FMCG — India Trademark Cases
913 decisions indexed
Page 17 of 31 · 913 total
Amritsar Rice Land v.Sumit Bansal & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.
Marico Limited v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Marico Limited successfully challenged the actions of the Trademark Registry in the Madras High Court, arguing that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when removing its registered trademark 'MANJAL'. The court ruled in favor of Marico, holding that the Registrar improperly bypassed statutory requirements by proceeding with rectification despite an ongoing infringement suit. This judgment reinforces the strict jurisdictional limits placed on the Registrar under the Trademarks Act.
SMC Foods Limited & Anr. v.Jyoti Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of SMC Foods Limited, recognizing the prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively imitating the Plaintiffs' established brand 'MADHUSUDAN,' including its unique packaging and trade dress. This interim order immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling products bearing similar marks or designs until the final hearing.
Zydus Wellness Limited v.Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit previously decreed between Zydus Wellness Limited and Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited. Following an amicable resolution, both parties had deposited funds with the DHCBA Pandemic Relief Fund. The court noted compliance regarding deposits and stock statements. Crucially, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the modification/alteration forms filed by Defendant No.1 concerning their registered marks.
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar v.Kothai Dairy Farm
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar filed a suit against Kothai Dairy Farm and others alleging infringement of their trademarks and copyrights concerning the product 'ghee'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were passing off goods using deceptively similar artistic works, trade dress, and color combinations associated with the plaintiff's registered trademark (No. 463167). Despite the initial claims for injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately resolved their dispute by entering into a Joint Compromise Memo dated March 21, 2022.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited. v.Deepak Arora & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics, ordering the cancellation and rectification of a conflicting trademark registered by Deepak Arora ('MARC HEAVEN'). The court found that 'MARC HEAVEN' was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'BLUE HEAVEN,' particularly due to the appropriation of the dominant feature 'Heaven.' Citing Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, the judgment held that the Respondent's registration lacked distinctive character and caused public confusion.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
Ram Trading Co. v.Amar Singh Chawal Wala And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'RAJQILLA'. The court noted that since the mark had already been cancelled by the IPAB, an interim stay could not be granted without examining the merits of the challenge. After initial procedural delays and requests for adjournment due to connectivity issues, the matter was listed for further hearing.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v.Shashi Distilleries Private Limited
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Shashi Distilleries Private Limited seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of an Aseptic Brick Pack packaging that is deceptively similar to its own distinctive trade dress used for 'Original Choice' whisky. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction to withdraw the defendant's application for approval of this similar packaging.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Raman Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Raman Gupta and others. The court found that the defendants were illegally using the registered trademark 'KHADI' and associated logos, particularly for medical products like PPE kits and hand sanitizers under the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Given the potential risk to public health due to unauthorized quality control, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling any such products bearing the infringing marks.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors. v.Venkata Siva Suhas Kumar Bommisetty & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors., filed an interim application seeking relief against the Defendants for infringement of their registered 'NATURAL' family marks and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordering them to remove related online advertisements.
Lt Foods Limited v.Sri Annapurna Agro Indsutries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on a comprehensive settlement reached between Lt Foods Limited and Sri Annapurna Agro Industries. The defendants formally acknowledged Lt Foods as the exclusive proprietor of the trademark 'HERITAGE/INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT.' Crucially, the defendants undertook to cease all use of the mark, refrain from registering similar marks globally, and pay damages amounting to INR 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
Dfm Foods Limited v.ITC Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark dispute between Dfm Foods Limited and ITC Limited. While the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, the court immediately directed both parties toward mandatory mediation. This order sets the stage for amicable resolution while allowing procedural steps like filing additional documents and exemptions from pre-institution mediation.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.Needs Supermart Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'Nutella' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 2, 2022. While the court maintained the existing interim injunction against the defendant, it deferred the dispute over whether products were counterfeit to the trial stage. Furthermore, the court directed both parties toward mediation and conciliation to attempt a settlement of the ongoing litigation.
Kake Di Hatti v.Sidharth Aggarwal And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in this order, including a municipal matter regarding unauthorized stairs on a public footpath, directing the North DMC to ensure pedestrian safety and removal of obstructions. Crucially for the IP dispute, the court noted that while respondents were previously directed to cease using the 'Kake Di Hatti' brand, they are now operating under the name 'Kake Di Rasoi,' keeping the trademark infringement matter active.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Midie Cosmetics Through Its Proprietor Sh Tilak Raj & Anr.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation or rectification of the trademark 'BLUEHEART' (No. 3388032) registered in Class-03. The court issued notice to the defendants, Midie Cosmetics, setting a date for them to complete their pleadings and proceed with the matter.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Muhammed Rafi
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Muhammed Rafi alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'SPLAT LOGO', used for detergent goods. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
TTK Registered Ltd. v.Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd.
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Ltd., sued Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off due to the sale of its 'PRESTIGE' kitchen appliances on the defendant's online platform without authorization. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of exhaustion applies once goods are lawfully sold into the market, and there is no privity of contract between the parties.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Ashok Kumar Sethi Trading as M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation v.Amilal Ramkrishnan Dass
This suit addressed allegations of copyright infringement concerning the picture mark 'AMIN's' used on black henna products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant for using similar marks and designs. During the pendency of the litigation, both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this memorandum of compromise, allowing both parties to continue their respective branding practices without further legal conflict.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Unilever Plc. v.Malti Ice Cream Industries
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit after the defendants volunteered to submit to a decree. The court allowed the petition for leave and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, while permitting the defendants to destroy the wrappers bearing the offending marks under specific conditions.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v.M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through: Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nimesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Blue Heaven Cosmetics against T.R.N. Corporation regarding trademark infringement and passing off. Although the Defendant held a registered mark, the court found that their use of trade dress, writing style, and overall packaging was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known marks. The order restrained the Defendant from selling products with the infringing trade dress and mandated the removal of all such listings from e-commerce portals.
M/s RSPL Health Private Limited v.Gian Soap Factory
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gian Soap Factory for infringing its registered trademark 'XPERT' and engaging in passing off. The defendant adopted the deceptively similar mark 'GIAN'S 729 EXPERT' for manufacturing and marketing cleaning materials like soaps and detergents. The court found that the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's proprietary rights, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
Vinod Snacks and Confectioners Private Limited v.Vinod Multifood Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Vinod Snacks & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. against Vinod Multifood Products Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trademarks 'POOJA' and 'SHIV'. While the court allowed the main suit to proceed, it granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from independently selling products under these marks. However, the defendants were permitted to continue supplying these products to the plaintiff, provided separate sales accounts are maintained.
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.