India Legal Decisions
7,456 judicial decisions indexed across patent, trademark, copyright, and design law.
Recent Key Judgments
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd. v.Om Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Controller of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Ms Pas Agro v.M/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v.Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private Limited v.Maha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Anupam Srivastava & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a rectification petition seeking removal of the trademark 'VNYABAIE' (application no. 5055762 in Class 3), primarily objecting to the letter 'V' being displayed in a different colour from the rest of the mark. During proceedings, the petitioner clarified that it had no objection if the respondent used the letter 'V' in the same colour as the remaining alphabets, even in a different font. Respondent No. 1, appearing in person, agreed to change the colour of 'V' to match the rest of the mark, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Exponent Energy Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai
Exponent Energy Private Limited appealed against the refusal of its trademark application No. 5432621 for the word mark 'EXPONENT' in Class 42, covering scientific and technological services related to electric vehicle battery packs and charging equipment. The Registrar had refused registration under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, citing phonetic similarity with two earlier marks: 'EXPONENT' (Application No. 3595698) and 'EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP' (Application No. 5382808). The Madras High Court held that the impugned order was a non-speaking order that failed to record adequate reasons as required under Section 18(5) and did not consider the appellant's statutory requests under Sections 12, 18(4), and the proviso to Section 20. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to deal with each cited mark separately and pass a reasoned order within three months.
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA v.Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
GlaxoSmithkline Biologicals SA sued Human Biolife India Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement concerning its well-known vaccine brands including ENGERIX, HAVRIX, INFANRIX, ROTARIX, CERVARIX, and SYNFLORIX. The defendant had adopted confusingly similar marks such as RUTORIX, DROTARIX, AMIRIX, CEFTARIX, and MIRIX for pharmaceutical products. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.04.2026, and the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, directing the defendant to cease all infringing use, recall products, cancel its trademark applications, and take down online listings.
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v.Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
M/S Dindayal Industries Ltd v.M/S Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged the framing of issues in a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'Dindayal' used by both parties for Ayurvedic products. The court deleted Issue No. 10, holding that opposition to a trademark application (No. 2885787 in Class 05) cannot be adjudicated in a civil suit as it is pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The court further modified Issue No. 12 to expand the scope of the passing off inquiry beyond narrow ocular similarity of packaging, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Parle Products v. J.P. and Co.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Picadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.) v.Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited v.Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.
M/S Arpan Biri Factory v.M/S Momin Biri Factory
The petitioner, M/s Arpan Biri Factory, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.09.2026 passed by the Commercial Appellate Court (District Judge, South Salmara), which dismissed Misc.(J) Case No. 10/2026 without issuing notice, on the ground that the relief sought was redundant since the connected appeal itself prayed for temporary injunction. The Gauhati High Court agreed with the petitioner that under Section 107 of the CPC, appellate courts possess the same powers as courts of original jurisdiction, and the petitioner had a right to seek temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal.
Ashok Jain v.State NCT Of Delhi And Anr
The petitioner, Ashok Jain (Accused No. 2), sought quashing of FIR No. 15/2012 registered at P.S. EOW, Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to counterfeiting of car speakers bearing the registered trademark 'PIONEER' belonging to Respondent No. 2. The parties had amicably settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Understanding executed in March 2025, with the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs. 1 lakh as full and final settlement. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, while directing the police to destroy the seized counterfeit goods.
Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited
This Chamber Summons was filed by Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited in their 1996 trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited, seeking to bring on record six renewed Legal Proceedings Certificates (LPCs) evidencing renewal of their trade mark registrations. The Bombay High Court allowed the application, directing the LPCs to be marked into evidence as Exhibits P-50 to P-55, along with two additional LPCs as P-56 and P-57, while reserving Anchor's liberty to challenge the evidentiary weight and probative value of these documents.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the defendant's mark 'Amul TRU' was deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No. 2276842 in Class 32). The defendant filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, which was allowed by the court, resulting in the dismissal of the suit with no costs.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited (plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No.2276842 in Class 32) and the defendant's alleged use of the mark 'Amul TRU'. The court allowed an application filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908, to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, and consequently dismissed the suit with no costs.
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.
Annapurna Swadisht Limited v.Gef Foods India Private Limited
The Madras High Court dealt with a trademark dispute between GEF Foods India Private Limited, the proprietor of the registered mark ANNAPOORNA used for blended spices since around 1980, and Annapurna Swadisht Limited, which used the mark ANNAPURNA for snacks and namkeens. The plaintiff sought interim injunctions for trademark infringement and passing off, which were initially granted ex parte on 05.08.2026. The defendant filed applications to vacate the injunction, which the court dismissed, making the ad interim injunction absolute pending disposal of the suit, though confined to the goods and uses where prima facie confusion was established.
S.Balakrishnan Unni v.M/s. Vasudeva Vilasam Herbal Remedies (P) Ltd. & Anr.
This is a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court by S. Balakrishnan Unni, trading as Vasudeva Vilasam A.M. Pharmacy, seeking to quash the order dated 12.12.2008 in O.R.A. No. 92/2006/TM/CH passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and to allow his rectification application against the first respondent. The court issued only a procedural order directing impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks as a third respondent and issuance of fresh notice, posting the matter for further hearing.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a consolidated set of matters involving Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula. The petitioner's counsel submitted that evidence was still ongoing and prayed for adjournment of the hearing. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to 22.03.2027, directing that any interim order shall continue.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court consolidating multiple connected cases between Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula, along with related matters. The petitioner's counsel requested adjournment on the ground that evidence was still being recorded. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to March 22, 2027, directing that any existing interim orders would continue.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. Respondent No. 1, the Registrant, failed to appear, and while physical service had returned undelivered, e-mail service was effected. The court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service within two weeks and listed the matter for directions on October 23, 2026.