FMCG — India Trademark Cases
913 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 31 · 913 total
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.
Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. v.Brighto Chemical Industrial
The plaintiff, Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., sued Brighto Chemical Industrial for infringing its registered trade mark 'ODOPIC' and causing consumer confusion due to the defendant selling a similar product under the name 'magnet' with an identical label design. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted prima facie dishonest infringement of the plaintiff's trademark, rejecting the defense of delay or lack of jurisdiction.
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.
Gold Star Co. Ltd. v.Gold Star Industries Ltd. And Ors.
The plaintiff, Gold Star Co. Ltd., sought an interlocutory order against the defendant for infringing its globally recognized and registered trade mark 'Gold Star'. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark in respect of products like washing machines was an infringement and amounted to passing off, thereby suffering damage to the plaintiff's reputation.
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. v.Suraj Industries Ltd.
The petitioner (Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd.) sought an ad interim injunction against the respondent (Suraj Industries Ltd.), alleging that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('ANGAN' with a flower device) for Vanaspati oil, causing passing off. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case and that granting the injunction would cause irreparable injury to the defendants.
Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. v.Samabhai Tea Processors (P) Ltd.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing and selling tea under the mark "SARGAM". The plaintiff argued that it was the first user and proprietor of the mark. After considering the equities, the court stayed the impugned order until May 4, 1994, provided the respondent also allowed the plaintiff to sell its product.
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.
Sushil Vasudev v.Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, operating under the trade name and trademark 'Kwality Ice-Cream Company', filed a suit for passing off against Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., who was using the similar mark. The appeal challenged the lower court's order vacating the temporary injunction. The High Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie right to goodwill, and granted an interim injunction.
G.T.C. Industries Ltd., Bombay v.I.T.C. Limited, Madras
The dispute involved two suits regarding alleged infringement and passing off of cigarette brands. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's 'Gold Flake' cigarettes were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'Wills Fold Flake' trade mark (No. 110438).
Colgate-Palmolive And Others v.Dr. K.V. Swaminathan And Another
Colgate-Palmolive challenged the Central Government's order rejecting its application to be registered as a Registered User for its trademarks in India. The government refused registration citing concerns over foreign brand names affecting indigenous industry development, particularly in the small scale sector manufacturing brushes. The High Court set aside this rejection order and directed the government to re-examine the applications.
Girnar Tea v.Brook Bond (India) Ltd.
Girnar Tea filed a suit for passing off against Brook Bond (India) Ltd. alleging that the latter was using the deceptively similar mark 'GULNAR' on tea cartons, thereby confusing consumers. The court found that both marks were phonetically and visually similar, and despite initial arguments regarding retail outlets, ruled in favor of Girnar Tea, granting an injunction.
Dharam Pal Satya Pal v.Janta Sales Corporation
The plaintiff, using the trade mark 'RAJNI' for Chewing Tobacco since 1980, sued Janta Sales Corporation for adopting the identical mark 'RAJANI' for Paan Masala. The plaintiff also claimed copyright infringement regarding their distinctive packaging design. The court found prima facie grounds for passing off due to phonetic and visual similarity and likelihood of confusion.
Pillaiyar Soda Factory v.Union Of India And Ors.
Six proprietary concerns manufacturing and selling aerated waters challenged the Collector of Central Excise's order which denied them tax exemptions due to the alleged use of common or closely similar trade marks, specifically 'Sri Ganesh'. The petitioners argued that they were independent entities with distinct brand names. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned order.
Express Bottlers Services Private Ltd. v.Pepsico Inc. And Ors.
This Calcutta High Court case addressed an application to remove the marks 'Pepsi' and 'Pepsi Cola' from the register based on non-use under Section 46 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The petitioner argued that Pepsico Inc. had failed to use its trademarks for a continuous period of five years or more. However, the court ruled in favor of Pepsico, finding that due to severe government import restrictions and trade policies, the non-use was not intentional abandonment but rather a result of special circumstances. The court concluded that Pepsico maintained goodwill and reputation by using the marks in limited markets like bonded warehouses and embassies.
Quality Chef Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. v.Ranjith Agro Foods & Ors.
This Madras High Court case involves a dispute over the trademark 'ROYALCHEF' used for exporting rice and food products from India to Qatar. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are infringing their exclusive rights through passing off and unfair competition by using an identical or deceptively similar mark. The suit seeks a permanent injunction, destruction of offending goods, payment of profits, and substantial damages. The court has proceeded with the trial, examining evidence and documents related to trademark usage and alleged infringement.
Bijoli Grill Spencer'S Product v.Spencers & Co. Ltd.
Bijoli Grill Spencer's Product sought an injunction to protect its right to use the trade mark and trade name 'Spencer' in relation to mineral aerated waters, challenging Spencers & Co. Ltd.'s rights. The court examined the history of the marks and found that the petitioner could not establish a concurrent right.
Gazipur Chemical Works And Ors. v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks And ...
