FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 19 · 551 total
M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private Limited v.M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant challenging the District Judge's order that allowed the Respondent to file a suit afresh regarding trademark infringement. While initial applications concerning delay condonation were granted, the core dispute over jurisdiction—specifically why a 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court instead of under the Commercial Courts Act—was deferred. The court has now scheduled further proceedings for August 19, 2025, requiring both parties to file detailed notes of contentions.
Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd against Nippon Paint. While addressing various interlocutory applications, the court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings for an interim injunction, setting a date for further arguments on the matter of trademark infringement.
Ashok Kumar Bhatia Trading As Kanika Impetus v.Kamal Raheja Trading As Amaira Herbals
The Delhi High Court issued an interim stay on a Commercial Court's order that had made an ad-interim injunction absolute. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off concerning the identical trademark 'MARKS GO' used for skin products by both parties. While noting procedural deficiencies in the lower court's decision regarding passing off principles, the High Court ultimately decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order pending a full appeal hearing.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
San Nutrition Private Limited v.Arpit Mangal And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed the tension between brand reputation and freedom of speech in influencer marketing. San Nutrition Private Limited sought an interim injunction against social media influencers, alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices based on critical videos about its products. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or disparagement. The judgment emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected unless demonstrably false or malicious.
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP v.M/s. NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP, finding that the defendant's use of 'NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant' constituted deceptive similarity and trademark infringement. The court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, especially since both parties operate in the identical restaurant business. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions against further misuse and an order for the destruction of all infringing materials.
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.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.
Dominos Ip Holder LLC successfully secured an interim injunction against M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors. in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that the defendant's use of names like 'Dominic Pizza' and 'Domindo Pizza' was highly likely to cause confusion, deception, and passing off with the globally renowned Domino's brand. This preliminary order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's trademarks while the main suit proceeds.
Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding Kpn Farm Fresh Private Limited's application for the word mark 'KPN'. The court found that the initial decision failed to consider the appellant's defense of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the TM Act. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration on this crucial legal point.
Cadbury Uk Limited v.ITC Limited
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks be formally included in the proceedings. This procedural step ensures all relevant parties are involved in the ongoing litigation between Cadbury UK Limited and ITC Limited. Furthermore, the court granted the petitioner liberty to carry out necessary informal amendments to their case filings. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 5th, 2025.
Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited v.Friends Inc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Friends Inc for infringing the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark. Furthermore, the court declared 'PETER ENGLAND' as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment emphasized that compliance with initial restraining orders was sufficient to proceed toward final decree and recognition of brand reputation.
The Good Stuff Private Ltd. v.Golden Chocolates Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of appeals between The Good Stuff Private Ltd. and Golden Chocolates Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark disputes over 'Luvit Dairy Rich' and 'Appeal Dairy Rich'. Key terms included the respondent modifying its product label, withdrawing specific trademark and copyright applications, and agreeing not to challenge the appellant's existing trademarks. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without further litigation.
Birendra Prasad Sah v.Debendra Jalewal
The Gauhati High Court set aside several ex-parte orders passed by the Civil Judge, Nalbari, concerning a trademark infringement dispute over 'Matar Mixture.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent failed to adhere to procedural mandates, including providing notice before search and seizure (Misc. J Case 27/2023) and granting an injunction without allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard (Misc. J Case 28/2023). While dismissing the revision petition on maintainability grounds, the court vacated the interim order, effectively protecting the petitioner's business operations pending further proceedings in the trial court.
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.
M/s.TTK Prestige Limited v.Sarvodaya Industries
M/s. TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Sarvodaya Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'PROTEIN' to infringe upon the registered trademarks and artistic logo of 'PRESTIGE'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which the court subsequently recorded and decreed.
M/S GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. v.M/S EVERGREEN VENEERS PVT. LTD.
The plaintiff, Greenply Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark 'GREEN' against the defendant, Evergreen Veneers Pvt. Ltd., who was using the mark 'EVERGREEN' on similar goods (plywood products). The court examined issues of delay and trademark similarity.
