Trademark Cases

3,763 decisions across India

India 3,763

Page 1 of 126

trademark interim order · Sep 1, 2026

KRBL Limited v.LT Foods Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 239/2026 & connected matters (240-244/2026)

KRBL Limited filed six connected cancellation petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking removal of trademark registrations for 'WORLD'S 1ST BIRYANI DAY', 'WORLD BIRYANI DAY', and 'WORLD'S BIRYANI DAY' registered in the name of LT Foods Limited across Classes 35 and 41. The petitions were filed under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court allowed the exemption applications and issued notice to the respondents, with the matter next listed for 23 September 2026.
trademark defendant favorable · Aug 31, 2026

Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026; Review Pet. 391/2026

The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record (in his personal capacity) seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the cost imposition portion of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in a trademark dispute involving the mark 'RewireX' (Application No. 6892520 in Class 5). The court held that the review was not maintainable as it was filed by the counsel personally rather than by the party, and found no merit in the contentions regarding the court's reliance on prior suppression findings. The court reiterated that filing counsel bear personal responsibility as officers of the court to ensure full and fair disclosure of documents in pleadings.
trademark defendant favorable · Aug 31, 2026

ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v.Fitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2025 & CS(COMM) 320/2025

ASR Market Ventures, operating a fitness and wellness platform under marks including FITFEAST (adopted in 2017 for nutrition and meal-planning services), sought cancellation of Fitship's registered trademark No. 5154387 in Class 30 (covering food products like high protein snacks) and an interim injunction to restrain its use. The Delhi High Court dismissed the injunction application, holding that ASR could not establish prior goodwill or reputation in the FITFEAST mark for goods in Class 30, as its use was confined to online nutrition advisory and meal-planning services rather than physical food products. The court noted Fitship's substantial turnover, continuous use since 2021, and the absence of any concrete evidence of actual confusion, finding that ASR failed the trinity test for grant of interim relief.
trademark interim order · Aug 28, 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)

Madras High Court · O.A. No. 876 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 247 of 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application for ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe defendant operating the fraudulent website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using Ashok Leyland's registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST to falsely represent affiliation and solicit dealership/franchise opportunities. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an interim stay until the next hearing date of 25.09.2026.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 25, 2026

Jyothy Labs Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 35/2026

Jyothy Labs Limited filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its opposition (No. 1179106) against a trademark application filed by respondent No. 2, which had been allowed by the Registrar while the opposition was still pending. Respondent No. 2 had no objection to the petition being allowed. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned trademark registration (No. 5345163) and remanded the matter to the Registrar for reconsideration of the application, ensuring the petitioner's opposition is duly considered before any decision on registration is taken.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 24, 2026

VKC Nuts Private Limited v.Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 207/2025

VKC Nuts Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of trademark registration No. 6656555 in Class 29 held by Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited. During proceedings, Respondent No. 1 voluntarily agreed to withdraw the impugned registration, while reserving its right to enforce common law rights through separate legal proceedings. The Court accepted the respondent's statement as binding and disposed of the petition accordingly.
trademark interim order · Aug 24, 2026

Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr v.The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 233/2026

Gufic Bioscience Ltd and another filed a rectification petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of trademark registration no. 2533114 registered in Class 05 in favour of The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited. The court allowed the exemption application, condoned a one-day delay in re-filing, and issued notice to the respondents returnable on 8 December 2026. The matter is at the initial stage of proceedings.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 24, 2026

M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm.) No. 02/2025

M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'GOLDMEDAL' for electrical goods including wires and cables, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against two defendants. The plaintiff established its ownership through a chain of assignments dating back to 1979-80, with multiple registered trademarks across Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, and 35. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XIII-A CPC for summary judgment, finding that the defendants had no credible defence and had admittedly used the GOLDMEDAL mark on identical goods. A decree of permanent injunction was passed against Defendant No. 1 along with damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2026

Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent (Celagenex), owner of the registered mark 'NUREWIRE' (TM No. 4525594), had obtained an ex-parte injunction against the Appellant (Nugenesys) using the mark 'RewireX' (TM App. No. 6892520). The Division Bench found that the Respondent had suppressed material facts—specifically a cease-and-desist notice dated 29.10.2025 and a trademark objection dated 27.01.2026—while obtaining the ex-parte order. The Court held that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from equitable relief, vacated the injunction, dismissed the interim application, and imposed costs.
trademark interim order · Aug 19, 2026

Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 227/2026

Flu Jeans Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of Registration No. 3987460 in Class 25 for the trademark 'FLUCOT'. The matter is at the notice stage, with the court issuing notice to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes and granting Respondent No. 2 six weeks to file a reply. The case will be next heard on 27 October 2026.
trademark settled · Aug 17, 2026

Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors

Delhi High Court · LPA 595/2026 & LPA 628/2026

Two Letters Patent Appeals were filed by Siddharth Vij challenging a single judge's order in petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the registered trademarks 'PONTA' (word mark no. 4134589) and its device mark (no. 4885149) in Class 9 for electrical goods. The appeals were disposed of based on mutual consent undertakings, whereby the appellant agreed to cease all manufacture of PONTA-branded electrical goods and exhaust existing stock of approximately 53,790 pieces through distributors by 31 March 2027, after which all use, promotion, and advertising of the mark must permanently cease. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 17, 2026

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark DAPLOGIN registered in Class 05 in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to its well-known coined mark DAPLO used for a Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus medication containing Dapagliflozin. The Delhi High Court held that both marks shared the same API and therapeutic use, and that phonetic and visual similarity between DAPLO and DAPLOGIN was likely to cause confusion, particularly dangerous in the pharmaceutical context. Applying the heightened standard of care in pharmaceutical trademark disputes as laid down by the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Court allowed the petition and cancelled the impugned registration.
trademark interim order · Aug 14, 2026

M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1171/2026

M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademark 'GULMOHAR' (Trademark No. 2240563 dated 28.11.2011), filed a first appeal before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2026 passed against it in a trademark infringement suit filed by Rajesh Jain. The appellant contended that summons were never properly served and that the trial court wrongly drew a presumption of service based on inoperative addresses, depriving it of the opportunity to defend. The court issued notice to the respondents and stayed the operation and execution of the impugned decree pending further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 13, 2026

M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited v.Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited

Delhi District Court · TM No. 266/2021

M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited, part of the RSPL Group (known for brands like GHARI and XPERT), sued Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited for infringing its registered trademark 'UDAN' used in respect of sanitary napkins. The plaintiff had registered the mark under Application No. 1595657 in Class 5 since 29.08.2007. The defendant, engaged in pharmaceutical and medicinal products, allegedly adopted a deceptively similar mark for its competing sanitary napkin products. The court, noting the defendant failed to appear despite service, proceeded ex parte and found the defendant's use of the impugned mark amounted to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
trademark mixed · Aug 13, 2026

M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd. v.M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sh. Sandeep Garg, Mrs. Mansi Garg, Mr. Rishabh Garg)

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) No. 3786/2024

M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademark 'SCS' in Classes 9 and 38 for wireless communication equipment, sued its former authorized dealer M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The court found that the defendants had used a deceptively similar mark on their products, causing confusion in the market. A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using marks similar to 'SCS', but the plaintiff's claims for injunction regarding the word 'Sanchar', delivery up of infringing goods, and damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs were all declined as the plaintiff failed to prove actual damage to goodwill or reputation.
trademark interim order · Aug 12, 2026

Haw Par Corporation Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · IPDATM/252/2023

Procedural order in a trademark restoration application before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner, Haw Par Corporation Limited, sought restoration of its trademark application IPDATM 252/2023, which had been dismissed for default on 27 November 2024. The court noted that service of the restoration application filed on 5 August 2026 was not yet complete and directed the matter to appear in the monthly list of October 2026.
trademark interim order · Aug 12, 2026

Haw Par Brothers International Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · IPDATM/249/2023

Procedural order in a trademark matter before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner filed an application on 7 August 2026 seeking restoration of trademark application IPDATM 249 of 2023, which had been dismissed for default on 27 November 2024. The court noted that service of the restoration application was not yet complete and adjourned the matter to the monthly list of October 2026.
trademark mixed · Aug 12, 2026

M/S KRBL Limited v.M/S J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 701/2016

KRBL Limited, owner of the well-known INDIA GATE basmati rice brand, filed a passing off suit against JR Rice India for using the mark ROYAL GATE with device of INDIA GATE. During pendency of the suit, KRBL acquired registered trademark INDIA GATE (No. 599833 in Class 30) via assignment and the mark was declared well-known. The court allowed KRBL's amendment application to incorporate infringement claims and well-known trademark status, despite a 5-year delay, but imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for the unexplained delay.
trademark settled · Aug 11, 2026

Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)

Bombay High Court · Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 with IA (L) No. 21406 of 2026 and Leave Petition (L) No. 21432 of 2026

Metro Brands Limited, the proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in relation to footwear, filed a commercial IP suit against Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive suit, citing that an earlier 2021 suit (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) and subsequent developments were not comprehensively pleaded. The Bombay High Court permitted the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit and allowed refund of court fees.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 10, 2026

Jyothy Labs Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Commercial IP Suit No. 240 of 2021; Interim Application No. 1880 of 2021

Jyothy Labs Ltd., successor of Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd. (which adopted 'NEEM' for toothpaste circa 1920), sued Dabur India Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off based on three Class 3 registrations of marks featuring 'NEEM' as the leading feature. The court found that despite the descriptive nature of the word 'NEEM', the plaintiff's long, continuous and extensive use had established substantial goodwill and that 'NEEM' had acquired secondary meaning distinctive of the plaintiff. The court held that Dabur's prominent adoption of 'NEEM' as a source-identifying feature was likely to cause consumer confusion and injure the plaintiff's goodwill, satisfying both infringement and passing off causes of action.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 6, 2026

Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr. (VOX DEI Labs)

Madras High Court · OA Nos. 812 to 814 of 2026 in CS(COMM DIV) No. 234 of 2026

Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), sought an ad interim injunction against Maxttox Healthcare and VOX DEI Labs for using the mark 'UPRG9' on a similar pharmaceutical product. The Madras High Court found the alpha-numeric mark 'UPRG9' to be prima facie infringing of the plaintiff's registered mark 'ARG 9', relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740-742 of 2025 where a similar mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. An ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
trademark interim order · Aug 5, 2026

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Trademarks, Office of Trademark Registry, Chennai

Madras High Court · WP(IPD) No. 27 of 2026

Wipro Enterprises filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of TM-P and TM-M applications filed for recordal of trademark assignments involving four assignment deeds transferring trademarks from individuals and entities (Ammini Karnan, Biju Karnan, KKR Agro Mills Pvt Ltd, KKR Products and Marketing Pvt Ltd) to Wipro Enterprises. The Madras High Court, without going into the merits, directed the Registry to dispose of the applications on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 3, 2026

Glaxo Group Limited v.Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 794/2026

Glaxo Group Limited sued Visuteq Lifesciences for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant's mark ZENTEQ GEL was deceptively similar to its well-known pharmaceutical trademark ZENTEL. The parties amicably resolved the dispute, with the defendant acknowledging Glaxo's prior rights in ZENTEL and undertaking not to use or seek registration of any similar mark. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and recording settlement terms including withdrawal of the defendant's trademark application, exhaustion of existing stock, and removal of online listings.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 30, 2026

V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · LPA No. 18 of 2026

V-Guard Industries, proprietor of the well-known 'V-GUARD' mark with a Kangaroo device, applied for registration of the label mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16 (Application No. 3254001). Kangaro Industries opposed the application but failed to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed time under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, instead seeking an extension under Section 131 read with Rule 109. The Assistant Registrar rejected the extension and held the opposition deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2). The single judge reversed this order, but the Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, holding that Rule 45 prescribes a specific time limit with express consequences for default, and Section 131/Rule 109 discretionary extension cannot override the mandatory provisions of Rule 45.
trademark settled · Jul 29, 2026

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 87/2025

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' registered in Class 03 in favour of Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, which the court found lawful. Pursuant to the settlement, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the Register to maintain its purity.
trademark defendant favorable · Jul 28, 2026

Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · LPA 316/2026

Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenged the dismissal of its opposition (No. 1075195) against respondent no.2's trademark application (No. 1606126) for the mark '20-20' in Class 30. The Registrar dismissed the opposition, the Single Judge upheld that order, and the Division Bench also dismissed Parle's Letters Patent Appeal. The court held that Parle, having claimed before the Registry that its mark was dissimilar to the cited mark to obtain registration, could not later claim deceptive similarity to seek equitable relief against the registered proprietor. The respondent no.2's diligent pursuit of registration was upheld, and Parle's intervening use of the same mark was given no special benefit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 27, 2026

Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)

Madras High Court · OA Nos. 724 to 726 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 209 of 2026

Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), sought an ad interim injunction against Orange Biotech and others who were using the mark 'ORG 9' for a similar pharmaceutical product. The Madras High Court found prima facie trademark infringement, noting that the alpha-numeric mark ORG-9 was deceptively similar to the registered mark ARG-9, and relied on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740-742 of 2025 where a similar mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. The court granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 27, 2026

Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2025

Cipla Limited filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972 in Class 5), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court allowed restoration, and the Registrar subsequently updated the status to 'Registered'. A third-party applicant then sought impleadment and recall of the restoration order, arguing that the Registrar had not followed Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and that the applicant had not been heard. The court dismissed the third-party applications, holding that renewal/restoration is strictly between the Trademark Registry and the registered proprietor, and any aggrieved third party must pursue rectification proceedings rather than intervening in restoration proceedings.
trademark mixed · Jul 23, 2026

Alka Industrial Corporation v.Satyapaul And Co & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · LPA 294/2026

This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a trademark rectification/variation order in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022, where the Single Judge had directed variation of the registered mark 'AiC ARUN' (Reg. No. 1524226 in Class 7) under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act by deleting the word 'ARUN'. The Division Bench did not disturb the substantive direction but permitted the appellant to dispose of its existing stock of AIC Arun branded goods and packing material valued at approximately Rs. 8.50 lakhs within six months. The order balances the rights of the registered proprietor with the practical need to exhaust pre-existing inventory following a trademark variation order.
trademark defendant favorable · Jul 21, 2026

Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jagdish Dahyalal Patel challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction that restrained him from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, which was found deceptively similar to Anchor Consumer Products' registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The appellant argued that the respondent suppressed material facts regarding his prior use since June 2021, but the court held that the 45 GST invoices could not overcome the Registrar's finding of no bona fide user and the established deceptive similarity. The court upheld the Single Judge's detailed reasoning and found no suppression warranting interference with the injunction.
1 23•••126
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 →