Healthcare — India Trademark Cases
22 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 22 total
Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.
Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. v.Max Healthcare Institute Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court's handling of an interlocutory injunction request concerning trademark infringement. The court found that the lower court failed to consider the merits of the respondent's application, merely granting the injunction to implement a prior judgment. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court for a fresh, de novo decision on the interim injunction, ensuring all legal aspects are properly considered.
Global Health Limited And Anr v.John Doe And Ors
Global Health Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against defendants in a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and violation of personality rights. The plaintiffs sought relief due to the circulation of fabricated 'deep fake' videos featuring Dr. Naresh Trehan, which used the protected brand name 'MEDANTA.' The court directed the defendants to immediately remove or disable the infringing content within strict timeframes, recognizing the irreparable harm caused by the unauthorized use of their intellectual property and goodwill.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited v.Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction sought by Max Healthcare Institute Limited against Imax Healthcare Private Limited. The core dispute centered on the alleged deceptive similarity between Max's well-known 'MAX' trademark, used extensively in healthcare services since 2000, and the respondent's use of 'IMAX'. While acknowledging the strong prima facie case for confusion, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the injunction application.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Delhi
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trademarks Delhi's refusal to register the trademark 'SKYN' in Class 5. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed submissions on the matter. This marks an active legal challenge regarding the registrability of the mark.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register its trademark 'VAPOR PLUS'. The appeal sought to set aside the refusal order dated July 24, 2018. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant voluntarily withdrew the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Idamakanti Madhusudhana Reddy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register 'Doctor Reddys Path Labs,' which was based on similarity to an existing mark. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that the word 'Reddy' is generic and that the marks operate in different classes of goods/services (Pathology vs. Pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the High Court mandated a fresh review by the Registry, requiring it to consider Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, even if opposition from a well-known mark arises.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited v.Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition filed by Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited against an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had previously allowed a rectification petition, effectively invalidating the petitioner's registered trademark. The court found that the original order violated the principles of natural justice because service of notice was not properly effected on the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the rectification petition be heard afresh before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Court.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by MGM Healthcare, the registered trademark owner of 'VARAM', against an interlocutory injunction order. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the respondent, Varamm Healthcare, had presented prima facie evidence suggesting prior and continuous usage of its mark 'VARAMM'. While noting the burden of proof lies with the prior user, the appellate bench was reluctant to interfere with the lower court's discretionary findings on initial evidence, allowing the main suit to proceed based on full evidence.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of their word mark 'MIRACLES' for medical services (Class 44). The court recognized that due to continuous use since 2012, the mark had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the market. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to the advertisement stage, allowing further scrutiny against existing marks.
Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its device mark registration for medical services (Class 44). The court found that despite objections based on similarity to an earlier mark, the appellant had established significant goodwill and continuous use since 2012. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits against any potential opposition.
M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.
Indian Oncology Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the trade mark application 'Indian Oncology Foundation' by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that while the applicant claimed long-term use and reputation, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence—such as advertising expenditure or sales data—to prove that the descriptive mark had acquired secondary meaning. This ruling emphasizes that mere usage is insufficient; concrete proof of distinctiveness must be presented to overcome statutory objections.
Perenniala Health Care India Private Limited v.S.Samsen Papli
Perenniala Health Care India Private Limited filed a suit seeking declarations of exclusive rights over the FRANCH trademarks and associated artistic works, along with permanent injunctions against alleged infringement. The plaintiff sought to nullify certain assignment deeds executed by the defendants. However, due to the plaintiff failing to appear or prosecute the case despite court notices, the Madras High Court dismissed the entire suit.
Noor Hospital Trust And 7 Ors v.Sajid Ali Khan
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial IP suit concerning the alleged passing off of a hospital's trademark. The Plaintiffs, Noor Hospital Trust, sought to restrain the Defendant from using 'NEW NOOR HOSPITAL,' claiming deceptive similarity to their established mark 'NOOR HOSPITAL.' The court framed multiple issues covering passing off, descriptiveness of the term 'NOOR,' and claims for damages and injunctions, setting a clear path for the evidence phase.
Nirali Shail Patel & 1 v.M/S Ellorapark Hospitals Pvt Ltd
This Gujarat High Court order addresses a Civil Revision Application challenging the validity of a trademark suit. The applicants argued that since the plaintiff's trademark was unregistered at the time of filing, there was no cause of action under Section 27 of the Trademark Act. Citing Supreme Court precedent (K. Narayanan & Anr.), the court determined that this issue required further consideration and scheduled a hearing.
Marie Stopes International (MSI) v.Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in favor of Marie Stopes International (MSI) against Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS). The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the 'Marie Stopes' word mark and associated 'Door Device' logo by PSS, which had previously operated as a licensee. MSI successfully argued that after the termination of their license agreement in 2003, PSS continued to use the marks, leading to a strong likelihood of confusion among customers. The court found the resemblance between the two marks too striking and close, thus protecting MSI's goodwill.
Delmon Diagnostics & Research Centre (DDRC) v.Doctors Diagnostics & Research Centre (DDRC)
The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal filed by Delmon Diagnostics & Research Centre against a lower court's decision in a passing off suit. While acknowledging that the letters 'DDRC' were used by the plaintiff in their email address and office name prior to the defendant's use, the court held that mere usage in an email or building name does not automatically establish sufficient reputation for the trade mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court's judgment and directed a retrial to allow both parties to present further evidence.
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.