technology — India Trademark Cases
74 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 3 · 74 total
Cobble Stone Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Cobble Stone Private Limited appealed against the order dated 06.08.2025 of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing its trade mark application no. 4009557 in Class 19 for the mark 'COBBLE STONE' under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellant contended that it had been using the mark since 2011 and was an honest concurrent user under Section 12 of the Act, and that the Registrar failed to consider its adjournment request. The respondent had no objection to a remand for de novo consideration, and the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to be completed within 60 days.
Shazia Kidwai And Anr. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trademark Division, Intellectual Property Bhavan And Anr.
This is a brief procedural order from the Bombay High Court in an interim application arising from a first appeal concerning trade mark matters. The appellant's counsel sought time due to difficulty in presenting arguments, and the court granted a stand-over, adjourning the matter to 23 December 2026.
L'Oreal S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
L'Oreal S.A. filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to renew its trademark 'ELSEVE' bearing registration no. 471634 in class 03, or alternatively to dispose of the interlocutory petition for renewal after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court allowed the exemption application, issued notice to the Respondent who accepted notice, and directed the Respondent to file its reply within four weeks, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 08.12.2026.
Tregum Remedies Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner Of Trademarks
Tregum Remedies Private Limited challenged the refusal of its trademark application No. 5728063 for the mark 'THE SKIN COMPANY' in Class 3 by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks. The Madras High Court set aside the refusal order, holding that the impugned order was a generic, pre-conceived decision that failed to address the appellant's response and applied inconsistent reasoning. The Court directed the respondent to advertise the application in the Trademarks Journal under Section 20(1) read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
Kei Industries Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter filed by Kei Industries Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court addressed an interlocutory application (I.A. 27177/2026) filed under Section 151 of the CPC by Respondent No. 1 and directed the matter to be listed on 30.10.2026.
M Mathew v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, M Mathew, filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks, which deemed his Opposition No.1238680 against Trade Mark Application No.5084713 for the mark 'MUTHOOTTU' in Class 36 (filed by Muthoottu Mini Nidhi Limited) as abandoned. The petitioner sought a direction to the Registrar to decide the opposition on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The court issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim stay of the processing of the trademark application pending further hearing.
Mahesh Gupta v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Mahesh Gupta against the Registrar of Trademarks. The appellant's counsel circulated an adjournment slip, to which the respondent's counsel raised no objection. The court, at the request of the appellant, re-notified the matter to 02.02.2027.
Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Another
This is a procedural order from the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division in a trademark matter. After hearing the parties, the court treated the matter as heard-in-part since substantial arguments had been advanced. The matter was adjourned and listed for further consideration on 26th November, 2026.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a Delhi High Court order in a trademark matter involving two connected cases that were listed before Justice Vikas Mahajan. At the request of the learned counsels for the parties, the court re-notified the matters to 23 November 2026 without any substantive ruling on the merits.
Harale Seva Sangh v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, Harale Seva Sangh, filed a Commercial Miscellaneous Petition before the Bombay High Court against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner's advocate sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appropriate rectification proceedings in compliance with applicable process requirements. The court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for.
Vivek Verma & Ors v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark matter involving Vivek Verma & Ors as appellants and the Registrar of Trademarks as respondent. The order, passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan, was issued at the request of learned counsels for the parties. The matter was adjourned and listed for re-notification on 23 November 2026.
The Brand Brewery Private Limited & Anr. v.Arman Anand
This Interim Application arose from a commercial intellectual property rights suit concerning trademark infringement. The Defendant, through his counsel, gave an undertaking to the Bombay High Court to discontinue the use of the marks impugned at Exhibits 'D' and 'E' to the plaint and to transition to a new trademark depicted at Annexure-1 within six months. The Court accepted the statement as an undertaking given to the Court and disposed of the Interim Application in those terms.
Surya Hotels And Properties v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Surya Hotels And Properties, engaged in the hospitality business and proprietor of the registered mark 'Misty Mountain Resort' (Application No.1969012 in Class 43), filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the rival 'Misty Mountain' trade mark (Registration No.2441920 in Class 43) held by Misty Mountain Plantation Resort, along with transfer of its pending rectification proceeding (No.MAS-279782) from the Trade Marks Registry to the Madras High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The petitioner subsequently restricted its prayer to only the transfer of the rectification proceeding, to which the second respondent raised no objection. The court allowed the petition to that limited extent, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to transfer the rectification records to the Intellectual Property Division within four weeks.
