FMCG — India Trademark Cases
913 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 31 · 913 total
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. v.Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in the Delhi High Court against Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding the use of a similar mark for infant food products. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark DEXOLAC, alleged that former employees were manufacturing and selling competing products under the name HEXALAC. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss while the suit proceeds.
M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Mr. Roger Aoun
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash against Mr. Roger Aoun regarding the use of the trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND'. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of cosmetics and mehandi products, alleged that the defendant was deceptively adopting their registered mark. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the disputed mark until further hearing.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Amber Confectionery Pvt Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil suit concerning trademark infringement related to the 'TANGY TWIST' tag line and accompanying trade dress. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court formally accepted and decreed. Crucially, the judgment noted that this settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by the defendants and will not bind any third party.
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Mahadev Confectionery & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters concerning trademark disputes between Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. and Mahadev Confectionery & Ors. In the main suit, the matter was adjourned to allow further negotiation regarding a proposed change of trademark by the defendants. Separately, the court issued notice for an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, setting a date for the defendant's reply.
Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico, S. De R.L. de C.V. v.Whiskin Spirits Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico regarding its registered trademark 'CORONA'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using social media advertisements that disparaged its product by likening it to Coronavirus. The court found a prima facie case for disparagement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff's statutory and commercial interests, temporarily halting the offending advertisement.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling fruit candies under a phonetically similar mark ('PULLS') and using deceptively similar packaging to the registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and granted relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd v.Chetan Gupta
In a trademark infringement suit concerning confectionery products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('PLUSS+') and trade dress for their fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the registered 'PULSE' brand. Citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendant from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. against Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a phonetically and visually similar mark ('PLUSS') and trade dress to sell fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that granting relief was necessary to protect its commercial interests.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya v.A. Hafsabi & Anr.
The plaintiff, Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against A. Hafsabi & Anr. for infringement and passing off related to his brand KIMIA (wet dates). The plaintiff holds registered rights in the word mark KIMIA and its original artistic label. The court found that the defendants' use of 'KIMAA' and 'KEEMA' under pirated artwork was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion.
M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D S Foods And Ors.
The plaintiff, M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunction and recovery against its franchisees (defendants) for unauthorized use of the 'Sagar Ratna' trademark after termination of the franchise agreement. The defendants argued that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause in the original agreement, making the court suit non-maintainable.
Izhar Ali & Anr. v.M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar, Palri Bagh, Bahraich & Anr.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a civil revision filed by Izhar Ali & Anr. against M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar. The defendants argued that since 'Sikka Namkin' was not registered as a trademark, the suit seeking injunction was barred by law. However, the court clarified that under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a claim for passing off action can be maintained even in respect of an unregistered trademark. Consequently, the challenge to the lower court's rejection of the application failed.
Unilever Plc. v.Deepak Talreja
The petitioner, Unilever Plc., filed an interim application seeking various reliefs. The court granted leave for the plaintiff to combine the cause of action of passing off with that of infringement. Ad-interim orders were continued, including a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using trade dress or marks deceptively similar to 'BROOKE BOND RED LABEL and the U-Logo' in the tea industry.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
Hindustan Unilever Limited appealed an order that allowed Sree Annapoorna Foods to amend its plaint to include a claim for rendition of accounts. The appellant argued that this amendment changed the nature of the suit and was contrary to Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the single judge's finding that the amendment did not fundamentally alter the character of the original infringement and passing off suit.
Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. v.M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trade mark infringement suit filed by Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. against M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. The court held that since the plaintiff had not obtained a registered trademark, but only pending applications, the claim for infringement was premature and lacked cause of action. Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued that neither party was the registered proprietor of their respective marks, leading to the suit's dismissal.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation related to edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Sun O Gold' on their product, mimicking the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and its associated trade dress. Although the suit initially sought various permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
M/S Parle Products Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.M/S B&B Bake Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court overturned an injunction restraining the appellant from using 'AMERICANA' for butter cookies. The court held that since 'AMERICANA' is a common dictionary word, its legal protectability is lesser, especially when it is not registered exclusively by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court found no prima facie case of passing off because the products (cookies vs. burger buns) had distinct looks and packaging, making consumer confusion unlikely. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
M/s.Ambika Appalam Company v.Nandi Food Products
M/s. Ambika Appalam Company filed a civil suit against Nandi Food Products, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AMBIKA APPLAM' and copyright over the associated artistic work and trade dress. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of similar labels like 'AMBUJA APPALAM'. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s Anitha Marketing
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s Anitha Marketing alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'The Gold Drops' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
The plaintiff, Marico Limited, filed a Notice of Motion seeking various reliefs against the defendant, Chandrakant Gholap. The court granted leave to the Plaintiff and further granted prayer clause (d) of the Notice of Motion, which sought an injunction against the Defendant for using counterfeit PARACHUTE trade marks or trade dress in relation to edible oil preparations and other FMCG goods.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
Marico Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave and an interim injunction against Chandrakant Gholap regarding the use of the PARACHUTE trade mark and trade dress. The Court granted the leave sought by the Plaintiff and further granted the prayer for an interim injunction, restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or distributing packaging materials bearing the infringing trademark/trade dress.
M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd v.Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed disputes concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off between Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. The core dispute revolved around the similarity of trademarks 'AROKYA' and 'AAROGYA', particularly in relation to biscuit products. While the lower court had vacated an interim injunction, the appellate court focused on the procedural aspect of a Summary Judgment application filed by the defendants. Finding that the Single Judge dismissed the summary judgment request without sufficient reasons under commercial courts law, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Popular Trading Company
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Popular Trading Company alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation concerning their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Gold Drops' in relation to the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Gold Winner'. Although the initial suit sought various injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo.
Durga Dairy Ltd. v.M/s.Laxmi Food Products
Durga Dairy Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s.Laxmi Food Products seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning their 'DURGA' brand. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'LAXMI DURGA'. However, despite being granted sufficient time, the plaintiffs failed to file an application to amend the cause title due to a change in company name. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the civil suit for default.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd v.Narasu's Sarathy Industries
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd against a lower court order. The company successfully argued that it is the exclusive owner of the 'Narasu's' trade mark, dating back to 1926. Given the risk of irreparable injury and loss of goodwill due to the respondents granting licenses to third parties, the Court issued an interim injunction. This order mandates that the respondents cease all licensing or assignment activities related to the trademark until the final disposal of the civil suits.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.RVS Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.RVS Traders alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and associated copyright, specifically concerning the use of the deceptively similar mark 'SPS Gold' on edible oil products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and directions for destruction of infringing materials. However, before the final judgment was passed, both parties entered into a Compromise Memo to settle all disputes.
Royal Dryfruit Range v.Royal Taste Dry Fruits
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IP Suit involving Royal Dryfruit Range versus Royal Taste Dry Fruits. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendant, Royal Taste Dry Fruits, to remove the disputed mark 'ROYAL' from its signage and packaging, as well as withdraw its trademark application. A short extension was granted for compliance, effectively settling the immediate dispute through mutual agreement and judicial acceptance of the undertakings.
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.