FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 19 · 551 total
Mrs. Ishi Khosla v.Anil Aggarwal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Ishi Khosla against Anil Aggarwal and others regarding the use of the trademark 'Whole Foods'. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of prior use, distinctiveness, and reputation associated with her brand. This ruling protects her goodwill against deceptive imitation by competitors, reinforcing the importance of early action in trade mark disputes.
Three-N-Products Private Ltd. v.Karnataka Soaps And Detergents Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Three-N-Products Private Ltd., granting an interim injunction against Karnataka Soaps And Detergents Limited (Respondent No. 1) for passing off and infringing its registered trademark 'Ayur'. The court found that the petitioner was the senior user of the mark, despite the respondent having a subsequent registration of 'Mysore Sandal Ayur Care.' This decision emphasizes the importance of establishing seniority in trade mark disputes, particularly when dealing with deceptively similar marks.
M/s.Sri Balamurugan Modern Rice Mill v.M/s.Subbulakshmi Modern Rice Mill
The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in a passing-off suit concerning rice. The plaintiff successfully argued that despite the defendant's attempts to distinguish their mark with added words, the strong familial and business connection between the parties made consumer confusion highly likely. Given the plaintiff's established prior use of the 'GOPURAM' mark since 1998, the court found a prima facie case for passing off, favoring the plaintiff.
Jolen Inc. v.Mr. Shobanlal Jain, Hindustan Rimmer
The Madras High Court reversed a lower court's decision that had dismissed an interim injunction and revoked the plaintiff's leave to institute a lawsuit. Jolen Inc., alleging infringement of its trademark 'JOLEN' and copyright in its distinctive packaging for crme bleach, successfully argued that sufficient cause of action existed based on advertisements and retail sales in India. Consequently, the court reinstated the interim injunction protecting both the copyright and passing off claims, ensuring the suit could proceed expeditiously.
Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. v.Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Colgate Palmolive against Anchor Health, finding that Anchor was engaging in passing off. The court ruled that the distinctive trade dress—specifically the red and white color combination and container shape—had acquired secondary significance and goodwill, allowing Colgate to protect it even if the word marks were different. This decision underscores the importance of protecting non-traditional trademarks like packaging design when they are used deceptively.
Geepee Ceval Proteins And Investment v.Saroj Oil Industry
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in a passing off suit concerning the trade mark 'CHAMBAL'. The court found that despite the geographical nature of the word, the plaintiff had established distinctiveness through extensive use and advertising since 1997. Given the phonetic similarity between 'CHAMBAL' and 'CHAMBAL DEEP', the court determined that granting the injunction was in the balance of convenience to prevent consumer confusion and irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Lever Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for injunction in a passing-off suit against Hindustan Lever Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark 'AYUSH' was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'AYUSHAKTI,' and crucially, it held that mere possibility of confusion is insufficient; actual misrepresentation must be demonstrated. Furthermore, the court presumed the plaintiffs had knowledge of pre-existing marks, but ultimately concluded there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.
Kewal Krishan Kumar v.Rudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Kewal Krishan Kumar against the registration of the trademark 'Shiv Shakti' by Rudi Roller Flour Mills. The court found that despite some phonetic similarity, the composite nature of the respondent's mark—including the device of Trishul and Damru—created a sufficient visual and phonetic difference from the petitioner's 'Shakti Bhog'. Furthermore, the court ruled that Section 12(3) (concurrent user provision) was not applicable because the trademarks were not identical.
Sahana Soap Works And Ors. v.Kanpur Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. And ...
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a trial court's interim injunction. The case involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off concerning soap wrappers, where the plaintiff argued their 'GHARI' mark was being copied by defendants using identical designs. Based on evidence showing the plaintiffs had significantly larger business volume and were prior users, the court upheld the initial restraint order against the defendants.
Marico Industries Ltd. v.Sarfaraj Trading Company, Hyderabad
Marico Industries Ltd. appealed a single judge's order that refused to allow it to combine its copyright infringement suit with claims for trademark infringement and passing off against Sarfaraj Trading Company. The court examined whether this discretionary refusal was appealable, ultimately adopting the principle that an order putting an end to proceedings constitutes a judgment. Finding that granting leave would prevent multiplicity of litigation, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the single judge's order.