R.Booma Rani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The petitioner, a safety match manufacturer from Sattur, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept her renewal application for the trade mark 'THOTHA' (Hindi label with parrot) registered under No.1532336 in Class 34. The mark was registered on 07.02.2023, nearly sixteen years after her 2007 application, by which time the first ten-year term had already expired on 20.02.2017. The Madras High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register under Rule 58(3) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, no time bar operated against renewal, and directed the Registrar to accept the renewal application and renew the registration for the period 20.02.2017 to 20.02.2027.
Modicare Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in two connected trademark matters filed by Modicare Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks and another party. The court, finding no time left to hear the matters on the scheduled date, adjourned both cases and directed them to be re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
John Vadassery v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, a trademark agent registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed a writ petition challenging the Trade Marks Registry's practice of insisting that authorisations filed by trademark agents under Section 145 of the Act be stamped as powers of attorney. The petitioner contended that the statutory framework only requires a simple authorisation, not a stamped power of attorney, while the respondents argued that the long-standing practice of accepting stamped powers of attorney was necessary. The Kerala High Court examined the provisions of Section 145 of the Act and Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and considered whether the Registrar of Trade Marks, being an officer of the Central Government and not a court or tribunal, could insist on stamp duty being paid on such authorisations.
Net World Sports Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Net World Sports Limited filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The respondent's counsel fairly stated that he had instructions to dispose of the petition by way of remand, given the degree of detail in the reasoning adopted in the impugned order. By consent, the petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for appropriate reconsideration by a responsible officer.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Devinder Singh
This is a civil suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Devinder Singh seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court framed six issues for trial, including whether the agreement was cancelled/terminated as alleged by the defendant and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its obligations. The matter was listed for recording of evidence before the Joint Registrar (Judicial).
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(OS) 666/2024) involving a dispute over an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- paid to the defendants. The court framed six issues for trial, directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Anr
This is a commercial suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Ramesh Chand and Anr seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The Defendants contended that the agreement was cancelled or terminated. The Delhi High Court framed the issues for trial and directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a commercial suit (CS(OS) 665/2024) before the Delhi High Court in which the plaintiff seeks specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022 executed between the parties, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court, with the consent of the parties, framed six issues for trial and directed the parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence affidavits within stipulated timelines. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence, while a pending interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was listed separately.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural listing order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial appeal concerning trademark matters. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing without recording any substantive reasoning or decision on the merits.
Shubham Khandelwal Through Shubham Trading Company v.S.K. Trademark Through Proprietor Gaurav
This is a criminal revision petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in which the petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent's counsel raised no objection to the condonation of delay. The court allowed the application, condoned the delay, called for the record, and listed the matter after two weeks.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is an interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking waiver of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- that had been imposed upon it by an earlier order dated 13.08.2026. The court found no ground made out for waiver of the cost and dismissed the application.
M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v.Deputy Registrar, Trademark & Anr
This is a non-substantive procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2023). Because the presiding judge was on leave, the matter was not taken up and was re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
Metro Brands Limited v.Met Brands Private Limited
Metro Brands Limited, a Mumbai-based footwear retailer, filed a commercial IPR suit against Met Brands Private Limited, a Kerala-based company, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent to join the cause of action for passing off (which arose in Kerala) with its trademark infringement claim filed in Bombay. The Bombay High Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that since both causes of action arose in Kerala and the defendant carried on business there, the plaintiff should file the suit in the appropriate forum in Kerala rather than exercising its discretionary choice of forum in Bombay.
Satpaul Mittal v.State of Punjab & Anr.
This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.20974/2025 arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's final judgment dated 17-11-2025 in CRM-M No.43177/2020. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking not to use the trademark allegedly similar to that of respondent no.2 before the next date of listing. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 18.09.2026.
Ashok Kumar Jain v.Kumar Food Industries Ltd
This appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 16.05.2026 in CS (COMM) 842/2024, wherein the respondent's suit was decreed including damages of Rs. 5 lakhs against the appellant. The appellant challenged only the damages portion and did not contest the finding regarding the impugned trademark 'MAHA SHAKTI BHOG'. The parties ultimately settled the dispute, with the appellant agreeing to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- in three equal installments within three months and to withdraw his trademark application for 'Maha Shakti Bhog' in Class-30.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. v.Sanofi
This order of the Delhi High Court disposed of two connected first appeals arising from a trademark dispute concerning the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate drugs. The appellants (Intas) stated they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using CLAVINTAS, and accordingly sought to withdraw their appeal. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with Intas directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr v.Sanofi
This order pertains to two connected appeals before the Delhi High Court arising from a trademark dispute involving the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate. The appellants (Intas Pharmaceuticals) sought to withdraw their appeal, stating they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using the brand CLAVINTAS. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and accordingly both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellants directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
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.