FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 19 · 551 total
V.K.R.Venkatesan Trading as V.K.R. Prakash Modern Rice Mill v.M.Selvanambi Trading as Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mills
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against M. Selvanambi, alleging infringement of his 'SIVAJI BRAND' trademark and copyright violation concerning rice packaging. The original prayer sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of similar marks and labels. However, on April 16, 2024, the court noted that the plaintiff's counsel had requested withdrawal of the suit, leading to its dismissal.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v.JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the word 'silk' in relation to paint products. While acknowledging that 'silk' can be used descriptively to denote a specific product finish, the court cautioned against its misuse as a trademark that could lead to consumer confusion (passing off). The court allowed JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd. to continue using 'silk' on their product tumblers, provided they strictly limit its use only to products with a silk finish and clearly state this description in advertisements. The core proprietary rights of Berger Paints India Ltd. over the term remain undecided pending trial.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Honasa Consumer Limited's appeal against the refusal to register its trademark 'THE DERMA CO'. The initial rejection was based on similarity and likelihood of confusion with an earlier cited mark. However, by providing a disclaimer that they only claim rights over the composite mark and not the word 'DERMA', the court accepted the application. This decision highlights how strategic disclaimers can overcome objections in trademark registration proceedings.
Adret Retail Private Limited v.Abhinandan Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a detailed order in the ongoing suit concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off by defendants using the 'KAPIVA' family of marks. The court granted an interim injunction application (I.A. 8103/2024) by directing the execution of local commissioners' commissions at the defendants' premises. This action is crucial for the plaintiff, Adret Retail Private Limited, to gather evidence regarding the alleged counterfeit products and unauthorized use of their registered trademarks in the market.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, directions for destruction of infringing materials, and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual agreement and settled the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (JMC).
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the edible oil market. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'SATHYAM GOLD' on products mimicking the plaintiff's registered brand 'Gold Winner'. Both parties ultimately agreed to settle the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading the court to decree the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Fabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v.Rajkumar Sabu
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex family dispute concerning the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' used for sabudana. The appeal challenged a lower court judgment that favored the respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove prior use of the mark. Recognizing the contentious nature and the underlying familial connection to the brand creation, the Court directed that the status quo ante should be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal. This allows both parties to continue operating their businesses without claiming sole ownership.
Waycool Food Products Private Limited v.Cheedalla Gopinath, Aditya Rice Enterprises, Sree KVR Industries
Waycool Food Products Private Limited filed a civil suit against several defendants alleging passing off, copyright infringement, and misuse of its distinctive trade dress and logo in the packed rice market. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged violations. Ultimately, both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on February 17, 2024, leading to the court decreeing the suit while noting that the plaintiff had waived the claim for monetary damages.
Joy Creators Llp v.Bath And Body Works Brands Management Inc.
The Delhi High Court directed both parties to engage in mandatory pre-litigation mediation regarding a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'JOY'. The plaintiff sought an injunction against Bath & Body Works for alleged passing off and trademark infringement. However, the court noted that the defendants had previously proposed a resolution, suggesting they would only sell the product through their own branded stores to avoid confusion, and were willing to refrain from filing trademarks on 'JOY' as a descriptive term. Given these discussions, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with litigation.
Campus Activewear Limited v.Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in Campus Activewear Limited vs Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and designs related to shoes. The court formally registered the commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial. Furthermore, the urgent application seeking a permanent injunction was listed for further hearing, indicating that the core dispute over copying Campus's brand and design is moving forward.
Burberry Limited v.M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Burberry Limited filed a claim against M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors., alleging that the defendants' perfumes bearing 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL' marks were deceptively similar to Burberry's registered trademarks and trade dress. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders, including granting exemptions for document filing and directing the defendants to provide a detailed affidavit regarding all goods manufactured under the impugned marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement and passing off.
Gopaljee Foods v.Subhash Chand & Ors.
In Gopaljee Foods vs Subhash Chand & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes, noting that an ex-parte ad interim injunction previously granted in favor of the petitioner regarding trademark infringement had been confirmed by a Coordinate Bench. The court also noted attempts by respondents to revive abandoned trademarks and make changes to user dates, requiring them to place supporting documentation on record for further consideration.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Saraswati Devi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Ms. Saraswati Devi and others. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case that the Defendants' use of 'KHADI BHANDAR' is deceptively similar to its registered KHADI Trademarks and Charkha Logos, leading to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from using the infringing marks in relation to identical goods.