Perry Bottling Company v.S.S. Soda & Soft Drinks Company And Ors.
The plaintiff, Perry Bottling Company, filed a suit for injunction alleging that the respondents were deceiving customers by using a copy of their registered trademark on 'Fruit Beer'. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, finding dissimilarity and arguing that 'Fruit Beer' was not exclusively owned. The High Court overturned this decision, holding that phonetic similarity existed and granting an interim injunction.
S.R. Thorat Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Sahyadri Dairy
The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal, granting S.R. Thorat Milk Products a temporary injunction against Sahyadri Dairy in a passing off suit. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'P.B. Thorat Milk,' coupled with highly similar packaging and trade dress (green diagonal lines, layout, font), was likely to deceive the public into believing their products were those of the Plaintiff. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting brand identity beyond just the name.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Co. v.Vani Vilas Snuff Co.
This Madras High Court judgment addressed applications for interim injunctions concerning the alleged infringement and passing off related to snuff packaging designs (get-up and color scheme). The court found that neither party provided sufficient, valid documentary evidence to establish prior use or originality regarding the distinctive sachet design. Consequently, the applications seeking permanent injunctions were dismissed, though the respondent was directed to submit periodic accounts.
Nectar (U.K.) Ltd. v.Herbs Shop India Ltd.
Nectar (U.K.) Ltd. challenged an interim injunction restraining it from using the trademark NECTAR for cosmetic products, which was granted by Herbs Shop India Ltd.'s suit. The Delhi High Court examined the conduct of the plaintiff and the validity of the appellant's rights. Ultimately, the court found that the appellant had a proper assignment of rights from the principal party (Respondent No. 3), leading to the setting aside of the injunction order.
M/S Midas Hygenic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Sudhir Bhatia And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Midas Hygenic Industries Pvt. Ltd., restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products under the disputed mark LAXMANREKHA. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, relying on evidence of prior use of the phrase 'Laxman Rekha' in advertisements dating back to 1991. This ruling provides immediate protection to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.
S.V.S. Oil Mills Represented By Its ... v.S.V.S. Rajkumar Trading As Agro Foods & ...
The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of S.V.S. Oil Mills against S.V.S. Rajkumar Trading As Agro Foods, finding that the respondent was engaging in passing off. The court determined that despite family connections and prior disputes over the name 'S.V.S.', the use of the identical trademark by the respondent for similar edible oil goods would create confusion among consumers. Given the applicant's long-standing goodwill and market presence, the injunction was upheld to protect the established brand.
S.V.S. Oil Mills v.S.V.S. Agro Refineries P. Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of S.V.S. Oil Mills, finding that the respondent's use of the identical trade name 'S.V.S.' for edible oil and Vanaspathi would cause confusion among consumers. The court emphasized that the applicant had established a long-standing reputation and goodwill associated with the mark across the state. Given the similarity in goods and the potential for irreparable harm to the applicant's business, the injunction was deemed necessary.
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v.Rainforest Cafe And Ors.
The plaintiff, Rainforest Cafe, Inc., sought an interim injunction against defendants operating a restaurant under the name 'RAINFOREST CAFE', alleging that the defendant was copying its globally recognized trade mark and style. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case based on its worldwide reputation and noted that passing off applies to services as well as goods, thus confirming the interim order.
Mars Incorporated v.Chanda Softy Ice Cream And Ors.
Mars Incorporated successfully secured an interim injunction against Chanda Softy Ice Cream And Ors. in the Madras High Court. The court recognized Mars' extensive global reputation, noting that its trademarks 'Galaxy' and 'Milky Way' had acquired significant goodwill in India through international travel and advertising (transborder reputation). Despite not manufacturing ice creams locally, the court found a prima facie case for passing off and infringement, ruling that the defendants' use of the marks was dishonest and intended to exploit Mars' established brand equity.
