Industry Sector

Other — India Trademark Cases

166 decisions indexed

Page 6 of 6 · 166 total

trademark defendant favorable · Jul 19, 1988

K.R. Jadayappa Mudaliar And Ors. v.K.B. Venkatachalam And Anr.

Madras High Court · Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (against I.A. No. 295 of 1987 in O.S. No. 16 of 1987)

The appeal challenged a restraining order preventing defendants from manufacturing and selling matches using similar trademarks. The plaintiffs claimed infringement and passing off of their registered trademark 'National Park'. However, the court found prima facie evidence that the plaintiffs were trafficking in their trade mark and lacked proof of continuous business, thus setting aside the injunction.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 27, 1986

Asim Gadighar v.Abdul Aziz S/O Lal Mohd Khureshi

Bombay High Court · Revision (implied)

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the defendant could not use or copy the trade name and copyright of 'Azeem Gadi Ghar', along with permanent injunctions. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court, arguing that passing off actions belonged exclusively to the Civil Judge (Junior Division).

trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 4, 1986

The Singer Company And Anr. v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Bombay High Court

The petitioners, owners of trade marks featuring "Singer", challenged letters issued by the Central Government that refused their applications to extend the period of use under Section 49(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that since the refusal letters did not state specific reasons or consider the petitioners' contentions, they were not 'speaking orders'.

trademark defendant favorable · Sep 10, 1981

Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.The District Judge, Ghaziabad And Ors.

Allahabad High Court · Article 226 petition (related to Civil suit No. 163 of 1980)

The petitioner, Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent and temporary injunction against defendants for using a deceptively identical trade name ('Victory Goods Transport Company'). The courts below dismissed the application for temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case or establish balance of convenience. The High Court upheld this decision.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 28, 1975

L.D. Malhotra Industries v.Ropi Industries

Delhi High Court · C.M. (Main) 67 of 1974; FAO 113 of 1975

The dispute involved two industries manufacturing dress hooks, Ropi Industries (prior user) and L.D. Malhotra Industries (earlier registrant). After Ropis successfully obtained the rectification of Malhotras' mark, Malhotras appealed to the Delhi High Court. The court ultimately allowed the appeal but granted an injunction in favor of Ropis.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 29, 1975

Jagan Nath Prem Nath v.Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya

Delhi High Court · AIR1975DELHI149

The appeal concerned a suit for permanent injunction filed by Jagan Nath Prem Nath against Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya alleging infringement and passing off regarding his registered trade mark for agarbatis. The single judge had vacated an interim ex parte injunction, holding that the numerals 555 were not distinctive features of the appellant's mark. The High Court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the numerals '555' had acquired a distinctive meaning in the trade and the respondent's use was prima facie infringing.

trademark defendant favorable · Mar 21, 1975

M/S. Sable Waghire & Co. & Others v.Union Of India & Others

Supreme Court of India · Writ Petition No. 37 of 1970 (and Writ Petition No. 38 of 1970)

The petitioners, owners of registered trademarks for 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Bidi', challenged the constitutional validity of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The government argued that the act was necessary to regulate the improper use of national emblems. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and its provisions.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 7, 1975

Khemraj Shrikrishandas v.Garg & Co.

Delhi High Court

The plaintiffs, publishers of 'Pt. Shrivallabh Maniram Panchang' since 1894 A.D., filed a suit alleging that the defendants were passing off their goods by printing and selling deceptively similar almanacs. The appeal was heard regarding the refusal of an ad interim injunction by the lower court. The High Court reversed the order, granting the injunction based on the principles of passing off.

trademark defendant favorable · May 2, 1973

Madan Mohan Lal Garg v.Brijmohanlal Garg

Delhi High Court · 9(1973)DLT397

The appellant challenged the Assistant Registrar's decision regarding an amendment to a trade mark application ('SHANKER') filed by the dissolved firm Meerut Engineering Works. The appellant sought judicial determination of rights before the registration process could proceed, but his applications were rejected as incompetent under Section 44. This appeal was ultimately dismissed.

trademark defendant favorable · Apr 5, 1972

Metro Playing Card Co. v.Wazir Chand Kapoor

Delhi High Court

The dispute arose when the respondent, who held a registered trademark (tractor device and word 'tractor') for playing cards, sued the appellant for infringing this mark. The appellant argued that its own application for the 'Ferguson' trade mark was accepted for registration and that there was no infringement. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement.

trademark defendant favorable · Aug 23, 1967

The Andhra Perfumery Works Joint Family v.Karupakula Suryanarayaniah And Ors.

Madras High Court

The appeals challenged the registration of the 'Ganesh Durbar Bathi' trade mark for Agarbathis. The appellant argued that the word 'GANESH' was common in the trade and had lost distinctiveness, making it publici juris. The court examined evidence regarding the respondent's knowledge and acquiescence.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 1, 1965

Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr. v.Kumar Ranjan Sen And Ors.

Calcutta High Court

The dispute concerned the validity and cancellation of a trade mark registration ('A. P. C.') which was granted while a notice of opposition was pending. The lower court allowed an appeal against the cancellation order, arguing that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction. The High Court ultimately ruled that the Deputy Registrar had ample jurisdiction to cancel the registration.

trademark defendant favorable · Aug 5, 1960

Mohd. Abdul Kereem v.M. Agaiah

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · L.P.A. No. 83 of 1959

The dispute originated from a trade mark infringement suit where the plaintiff's case was dismissed for default. The plaintiff sought review, which the trial judge allowed. The defendant appealed this decision to the High Court. The court ultimately held that an appeal against a review order granted on grounds outside the scope of Order 47 is incompetent.

trademark defendant favorable · Mar 3, 1955

Tropical Accumulators Ltd. v.Manash Ranjan Chakravarty

Calcutta High Court · AIR1957CAL135

The dispute concerned whether Tropical Accumulators Ltd. (the plaintiff) could enforce its claim over the trade mark "Sakti" in a subordinate court, specifically regarding its status as a registered user versus the proprietor. The Calcutta High Court held that since the suit related to rights in a trade mark, it was incompetent to be filed in a court inferior to a District Court.

trademark defendant favorable · Jul 26, 1954

Tapton Tea Company v.The Liptons Ltd.

Punjab-Haryana High Court · null

The Tapton Tea Company appealed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks at Bombay's refusal to register the trade mark 'Tapton Tea', which was opposed by Lipton Limited. The court examined whether the Punjab-Haryana High Court had jurisdiction to hear this appeal, given that the firm was located in Amritsar.

trademark defendant favorable · May 28, 1946

India Electric Works Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Calcutta High Court

India Electric Works Ltd. appealed against the dismissal of its appeal (which itself was an appeal against the Registrar's refusal) regarding the registration of the word "India" as a trade mark for an electric fan. The court ultimately held that the appeal was incompetent because the single judge did not exercise jurisdiction in a manner contemplated by the Letters Patent.

1 •••456
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our TM team →