Shri Dhiraj Kumar v.R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Shri Dhiraj Kumar against R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd. The petitioner had challenged an injunction granted by the District Judge, arguing procedural flaws related to pre-litigation mediation and statutory bars under the Trade Marks Act. The High Court ruled that since the parties had already engaged in and failed mediation, re-arguing the necessity of pre-institution mediation was untenable. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's plea regarding appeal restrictions under the TM Act, allowing the original suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off to continue.
Villain Lifestyle Private Limited v.Mr. Vipul Dhankher
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the trademark infringement suit dismissed, upholding the maintainability of the case. The court recognized that the plaintiff's apprehension—based on the defendant's filings for registrations and oppositions using a similar mark 'VILEN'—constitutes a valid cause of action under the doctrine of quia timet. This ruling provides strong judicial backing for proactive IP protection against imminent infringement threats.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul) against Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited. The judgment was reached after both parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged that the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress were valid, and undertook to cease all use of similar marks/labels. Consequently, the court upheld the terms of this settlement, granting relief to Amul.
Hp Organic Foods Private Limited v.Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hp Organic Foods Private Limited against Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors. The court allowed procedural exemptions for the plaintiff, including filing additional documents and waiving pre-litigation mediation. Crucially, regarding the injunction application (Order XXXIX), the court noted the plaintiff's claims of extensive sales and deceptive similarity in the 'INDANA FRESH' brand used by the defendants. The court directed notice to the defendants and mandated them to maintain detailed accounts of their product sales.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Azizur Rahaman And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd's petition to combine its claims for passing off with those for trademark and copyright infringement. This strategic move aims to streamline litigation by consolidating multiple causes of action into a single proceeding. Consequently, the court expanded the existing ad-interim injunction, reinforcing the restraint on defendants from manufacturing or trading goods that deceptively resemble HUL's distinctive brands like Lakme and its associated artistic works.
Ajay Goyal v.Anil Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement case filed by Ajay Goyal against Anil Verma & Anr. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking an injunction, recognizing claims of deceptive similarity between 'SUFIYANA' and 'SUFIYAMA', alongside copying of trade dress and artistic work. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing products and materials, ensuring the continuation of the suit while addressing urgent concerns regarding trademark infringement.
Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd. v.Idam Natural Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd., a leading FMCG manufacturer, against its defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and disparagement. The court found that the Plaintiff's distinctive trade dress and registered mark 'SECRET TEMPTATION' were being referenced negatively in an advertisement. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 was restrained from broadcasting the impugned video, and Defendant No. 2 (YouTube) was directed to block/takedown the offending content.
M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd. v.M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd., to implead two additional parties—M/s Satnam Mart Private Limited and M/s JK Print Pack—in its ongoing trademark infringement suit against M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs. This move was based on evidence gathered during a local commission inspection, which revealed that the defendant's infringing products were manufactured by Satnam Mart and printed by JK Print Pack. The court proceeded to issue summonses to these newly added defendants, ensuring the litigation can proceed against all responsible parties.
Vidli Restaurants Limited v.Alok Sovind Chandewar
Vidli Restaurants Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Application seeking dispute resolution related to its Franchise Agreement with Alok Sovind Chandewar. The core of the dispute involved Vidli alleging that the Respondent was using a deceptively similar mark, constituting trademark infringement post-termination of the agreement. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application, ruling that since Vidli was merely a licensee and not the owner of the trademarks, it lacked the legal standing to initiate arbitration over the alleged infringement.
Bawa Masala Co Pvt Ltd v.Bawa Masala Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Trademarks Office's decision regarding the abandonment of an opposition. The core issue was whether service effected via email to a correct address constituted sufficient legal notice, allowing the opposition timeline to begin. Despite arguments that sending an email is a recognized mode of service, the court ruled that mere dispatch creates only a presumption, which can be rebutted by the recipient demonstrating non-receipt. Since the opponent successfully proved they never received the counter statement, the appeal was dismissed.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Daryaganj Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a passing off suit concerning the 'Moti Mahal' trademark. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were misleading the public by associating their restaurants with the Plaintiffs' famous brand, citing misuse of predecessor photographs and marks. While the Defendants vehemently disputed the claims, they offered a conciliatory gesture, committing to remove the disputed photograph from their website without conceding liability. The court proceeded to issue notices for an interim injunction while setting timelines for written statements and framing issues.
Xero Degrees v.M/S Frankart Global Private Limited & Ors.
In a dispute over the 'XERO DEGREES' brand, Xero Degrees sought an interim injunction against M/S Frankart Global Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark and operates extensively in the Food & Beverages sector. Despite the defendants claiming prior ownership of the name and logo, the court proceeded to issue notice for a hearing on the injunctive relief, setting the stage for further litigation.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v.Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.
M/S Loreal S.A. v.Ravi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
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.