FMCG — India Trademark Cases
338 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 12 · 338 total
Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade
The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.
Krishan Lal Bansal v.Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Krishan Lal Bansal, who challenged the Registrar of Trademarks for incorrectly showing his 'Ganesh Chap' trademark status as 'Removed'. The court found that the initial registration was flawed—issued years late but confined to a past date (03.02.1996). Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if renewal was neglected, the Respondent failed in its duty by not issuing proper notices before cancellation. Consequently, the Registrar was mandated to issue a renewed trademark certificate with future validity.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Viraj Harjai & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification to Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a major online beauty retailer operating under the mark 'PURPLLE'. The court cancelled two registrations held by the respondent for similar marks ('PURPLLE TREE/'), finding that the petitioner was the prior and continuous user. This decision underscores the importance of establishing genuine, long-standing market presence over mere application dates when challenging trademark validity.
Heritage Foods (India) Limited v.Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'HERITAGE' registered by Good Health Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., citing prior use by Heritage Foods (India) Limited. Despite the petitioner demonstrating substantial sales turnover and long-standing use, the court found evidence supporting the first respondent's honest and bona fide adoption of the mark for edible oils since 1994. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the court imposed a crucial condition: the registration remains valid only for edible oils.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc and The Hershey Company v.Dukes Consumer Care Limited and The Registrar of Trademarks
Iconic IP Interests LLC and The Hershey Company successfully petitioned the Madras High Court for the rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark 'TWO MUCH'. The petitioners argued that the respondent's mark had not been used continuously for five years from its date of registration. Given the lack of evidence of use by Dukes Consumer Care Limited, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar to remove the impugned entry from the register.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Sharanjeet Singh
Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.
Dwarka Matlani v.Jay Daryani
Dwarka Matlani filed a rectification petition challenging the copyright registration granted to Jay Daryani for the label and packaging titled 'ROYAL'. The petitioner argued that the registered artwork was a slavish imitation of their own established trademark/label, which they had used since 1997. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the registration process concealed material facts regarding the true ownership of the artistic work. The court found that the respondent's label was an imitation and lacked originality, making it ineligible for copyright protection. Given these findings, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the removal of the impugned copyright from the Register.
M/S. SONA BEVERAGES PVT LTD v.THE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND ANR
The Calcutta High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S. Sona Beverages Pvt Ltd seeking the removal of the mark 'SIMBA' registered in favor of The Coca-Cola Company. The court found that the trademark, which had lapsed on February 24, 2020, was never renewed despite receiving official notices from the Registry. Consequently, the court directed the expunging of the expired registration.
First Fiddle F & B Private Limited v.Big Fish Ventures
Plaintiffs, owners of the brand name "The Lord of the Drinks," sued Defendants for infringing their trademark and damaging goodwill. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misused the brand name after a franchise agreement was terminated, leading to public outrage and reputational harm.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 3213226). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and well-reputed 'FREEDOM' marks, noting that the addition of a prefix did not differentiate it sufficiently. Given the identical nature of the goods and target consumers, the registration was deemed obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
Surindar Pal Singh v.Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi and New Ichhadhari and Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court listed the case involving Surindar Pal Singh and Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi. The court granted time to both parties to verify the outcome or status of a pending rectification application filed under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. This indicates that the dispute over the trademark's validity or registration is still active and awaiting further judicial determination.
Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.V.Shanmugam And S.Murugesan (Trading as Arokiya Foods)
Hatsun Agro Product Limited sought the cancellation of a registered trademark ('AROKIYA') held by V.Shanmugam and S.Murugesan, alleging non-usage for over five years under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's minor alteration to the mark (removing a device mark) did not constitute a substantial change affecting its identity. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding non-usage.
Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.V.Shanmugam And S.Murugesan (Trading as Arokiya Foods)
Hatsun Agro Product Limited sought the cancellation of a registered trademark ('AROKIYA') held by V.Shanmugam and S.Murugesan, alleging non-usage for over five years under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's minor alteration to the mark (removing a device mark) did not constitute a substantial change affecting its identity. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding non-usage.
Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.V.Shanmugam And S.Murugesan (Trading as Arokiya Foods)
Hatsun Agro Product Limited sought the cancellation of a registered trademark ('AROKIYA') held by V.Shanmugam and S.Murugesan, alleging non-usage for over five years under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's minor alteration to the mark (removing a device mark) did not constitute a substantial change affecting its identity. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding non-usage.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Make Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v.Pankaj Laljibhai Kachadia & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'MAKSHINE,' which was flagged as likely to be removed due to non-renewal. Citing precedents from other high courts, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from its official website. This order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition should the trademark eventually be renewed, effectively resolving the immediate issue while preserving future rights.
Make Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v.Pankaj Laljibhai Kachadia & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'MAKSHINE,' which was flagged as likely to be removed due to non-renewal. Citing precedents from other high courts, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from its official website. This order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition should the trademark eventually be renewed, effectively resolving the immediate issue while preserving future rights.
Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. v.Rehan Talat Khan and N.S. Sangolli
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. filed an application to set aside an arbitration award dated 10-01-2012. The dispute arose from a partnership in M/s Gambaz Foods International, involving allegations of breach of trust, financial misappropriation, and trademark disputes related to the brand 'Prawnto'.
M S Cothas Coffee Co. v.Ms Cotha Associates
The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.
Sh Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal Kumar Gupta & Ors. v.State(Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order rectifying entries in the Trade Marks Register concerning two trademarks (No. 1116678 and No. 2091984). Following mediation settlement, the court restored M/s Rattan Milk Specialities Private Limited as the original proprietor of TM No. 1116678, cancelling previous entries in favor of Nirmal Kumar. The court also rectified the entry related to TM No. 2094984. While the petitioners sought quashing of an FIR, the primary focus was on correcting the trademark ownership records based on the settlement terms.
Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v.Smt Krishnaben Dipesh Gol & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a significant victory to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar 'AMUL' trademark registered by the respondents in Class-06. The court recognized AMUL as a well-known trademark entitled to high protection across classes, thereby preventing unauthorized use and protecting the brand's integrity. This ruling reinforces the robust legal standing of established national brands against subsequent registrations.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh And ... v.Suresh Kumar Suman
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh & Co. KG, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel using the identical trademark 'HUGO BOSS' in South Delhi. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief after the defendant failed to file a written statement despite being served.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Raghav Jaggi
Rupa Gujral and others filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking removal of an impugned trademark (No. 3777931) related to 'Original Dal Makhani & Butter Chicken'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent, Raghav Jaggi, requiring him to file a reply within six weeks. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 25, 2024.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addressed petitions challenging two existing copyright registrations held by M/s Anil Food Industries. The petitioner, Alka Food Industries, alleged that these registrations for artistic labels were obtained improperly and in contravention of statutory rules. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to all interested parties during the registration process. The Court directed that the impugned copyrights be treated as revoked/cancelled, while simultaneously reviving the original applications. This allows the Petitioner a fresh opportunity to file an opposition, ensuring the matter is re-decided in accordance with law.
M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar v.G.Saravanan
The Madras High Court closed an Original Petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration after both parties entered into a joint compromise memo. The petitioner, M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar, successfully secured commitments from G.Saravanan to cease using the disputed mark and take steps within 30 days to cancel Registration No. 3814752 in Class 29. This settlement provides a definitive resolution to the trademark dispute.
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.