Other — India Trademark Cases
166 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 6 · 166 total
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr
The petitioner challenged the refusal of trade mark registration applications due to non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that Section 18(5) mandates the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal in writing. Consequently, Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with the statute.
Prashant Properties Limited v.Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd
The petitioner, an operational creditor, entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with the respondent to use a family of marks in lieu of securing an outstanding debt. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from suspending this PUA. The appellate court stayed this injunction, arguing that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the IBC and Companies Act. The High Court set aside the stay order, finding that the suit was maintainable as a collateral security agreement.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v.Gnanasekaran Paramsivan Trading as Mahindra Lifts and Anr.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd filed a suit against Gnanasekaran Paramsivan for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyright, and passing off related to the mark 'MAHINDRA' and domain name www.mahindralifts.com. The Bombay High Court disposed of the suit by decreeing the prayers in favor of the Plaintiff, granting perpetual injunctions and ordering the destruction of infringing goods.
Amrit B Sanghavi v.Dhanraj Surana
The suit involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered mark 'ITONE' with the use of 'DITONE', and also restrained them from passing off the plaintiff's goods.
Kesari Trust v.Kesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to various businesses.
Kesari Trust v.Kesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to various businesses.
Kesari Trust v.Kesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to travel, tourism, forex, and advertising businesses.
Metro Brands Ltd. v.Metro Footwear
The Plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that the Defendant was infringing its registered trademark 'METRO' and engaging in passing off. The Court found prima facie satisfaction regarding the infringement and granted ad-interim relief.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trade mark used on bottles for country liquor. The Court granted leave, accepted an undertaking from the Defendant not to use the marked bottles, and decreed the suit.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trade mark used on bottles for bottling country liquor. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks/works, subject to an undertaking by the defendant.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.Konkan Agro Marine Industries Private Limited
The petitioner filed a commercial IP suit against the respondent regarding the use of bottles bearing a registered mark. The court recalled an ex-parte order after the plaintiff failed to disclose a prior cease and desist notice. Subsequently, ad-interim relief was granted in favor of the plaintiff.
Corum Hospitality v.WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Corum Hospitality filed a Commercial IP Suit against WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trademarks, specifically 'THE BAR STOCK EXCHANGE'. The parties reached a settlement before the Bombay High Court.
Corum Hospitality v.WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The suit involved allegations that the Defendant was infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademarks by using deceptive names like 'WORLD BAR STOCK EXCHANGE' and 'WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.' The parties reached a settlement before the court.
Hotel Panchavati v.Shree Panchvati Veg Restaurant
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants alleging infringement and passing off related to their well-known 'Panchavati' marks. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the Defendants for using similar marks like 'Shree Panchvati'. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 10 Lacs.
Gebi Products v.Rose Industries
Gebi Products filed a suit against Rose Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark and copyright related to the packaging and mascot used on brooms. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and designs, and ordered the payment of damages.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Manoj Kumar Sharma
The petitioner, Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited, filed an IP Suit against Manoj Kumar Sharma regarding alleged infringement of its trade marks. The court granted leave to the defendant and passed an interim order restraining him from using 'JAWED HABIB' or 'JH' in connection with hair salon services pending the final hearing.
Zenner International Gmbh & Co Kg And Anr v.Anand Zenner Company Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off concerning the trade mark 'Zenner'. The defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence despite repeated opportunities.
M/s Hotel Swagath v.M/s Hotel Swagath East Court
The appellant, M/s Hotel Swagath (registered partnership firm), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s Hotel Swagath East Court for infringing its registered trademark and passing off. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application, which was subsequently challenged in this appeal.
Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd v.ITC Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging passing-off and infringement, claiming that the appellant's use of the mark 'ITC' in its banking business was unfair. The court ruled that since the plaintiff had its registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, the court possessed the necessary authority to hear the action under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Vimal Electric Company & v.Vimal Agro Products Pvt Ltd
The appellants filed an Appeal From Order challenging a Commercial Court's decision that allowed the respondent's application and ordered the return of the plaint. The original suit was for passing off action based on the use of the 'VIMAL' trade name. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction based on the causes of action pleaded.
Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd v.Ishaan Overseas
The Plaintiff, Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ishaan Overseas for using the mark 'EDMODA' on leather goods. The Plaintiff claimed its mark 'ESBEDA' was deceptively similar. However, the court found that the marks were sufficiently distinct visually and phonetically, leading to the dismissal of the motion.
M/S. Selvel Industries v.M/S. Om Plast (India)
The plaintiffs, M/S. Selvel Industries and M/S. Sears Industries, filed a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief in an infringement action against M/S. Om Plast (India). The dispute centered on whether the defendant's plastic container infringed upon the registered designs held by the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to and infringed the plaintiffs' design.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.
Essel Propack Ltd. v.Essel Kitchenware Ltd. And Anr
Essel Propack Ltd. filed a suit seeking injunctions for trade mark infringement and passing off against Essel Kitchenware Ltd. The court considered the convoluted litigation history and arguments regarding sufficient cause for interim relief. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, finding that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient cause.
Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited v.Sulthana Restaurant
The plaintiff, Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited, filed Original Applications seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Sulthana Restaurant, from passing off or infringing its registered trade mark 'SULTHAN'S BIRIYANI'. The defendant argued that the names were not deceptively similar, that they cater to different customer classes, and that the name 'SULTANA' is a common universal term. The Court dismissed the applications, finding no deceptive similarity and ruling in favor of the respondent.
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Deepak Anand & Ors
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a passing off/disparagement suit against Deepak Anand & Ors. The plaintiff sought to enhance the valuation of the suit from Rs.21,00,800/- to Rs.2,00,00,800/- based on reassessed damages and goodwill attached to its brand 'Snapdeal'. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should examine such applications from a commercial angle, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. v.Ankit Gupta
The plaintiff, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was operating a business using brand names ('Delhi Haat Mall' and 'New Delhi Haat') deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Dilli Haat'. The court found that the defendant's use constituted unfair competition and infringement, leading to the decree of permanent injunction and damages.
Tata Sons Limited v.Aniket Singh
Tata Sons Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and relief against Aniket Singh for alleged infringement of its rights to privacy, publicity, and passing off. The plaintiffs argued that their established goodwill and reputation, associated with the TATA brand, were being harmed by the defendant's actions. Given the defendant's failure to appear in court, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction and awarding punitive damages.
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd v.Krishna Mehta & Ors
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Krishna Mehta & Ors, alleging that the defendants were illegally imitating and selling products featuring motifs and designs similar to those owned by Eicher Goodearth. The plaintiff claimed ownership of various designer collections like Serai and Falcon, asserting their rights under copyright and design laws. The court examined the similarity between the parties' products and the alleged deceptive use of intellectual property.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd.
The petitioners, registered proprietors of trade marks containing 'UltraTech' or 'Ultra', sought leave to combine their cause of action for infringement with a cause of action for passing off against the defendant. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that it possessed original jurisdiction and allowed the combination of both causes of action.
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.