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.
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. Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Private Limited v.M/s. Narasu'S Saarathy Enterprises Private limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order by the Commercial District Court, Salem, which allowed the respondent to file a written statement beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner argued that since the suit was filed under the Trademarks Act and designated as commercial, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that because the specified value of the suit was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Courts Act did not grant jurisdiction to the court in the first place. Consequently, the Trial Court's decision to accept the written statement was upheld on the ground of lack of commercial jurisdiction.
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.
The Hershey Company v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Hershey Company successfully sought the expansion of its existing interim injunction against new parties found to be engaging in trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead several new defendants and extended the protective order, specifically restraining them from using or reproducing the company's name and marks on domains like THEHERSHEYCOMPANY.IN. This ruling reinforces the court's willingness to expand injunctive relief when evidence reveals additional infringing parties.
Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a suit filed by Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. against Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their 'MAHARAJA' brand. The core issue was unauthorized sellers latching onto the plaintiffs' product listings on the e-commerce platform, using the plaintiff's trademark in invoices. While the suit was ultimately disposed of without a final judgment on damages, the Court issued critical mandatory directions compelling Flipkart to actively prevent this practice and immediately disable the 'latching-on' feature upon notification from the plaintiffs.
M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries v.M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar Saroja Hangaraki Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries, quashing an earlier order that had dismissed their application for staying civil suit proceedings. The petitioners sought to halt the ongoing litigation (O.S.No.3/2012) while their trademark rectification application was pending before the Madras High Court. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act mandates a stay on civil proceedings when a rectification application is pending, thereby granting relief and directing the petitioners to expedite the process.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates And Ors
In an amicable settlement reached before the Delhi High Court, Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd secured a decree against Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates. The parties agreed that the defendants would transition their seven existing 'Sagar Express' outlets into franchisees under Sagar Ratna's brand. Crucially, the defendants committed to surrendering the 'Sagar Express' trademark and agreeing not to use any similar names in the future, effectively resolving long-standing trademark infringement disputes.
SMC NOVA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED v.SURYA MARKETING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court ordered the settlement of an IP dispute between SMC Nova Estate Private Limited and Surya Marketing Company. The matter specifically concerned the respondent's mark in relation to Tea and Elachi products. As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to file documentation showing a proposed change in their packaging and trademark, replacing 'NOVA' with 'SUPERHOVA', before the court.
Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited v.Ashok Kumar(S)/ John Doe(S)
In a major infringement suit concerning hygiene products, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs favoring the plaintiffs, Reckitt & Colman. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead Ashok Kumar and John Doe as defendants and sanctioned an extensive local commission to investigate counterfeiting activities related to brands like HARPIC and LIZOL. Furthermore, the court provided exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, paving the way for swift enforcement of their claims regarding trademark, copyright, design, and passing off infringement.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar Anr.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Ashok Kumar Anr. for infringing their registered trademark 'COOKME'. The plaintiffs alleged that they only discovered the infringement in July 2024, necessitating urgent legal action. The Calcutta High Court granted leave to proceed with the suit under various provisions, including Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the plaint to be admitted subject to departmental scrutiny.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.Mr Jayesh Dilip Mehta & Anr.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed multiple applications seeking an injunction against Mr. Jayesh Dilip Mehta and others, alleging that the respondents were communicating with e-commerce platforms to falsely claim infringement of their trademark 'MYFITNESS'. The petitioner argues that the respondents' actions are causing product delisting on major online marketplaces. While the respondent opposes the maintainability of the applications, citing different sections of the Trade Marks Act, the court has ordered notice and set a date for further arguments.
Himalaya Wellness Company And Ors v.Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found a prima facie case for passing off, noting that the plaintiffs have established significant goodwill with their 'HIMALAYA' brand since 1930. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'HIMALAYAN ORGANICS', though they were allowed three months to exhaust existing stock.
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.