not apply if the defendant's conduct was fraudulent.
M.G.M. Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Customs
The Tribunal upheld the Customs department's decision that various payments made by the franchisee (M.G.M. Entertainments) to the foreign franchisor were part of the transaction value of the imported goods. These fees, including franchise fee, license fee for technical know-how, and royalty, were deemed necessary conditions for the sale and use of the licensed products.
Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
The Delhi High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning the registrability of the name 'AGGARWAL.' The petitioner challenged the IPAB's dismissal, which had upheld the registration rights of the respondent. The court found that the IPAB failed to address the core legal issue—whether the surname 'AGGARWAL' possessed sufficient distinctiveness under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Consequently, the High Court set aside the previous order and remanded the matter back to the IPAB to specifically examine the question of acquired distinctiveness.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v.Income-tax, Range-10(2)
The assessee, Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., appealed against the denial of depreciation on an acquired trade mark ('Snuggy') and associated goodwill. The Assessing Officer denied the claim based on lack of valuation reports and the inclusion of goodwill in the purchase price. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that both trade marks and associated goodwill are intangible assets eligible for depreciation.
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.