FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 19 · 551 total
Dfm Foods Limited v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Private Limited & Anr.
In this intellectual property dispute concerning the 'CORN CURLS' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing Defendant No. 1 to continue selling its existing stock while agreeing to a complete rebranding. The defendant was directed to file an affidavit committing to changing both the product packaging and the trademark from 'CORN CURLS' to 'CORN CURVES'. This decision balances the need for brand protection with practical commercial realities.
Jack In The Box Inc. v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
In a dispute concerning the Jack In The Box trademark, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order restraining one of the respondents from assigning the disputed trademark rights to any third party. This protective measure was granted after the petitioner expressed concern that such an assignment could render the ongoing litigation infructuous. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in February 2023.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S Blue Ivory & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S Blue Ivory & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed Local Commissioners with extensive powers to inspect premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK Marks, and demand disclosure of financial records from the defendants. This order provides immediate protection while allowing for thorough investigation into the alleged counterfeiting operations.
Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd v.Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a settlement between Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd and Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited regarding trademark disputes over the FAST&UP brand family. The parties agreed that Plumax acknowledged the validity and rights of Aeronutrlx in sub-brands like CHARGE, FORTIFY, RELOAD, and VITALIZE, including associated trade dress. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Plumax committed to withdrawing opposition filings and ceasing all use of similar marks or designs.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the use of an artistic design on a medicinal oil, 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil.' The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and passing off against the defendant. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's similar artwork constituted blatant copying and if the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge to pursue legal action promptly. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the defendant did not infringe upon the plaintiffs' rights.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed disputes regarding trade dress infringement concerning SAFFOLA products between Dabur and Marico. The court noted that while the defendant had previously represented changes to its packaging (including embossing), it failed to inform the court when certain product lines, like glass bottles or 100gm PET bottles, could not comply with those representations. Consequently, the court revived the plaintiff's interim injunction application for these specific products and imposed a significant cost on the defendant for non-disclosure.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) v.Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. (SDM Group)
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the ongoing commercial dispute between Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) and Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. (SDM Group). The court focused on facilitating an amicable resolution, particularly concerning the valuation of the flagship brand 'SALONI' and the use of the name 'MAHESH'. Both parties were directed to exchange financial data and present proposals regarding brand distinction before the next hearing.
Parle Agro Private Limited / Surya Fresh Foods Limited v.Surya Fresh Foods Private Limited / Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing disputes between Parle Agro and Surya Fresh Foods concerning the trade dress of their competing apple-based beverages, 'APPY FIZZ' and 'FRESH FIZZY'. Recognizing a willingness among the parties to find an amicable solution through modifications to the trade dress, the court directed both companies to participate in mediation. This move signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution while keeping the core infringement suits active.
Asian Paints Limited v.B. N. Ravi Prakash
The court heard arguments regarding the service of process in an ongoing IPR suit. After confirming that the defendant had been duly served, the Leave Petition was made absolute. The court granted the defendant one more opportunity to appear before considering the main prayer for passing off.
Dabur India Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
In a significant ruling concerning domain name disputes, the Delhi High Court directed various Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to appoint Grievance Officers in accordance with the IT Rules, 2021. This order was issued within the context of multiple connected suits involving trademark and cyber-related issues. The court emphasized the need for DNR compliance to protect intellectual property rights and ensure proper grievance redressal mechanisms are in place across the digital landscape.
Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited v.Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses ongoing trademark infringement litigation between Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited and Nalgonda Rangareddy District Milk Producers. The court noted arguments regarding the alleged violation of a Settlement Agreement, with both parties presenting their positions—the respondent denying any misuse of the 'Mother Dairy' trademark, while the petitioner asserted contempt of court. The court directed further action, including filing rejoinders and listing the case for subsequent proceedings.
Mensa Brand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Kartik Fashion & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mensa Brand Technologies against Kartik Fashion & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized that the defendants were deceptively using the 'DENNIS LINGO' mark, along with similar trade dress features, to ride on the plaintiff's reputation in the e-commerce market. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods, and document their infringing activities.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson Paints'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction, with the respondent arguing the suit should have been filed in Uttar Pradesh where they operated. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to try the matter.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Nixi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in favor of Colgate Palmolive, addressing ongoing trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their brand name. The court directed the domain registrar, GoDaddy.com LLC, to immediately block and suspend the infringing domain www.colgatepalmolive.work. Furthermore, the court ordered the disclosure of registrant details for the domain and mandated the freezing of a bank account linked to the scam operation, demonstrating strong judicial action against brand impersonation and cyber fraud.
Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders v.M/S Chacha Food Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders against M/S Chacha Food Company, finding that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress for non-alcoholic beverages. The court recognized a strong prima facie case and ordered the defendants to immediately cease all activities related to the infringing goods. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises to seize and seal all incriminating materials, including packaging and molds.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited v.Mahesh Edible Oils Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order addressing trademark disputes among related entities in the edible oil industry. The court affirmed that the 'SALONI' trademark belongs exclusively to Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd., preventing individual brothers from claiming it. However, the ruling allows the family members freedom to operate their own businesses, provided they do not use marks or trade dresses deceptively similar to 'SALONI'. This order sets a clear boundary for internal corporate IP rights while allowing independent commercial activity.
M/S Dreams Lingerie Products v.Akash Chaudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Dreams Lingerie Products against Akash Chaudhary, restraining him from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'DREAM'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, inventory infringing goods, and examine manufacturing records.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S. K.K.Garments, Through Its Owner
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. K.K.Garments, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed multiple Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK trademarks, and demand disclosure of financial records, significantly bolstering the plaintiff's ability to enforce its rights.
Patanjali Aryurved Limited v.Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'PATANJALI' brand, specifically 'PATANJALI COW'S GHEE'. While the Plaintiff sought strict enforcement against alleged counterfeiters, the court opted for an amicable resolution approach. The parties, including Defendant No.1 (Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited) and Defendant No.3, were referred to the Mediation Centre. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief allowing Defendant No.1 to exhaust its existing genuine stock while seeking a structured path toward resolving the dispute.
Sunit Shah v.Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sunit Shah against Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the similarity between the plaintiff's mark ('SHAH/SHAH NAMKEEN') and the defendant's mark ('SHAH JI NAMKEEN'), applied to identical goods (namkeen), created a likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing mark until further hearing, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize and inventory the disputed goods.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Sujay Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL). The court condoned a delay in filing an amended plaint and allowed Defendant No.1 to participate fully in the proceedings, recalling an earlier ex-parte order. Crucially, the court reiterated previous directions requiring social media platforms like Meta and Google to take down content featuring AMUL's brand or mascot that targets the company in the context of animal cruelty within 36 hours of notification.
Starbucks Corporation v.Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Starbucks Corporation, granting a permanent injunction against Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr. for infringing the registered trademark 'FRAPPUCCINO' and engaging in passing off. Despite the defendants being proceeded ex parte, the court found them guilty of infringement based on the evidence presented by Starbucks. Furthermore, the court awarded damages to Starbucks, noting that while specific sales figures were lacking, notional damages could be granted given the established infringement.
Unilever Plc. v.Aman Chauhan
In this interim application concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Unilever Plc. sought a short adjournment to continue identifying the true parties involved in the counterfeiting operation. The court noted that amendments had been made to implead the party found at the premises during the execution of an earlier ad-interim order. Given that Unilever was still actively tracing the ultimate owner of the infringing premises, the High Court granted the request for adjournment until May 4, 2022, ensuring the existing protective orders remained in force.
Amritsar Rice Land v.Sumit Bansal & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.
SMC Foods Limited & Anr. v.Jyoti Devi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of SMC Foods Limited, recognizing the prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively imitating the Plaintiffs' established brand 'MADHUSUDAN,' including its unique packaging and trade dress. This interim order immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling products bearing similar marks or designs until the final hearing.
Zydus Wellness Limited v.Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit previously decreed between Zydus Wellness Limited and Mis. Siddhi Margarine Specialities Limited. Following an amicable resolution, both parties had deposited funds with the DHCBA Pandemic Relief Fund. The court noted compliance regarding deposits and stock statements. Crucially, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the modification/alteration forms filed by Defendant No.1 concerning their registered marks.
Preeti / Kosmos Global v.Suresh R. Jain
This case involved allegations by Preeti (Kosmos Global) against Suresh R. Jain for infringing their registered copyright and passing off their hair colour products under the trademark 'BEAUTE BLANC'. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of a similar pack/carton design and the name 'Skenique'. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the joint memo.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
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.