This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses an appeal against the refusal to register a trade mark for 'Keora water.' The core dispute revolved around whether the proposed mark was deceptively similar or conflicted with existing registered marks held by the opponent. While the appellant argued that the Deputy Registrar erred in his assessment of similarity, the court ultimately upheld the registrar's decision. The judgment reinforces established principles regarding consumer perception and the necessity of considering the 'whole picture' when determining trade mark confusion.
The Imperial Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr.
The Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. appealed the Registrar's refusal to register its trade mark, which featured 'Simla' and snow-clad hills on cigarette packets. The court examined whether the geographical name could be registered despite being inherently non-distinctive, even with evidence of extensive sales.
S. B. S. Jayam And Co. v.Krishnamoorthi, Proprietor, Gopi ...
The plaintiff, proprietor of the registered trade mark "Gopal Tooth Powder," sued the defendant for infringing this mark with "Gobi Tooth Powder." The primary preliminary issue was whether the Madras High Court had territorial jurisdiction, given that the infringement allegedly occurred only in Andhra Pradesh. The court held that since the registration of the mark (which is property) took place in Madras, the cause of action arose there.
Bawa Masala Company v.Gulzari Lal Lajpat Rai
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the alleged infringement of Bawa Masala Company's registered trademark for 'Meat Masala' and claims of passing off. The court examined the visual identity (get up) of both parties' packaging, finding that despite some similarities in script usage, the overall design, color scheme, and distinctive features were dissimilar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, ruling that no consumer would be deceived into mistaking the respondent's product for the appellant's.
The J.B. Williams Co., Inc And Anr. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.
The petitioner, a manufacturer and proprietor of several trade marks related to toilet preparations, applied to be registered as a sole registered user. The Registrar refused the application citing concerns about foreign exchange expenditure affecting indigenous brands. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since the company was incorporated in India, it could not be classified as a foreign company for this purpose.
Sukhdayal And Ors. v.Prina Chemical Works And Ors.
The defendants appealed against a trial court order that found them guilty of passing off goods using a similar trade mark ('Sun Brand No. 1919') to the plaintiffs' 'Sun Brand Hair Dye 929'. The appellate court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were estopped from suing due to laches and delay.
K.R. Chinnikrishna Chetty Trading As ... v.K. Venkatesa Mudaliar And K. ...
The appeal concerned an opposition filed against the registration of the trade mark 'Radha's Sri Andal' for snuff. The respondents argued that this mark was deceptively similar to their well-known marks, 'Sri Ambal Snuff', which they had been using for decades. The court ultimately held that despite the addition of 'Radha', the combination was likely to cause confusion among consumers.
T.G. Balaji Chettiar v.Hindustan Lever Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal filed by T.G. Balaji Chettiar seeking registration of the 'surian' trademark for soaps, challenging Hindustan Lever Ltd.'s opposition. The court ultimately dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding that he failed to provide sufficient evidence of continuous and honest use of his mark. Furthermore, the established reputation and extensive prior usage by Hindustan Lever with marks like 'Sunlight' were heavily weighed against the appellant's claims.
Nekumar K. Porwal v.Mohanlal Hargovindas
The appeal challenged the Deputy Registrar's order rectifying a registered trademark (No. 131148) by deleting 'Bull' from 'Bull Dog'. The respondents argued the mark was deceptive, while the petitioner contended that the mark had been in use since 1910 and the respondents were estopped from challenging it after withdrawing their opposition. The High Court set aside the rectification order.
Consolidated Foods Corporation v.Brandon And Company Private Ltd.
Consolidated Foods Corporation appealed against the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that allowed Brandon And Company Private Ltd. to register the trademark 'Monarch'. The petitioner argued that it was the prior and exclusive proprietor of the mark globally and in India. The court found that the respondent company had copied the petitioner's mark, leading to the dismissal of the registration applications.
Corn Products Refining Co. v.Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
The Supreme Court of India addressed a trademark opposition case concerning the marks 'Glucovita' and 'Gluvita'. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, Corn Products Refining Co., finding that despite minor differences between the goods (powder vs. liquid glucose), the similarity of the marks combined with the established trade connection made confusion highly likely. This decision reinforced the principle that reputation among the general public, not just tradespeople, is a critical factor in trademark infringement analysis.
T.I. Muhammad Zumoon Sahib v.Fathimunnissa Alias Bibijan And Ors.
The plaintiffs, heirs of the original registered proprietor, sued for an injunction against the defendant for infringing the trade mark '708 Yoonus Beedi'. The core legal dispute was whether the heirs could bring the suit without formally registering their title under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The court held that the exclusive right devolves upon death and is inheritable, making the suit maintainable even before formal registration.
J.C. Eno Limited v.Vishnu Chemical Co.
J.C. Eno Limited filed a passing off action against Vishnu Chemical Co., alleging that the defendants were selling saline under the name "Falaxar," which was a colorable imitation of the plaintiffs' well-known marks, "Eno" and "Fruit Salt." The court found that the plaintiffs had established a wide reputation for their product in India. Consequently, the court granted an injunction against the defendant while awarding profits to the plaintiff.
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.