Laxmi Gudakhu Factory v.Avinash Gudakhu Factory
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a trial court's order that dismissed an application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff, Laxmi Gudakhu Factory, successfully argued that the respondent's use of 'Ma Saraswati Chhap Gudakhu' was deceptively similar to its registered trademark and label. Given that the product ('Gudakhu') is used by illiterate villagers, the court found a strong possibility of deception, allowing the plaintiff to secure an injunction against further infringement.
Frito-Lay India & Another v.Amit Goswamy & Another
The plaintiffs, Frito-Lay India (Pepsico subsidiary), launched a successful promotional campaign in India using collectible round discs (TAZO) with their Lays & Cheetos chips. The defendants started distributing similar discs (AMAZZO) with their Uncle Chipps product, leading to allegations of copyright infringement and passing off. The court examined the similarity between the packaging and the discs.
Reckitt & Colman Of India Ltd. v.Jyothi Laboratories Ltd.
Reckitt & Colman (appellant) challenged advertisements by Jyothi Laboratories (respondent) that allegedly disparaged its whitening agent, 'Robin Blue', in favor of the respondent's product, 'Ujala'. The appeal concerned a third advertisement, leading to a dispute over whether the court should interfere with interim orders.
Radhika Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Paawan Agro Foods Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Radhika Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., who was engaged in the business of edible oils under the trademark 'Jiwan Dhara'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior use of the trade mark compared to the defendant, Paawan Agro Foods Ltd. Despite conflicting evidence regarding invoice authenticity, the judge concluded that the plaintiff met the prima facie requirements for an injunction, preventing the defendant from continuing to use the disputed mark until the final disposal of the suit.
Madan Lal Jain v.Babu Di Fancy Hatti
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, alleging infringement and passing off related to their cosmetics. The respondent challenged an ad interim injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff by seeking temporary relief. The High Court found that the defendant was the prior user of the trade mark 'Clear Fresh' and upheld the trial court's decision to grant the injunction.
Arun Digamber Varangaonkar v.M/S. Kharpe Gruh Udyog And 2 Others
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement regarding his spices preparation under the mark 'GHARKUL' against the defendants. The court was asked by the defendants to revoke the ex parte leave granted to the plaintiff. After considering jurisdiction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored trying the case in Amravati, where both parties resided and manufactured goods.
Arun Digamber Varangaonkar v.M/S. Kharpe Gruth Udyog And Others
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against the defendants concerning their masala products. The core dispute revolved around whether the Bombay High Court had proper jurisdiction to hear the case, given that both parties primarily resided and conducted business in Amravati. After considering the facts, including the residence of the plaintiff and manufacturing location of goods, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored a trial in Amravati. Consequently, the ex parte leave previously granted was revoked, allowing the defendants to proceed with their chamber summons.
Kellogg Company v.Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai And Another
Kellogg Company appealed a single judge's order that refused to grant a temporary injunction against Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai and another. The dispute centered on the respondent using a corn flakes carton similar in size and design (trade dress) to Kellogg's, leading to allegations of consumer confusion. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the prominent difference between 'Kellogg's' and 'AIMS ARISTO' made any likelihood of confusion negligible.
Jothi Chemicals And Detergents v.Jyothy Laboratories
The Madras High Court dismissed the application seeking to maintain an interim injunction, favoring Jyothy Laboratories. The court found that Jothi Chemicals failed to establish a strong prima facie case for passing off, noting significant laches on the part of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant demonstrated extensive market presence and reputation since 1982-83, while the plaintiff's operation was characterized as a small cottage industry with delayed claims.
M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. v.The Coca Cola Co.
The dispute involved trade rivalry and contractual issues between M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. (GBC) and The Coca Cola Co., concerning the bottling and distribution rights for various soft drink brands like Thums Up and Limca. GBC was party to several agreements with Coca Cola, but it allegedly breached these terms by transferring shares without consent. The Supreme Court upheld an interim injunction granted in favor of Coca Cola.
Carew Phipson Limited v.Deejay Distilleries Pvt. Limited
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of spirituous liquors, claimed that the defendants were deceptively using similar bottle labels and marks ('English Duet Gin N Lime', 'Duet Gin N Orange') for their competing alcoholic preparations. The plaintiffs sought interim relief for passing off and copyright infringement.
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.