Other — India Trademark Cases
166 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 6 · 166 total
Umai Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory v.Rafeeq Beedi Factory
The plaintiff, Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory, sued several defendants for infringing its proprietary trademarks, copyrights, and trade dresses related to its 'Bidis' business. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over marks like DEEWANA BIRI NO. 302, which was registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (DEEBAN BIRI and numerical 305) in relation to the same goods.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II v.M/s. Future Brands Ltd
The Commissioner of Service Tax appealed against an order that dropped show cause notices alleging non-payment of service tax on the 'right to use' component of a Trademark License Agreement for the brand 'Ajile'. The Tribunal examined whether the exclusive nature of the license qualified as a 'deemed sale' under constitutional provisions. It ultimately held that since the license was exclusive, it fell within the meaning of 'transfer of right to use,' and thus service tax could not be levied.
Somesh Choudhary v.Knight Riders Sports Private Limited
The appellant, Somesh Choudhary (a shareholder), appealed an order admitting an application filed by Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd (the operational creditor) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The core dispute was whether the non-payment of Minimum Guaranteed Royalties for using the KKR trademark on licensed products constituted an 'operational debt'.
Deepak Kumar Khemka v.Lakshmi Chand & Sons
The plaintiff, M/s Wizard Fragrances, sued the defendants alleging that they were infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks (SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS) by adopting and using 'SHUDH RATAN'. The plaintiff argued that this constituted passing off and dilution of goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
M/s.Avinashi Ads v.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railways
M/s. Avinashi Ads filed an arbitration suit challenging an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator concerning advertising rights and license fees with South Western Railways. The plaintiff sought damages amounting to ₹11,75,99,996/-. However, the court set aside the original arbitral award in its entirety.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P v.Sandeep Arora & Anr.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P filed a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the copyright registration of 'SPORTS POLO' held by Sandeep Arora & Anr. The petitioner argued that the respondent's logo substantially reproduced its well-known trademarks and artistic marks. The court found that the respondent's artwork was an imitation of the petitioner's registered marks, lacking originality, and therefore wrongly registered. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the impugned copyright registration.
M.Gagan Bothra v.The Central Government
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents to act upon a 2013 order from the Central Government regarding R.Anbarasu's misuse of the National Emblem. The court found that despite central government directions, the State Government failed to initiate action against the ex-member of parliament for misusing the emblem on his letter pad.
Maruti Air Couriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. v.Ram Singh Rathore & 9 Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that their former franchisees (Defendants nos. 1 to 9) and a newly incorporated entity (Defendant no. 10) were continuing to use the original artistic label and name of 'Maruti Air Couriers' on consignment notes and trade documents after the termination of their franchise agreements. The plaintiffs claimed this constituted copyright infringement and passing off.
A.Mani v.S.Suresh Trading as Flash Beauty Saloon
A.Mani appealed a judgment and decree that had been passed against him regarding the use of the mark 'FLASH'. The appeal challenged the trial court's decision, which was based on the alleged violation of an interim order by the appellant (defendant in the suit). The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, stating that the trial court failed to conduct proper adjudication on merits.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe and agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging infringement and passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe but agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
Rajalakshmi Match Works v.Satpal Sindhi
The plaintiff, Rajalakshmi Match Works, filed a civil suit against several defendants seeking permanent injunctions to restrain them from passing off their safety matches as the plaintiff's by using the 'RAJHA'S SHRIFAL' trade mark and infringing the associated copyright. During the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel submitted that the Civil Suit had become infructuous.
Swatch AG v.Suresh Kumar
Swatch AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Suresh Kumar for infringing its well-known trademark 'SWATCH' by adopting the domain name www.swatchclub.in to sell similar goods. The court found that the impugned domain name was identical and deceptively similar, leading to huge losses for the plaintiff.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd
The plaintiff, an insurance consultant operating under various names including Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy, sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, a private limited company, for using a deceptively similar domain name (www.katariainsurance.co.in) to his established mark. The court found that the similarity was too great and ruled in favor of granting immediate injunctive relief.
Khaitan India Limited v.Khaitar Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of its distinctive trade mark 'Khaitan' and passing off against the defendants, who used the similar mark 'Khaitar'. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that since the defendant also possessed a registered trademark, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court ultimately dismissed the interlocutory application seeking dismissal.
Grand Tobacco Private Limited v.Abdul Rashid Shaikh Tobaco, A Limited Liability Partnership & Ors.
The plaintiff, Grand Tobacco Private Limited, filed an application seeking interim protection against the defendant for infringement of its registered trademark and passing off. The court found a prima facie case existed, noting that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('A.R.S Chand Tara Marka') and color combination on tobacco products compared to the plaintiff's mark ('Super Chand Tara Marka').
Lalit Babbar & anr. v.Remson Prime Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others
The court heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the suit. The plaintif argued that since the relief was an injunction valued at Rs. 130/-, it should be transferred to the District Judge (Central) as the commercial court lacked minimum pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the court found that the dispute related to a trademark ('REMSON PRIME') and thus fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, regarding delays in proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3017984 (Opposition No. 969651). The petition sought a writ of mandamus to reject certain evidence and register the mark.
ABP Private Limited & Anr. v.Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata & Ors.
The petitioners challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks for allegedly treating several trade mark applications as 'abandoned' without following the prescribed statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the procedure laid down in Section 132 and Rule 38(4) and (5) was not followed, despite the petitioner sending a reply to the objection.
M/s Elofic Industries (India) v.Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Elofic Industries (India), a long-standing partnership concern dealing in filters, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was infringing its trademark ELOFIC and passing off goods under similar names. The court found that the plaintiff successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding infringement.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v.Kotak LLC
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Kotak LLC alleging infringement and passing off concerning the registered trademark 'KOTAK'. The court granted temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the Defendant from using similar marks, names (like KOTAK LLC), apps (App KOTAK), and domain names (www.kotakapp.com) that are deceptive or identical to the Plaintiff's mark.
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.