FMCG — India Trademark Cases
551 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 19 · 551 total
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Ginodia Agro And Anr.
Everest Food Products Private Limited filed a petition seeking leave to institute a suit against Ginodia Agro and others, alleging infringement of copyright, trademark, and passing off. The court examined the jurisdictional requirements for such an IP dispute in Mumbai. The judge held that since the plaintiff operates within the court's jurisdiction, obtaining leave under Clause XII was unnecessary, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Lt Foods Limited v.Sri Annapurna Agro Indsutries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on a comprehensive settlement reached between Lt Foods Limited and Sri Annapurna Agro Industries. The defendants formally acknowledged Lt Foods as the exclusive proprietor of the trademark 'HERITAGE/INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT.' Crucially, the defendants undertook to cease all use of the mark, refrain from registering similar marks globally, and pay damages amounting to INR 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Rica S.P.A. v.M/S Skin Safe Industries Through Its Sole Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Rica S.P.A., a cosmetics company, against M/S Skin Safe Industries. The plaintiff alleged infringement and passing off concerning its trademarks, copyrights, and trade dress related to hair removal products. Citing prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or copying the plaintiff's packaging and artistic works until the final hearing.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.Needs Supermart Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'Nutella' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 2, 2022. While the court maintained the existing interim injunction against the defendant, it deferred the dispute over whether products were counterfeit to the trial stage. Furthermore, the court directed both parties toward mediation and conciliation to attempt a settlement of the ongoing litigation.
Marico Limited v.Dabur India Limited
Marico Limited filed a suit against Dabur India Limited before the Calcutta High Court seeking urgent relief. Given the urgency presented, the court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny. Furthermore, the court granted necessary leave under various provisions, including Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, allowing the proceedings to move forward.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v.Shivani Cosmetics Through Its Partners Vinod Monga and Nishant Monga
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. against Shivani Cosmetics. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the defendant was copying not only the registered trademark but also the trade dress, copyright, writing style, and overall packaging of the plaintiff's 'BLUE HEAVEN GsET BOLD' eyeliner product. This crucial order protects the plaintiff's goodwill while the full trial proceeds.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd v.M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co
The Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd filed a suit against M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co alleging trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and seeking damages. During the proceedings, the defendants conceded to certain prayers, and the plaintiffs restricted their claim for damages. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting permanent injunctions, mandatory injunctions, and awarding damages amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs.
Kake Di Hatti v.Sidharth Aggarwal And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in this order, including a municipal matter regarding unauthorized stairs on a public footpath, directing the North DMC to ensure pedestrian safety and removal of obstructions. Crucially for the IP dispute, the court noted that while respondents were previously directed to cease using the 'Kake Di Hatti' brand, they are now operating under the name 'Kake Di Rasoi,' keeping the trademark infringement matter active.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Muhammed Rafi
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Muhammed Rafi alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'SPLAT LOGO', used for detergent goods. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
TTK Registered Ltd. v.Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd.
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Ltd., sued Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off due to the sale of its 'PRESTIGE' kitchen appliances on the defendant's online platform without authorization. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of exhaustion applies once goods are lawfully sold into the market, and there is no privity of contract between the parties.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s JB Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s JB Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyright designs associated with 'hotpot' products. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory directions to stop the unauthorized use and sale of deceptively similar goods. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Unilever Plc. v.Malti Ice Cream Industries
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit after the defendants volunteered to submit to a decree. The court allowed the petition for leave and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, while permitting the defendants to destroy the wrappers bearing the offending marks under specific conditions.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vedansh Industries
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Vedansh Industries. The proprietor of the Defendant agreed to submit to a decree in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the Court decreed the suit, ordering the destruction of seized goods by the Defendants.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Babbar
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 19 of 2021 after both the Plaintiff (Hindustan Unilever Ltd) and Defendant (Babbar) reached a settlement. The suit was decreed in terms of specific prayer clauses, with the Plaintiff agreeing not to press for damages.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v.M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through: Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nimesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Blue Heaven Cosmetics against T.R.N. Corporation regarding trademark infringement and passing off. Although the Defendant held a registered mark, the court found that their use of trade dress, writing style, and overall packaging was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known marks. The order restrained the Defendant from selling products with the infringing trade dress and mandated the removal of all such listings from e-commerce portals.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
Vinod Snacks and Confectioners Private Limited v.Vinod Multifood Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Vinod Snacks & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. against Vinod Multifood Products Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trademarks 'POOJA' and 'SHIV'. While the court allowed the main suit to proceed, it granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from independently selling products under these marks. However, the defendants were permitted to continue supplying these products to the plaintiff, provided separate sales accounts are maintained.
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Silvassa Bottling Co
The dispute involved alleged infringement concerning a registered label used by Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd for its beverage product, JEERU. Following an ad-interim order appointing a Court Receiver, the parties reached an agreement regarding labeling changes and the handling of seized goods.
Procter And Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd v.Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court disposed of an Interim Application filed by Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd against Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court confirmed the continuation of a previous ex parte order and directed that further orders would be passed on the cause of action in passing off.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vansh Cosmatic & Anr
The court heard an interim application regarding a commercial IP suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd against Vansh Cosmatic & Anr. The defendants offered a token amount as damages, but the court noted that the counterfeit HUL goods were being sold at MRP, indicating significant potential damage. Consequently, the court granted further injunctions and allowed the seizure of counterfeit goods.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Aarif Miraj And Anr
The Bombay High Court heard an interim application filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited against Aarif Miraj and others. The court confirmed the execution of previous orders, granted an injunction concerning passing off, and allowed the plaintiff liberty to file a further application for the destruction of counterfeit products.
Loreal S.A. v.Ashok Kumar And Others & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Loreal S.A., a global beauty brand, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing-off. The court found that the defendants were operating a 'rogue website' (www.lorealglobal.in) and using email addresses mimicking L'OREAL's domain to deceive the public. Crucially, the court issued specific directions compelling the domain registrar and telecom service provider to disclose user details and block access to the infringing online assets, establishing a strong precedent for digital IP enforcement.
Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. v.Victoria Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. and Victoria Foods Private Limited, which centers on the use of the 'RAJDHANI' mark. While the appellants claimed long-standing usage since 1965, the court noted a lack of concrete evidence, such as sales invoices, to establish prima facie commercial use of the trademark on their goods. The Court directed both parties to file the complete record before proceeding further in the litigation.
RICA S.P.A. v.JATIN HEMENDRABHAI VORA TRADING AS M/S PARUL MARKETING & ANR.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, RICA S.P.A., to file a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages related to trademark infringement and passing off. The core dispute involves the defendant's attempt to register the similar mark "REAL RICA Wax" for identical cosmetic products used by the plaintiff under the registered trademark RICA. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark until the suit is fully adjudicated.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Rishabh Kaushal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd concerning the misuse of its 'AMUL' brand on social media. While initial injunctions were granted, the court examined the claims for damages against Defendants No. 1 and No. 4. Recognizing that both defendants had taken remedial steps, including removing the infringing content, the Court dismissed the claim for damages due to a lack of evidence of loss suffered by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was closed against these two defendants, while proceedings remain pending against Defendant No. 5.
Kake Di Hatti v.Shree Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kake Di Hatti, who owns registered trademarks 'Kake Di Hatti' and 'KDH'. The case stemmed from a terminated franchise agreement where the Respondents allegedly breached terms, including non-payment of royalties. Given the breach and the risk of irreparable harm to the Petitioner's goodwill, the court ordered Shree Foods & Ors. to immediately cease operating the business and stop using the Petitioner's trademarks until further hearing.
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.