Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 104 of 123

trademark defendant favorable · Jun 27, 2012

M/S South Thindis (Now known as South Veg Thindis) v.M/S Billion Smiles Hospitality Pvt Ltd

Karnataka High Court · WP No.24093/2012 (IPR)

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S South Thindis, which sought to stay an ongoing trademark infringement suit based on its pending application for rectification. The court held that since the petitioner raised the plea of invalidity for the first time in the written statement and not before the suit was instituted, the mandate of Section 124(1)(b)(i) did not apply. Furthermore, the court noted the belated nature of the stay request, citing precedent against staying proceedings at a late stage.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 30, 2012

Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited (and Dr. Issac Mathai) v.Defendant/Respondent (unnamed in excerpt)

Madras High Court · O.A.No.835 to 837 of 2012 in C.S.No.649of 2012

The Madras High Court granted interim injunctions in favor of Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited against the respondent. The court found that the respondent's use of deceptively similar marks like 'SOWKHYA' and associated domain names constituted trademark infringement and passing off, despite arguments regarding prior usage or delay. This ruling underscores the importance of registered trademarks in protecting service-based businesses from unauthorized imitation.
trademark defendant favorable · May 18, 2012

United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Delhi High Court · LPA No.679 of 2011

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by United Biotech Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to remove its trademark FORZID from the register. The court found that the respondent, Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, had successfully demonstrated a likelihood of confusion between their earlier registered mark ORZID and the appellant's mark FORZID in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment reinforces the principle that even sophisticated buyers can be misled by deceptively similar marks operating in the same field.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 10, 2012

M/s Skol Breweries Limited v.State Of Haryana And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court · Amended CWP No. 7775 of 2006

The Punjab-Haryana High Court ruled in favor of M/s Skol Breweries Limited, setting aside an excise department order that denied fee exemptions. The court held that since the petitioner had filed an application for trademark registration based on a valid assignment deed as early as May 27, 2005, the effective date of ownership was retroactive. Consequently, the State's demand for franchise and registration fees from that period was deemed incorrect, necessitating the matter be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
trademark defendant favorable · May 9, 2012

Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Bestech India Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) 352/2011

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Single Judge's refusal of an interim injunction against Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the common Sanskrit word 'Ananda' had acquired sufficient secondary distinctiveness to protect the appellant's business goodwill in relation to housing. The court ruled that while the mark was registered, its public domain nature and the limited sales history were insufficient evidence to prevent the respondent from using it in a cognate field.
trademark defendant favorable · Apr 27, 2012

M/S Inder Industries v.M/S Gemco Electrical Industries

Delhi High Court · RFA No.259/2008

The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision in favor of the plaintiff, M/S Gemco Electrical Industries. The core dispute revolved around who was the prior user and adopter of the trade mark 'WONDER' for electrical switches. The court found that the respondent-plaintiff had established continuous use since 1984, thereby establishing superior rights under passing off law. Consequently, the appellant-defendant was rightly restrained from using the identical trade mark in the same market.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 17, 2012

Times Internet Ltd. v.Jonathan S. And Another

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 1742/2007

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Times Internet Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against the infringement of its brand 'Indiatimes'. The court recognized that Indiatimes, a coined word associated with extensive e-commerce operations, held significant goodwill and reputation. Furthermore, the plaintiff was awarded damages, affirming the protection afforded to established online brands.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 13, 2012

Astrazeneca Uk Ltd & Ors v.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No.1421/2005 / I.A. No. 18464/2011

The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Orchid Chemicals seeking a stay of infringement proceedings against Astrazeneca. The court held that since Astrazeneca had previously challenged the validity of Orchid’s mark, Orchid was barred from filing rectification proceedings without first obtaining prima-facie satisfaction from the Court. The judgment emphasized judicial discipline and the principle of estoppel, preventing parties from taking contradictory pleas on the same issue.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 30, 2012

Lt Foods Ltd. v.Sunstar Overseas Ltd. & Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Limited

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) Nos.612/2009, 639/2009 & 653/2009

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Lt Foods Ltd. regarding the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'HERITAGE' used for rice. The court found that the marks used by the defendants, 'INDIAN HERITAGE' and 'INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT', were deceptively similar, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using these infringing trademarks until the final disposal of the suit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 22, 2012

M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited v.Piyush Shah

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · SB Civil Writ Petition No.5496 of 2011

The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited, setting aside a lower court's decision that dismissed its application under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that since Havmor was a registered proprietor and had commenced action with due diligence by issuing a statutory notice, the suit filed by the respondent could not be deemed a 'groundless threat.' This judgment reinforces the importance of timely legal action by trademark owners to protect their established rights against potential infringement.
trademark partly allowed · Mar 19, 2012

M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. v.The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I, Kochadai, Madurai

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai · I.T.A. No. 722/Mds/2009 & I.T.A. No. 1047/Mds/2009

The dispute involved the classification of a lump sum royalty paid by Fenner (India) Ltd. to Fenner, U.K., for the use of the 'FENNER' trade mark. The Assessing Officer treated this payment as capital expenditure, but the Tribunal partially allowed both sides' appeals on different grounds.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 15, 2012

M/S Fastrack Communications Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Singhal

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 2484/2010

The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Fastrack Communications against Manish Singhal regarding the use of the mark 'LEMON'. Although the plaintiff argued for an injunction based on prior usage and apprehension of passing off (a qua timet action), the court noted that the defendant had categorically stated he would not launch or use the trademark until his own registration application was decided. Given this stand, the court found no further basis to sustain the suit, despite acknowledging the plaintiff's right to file such an action.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 13, 2012

Merck Kgaa v.Galaxy Hompro And Anr

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 2503/2010

The Delhi High Court dismissed Merck Kgaa's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision, upholding the registration of the trademark 'RECIBION'. The court found no deceptive similarity between 'CEBION' and 'RECIBION', emphasizing that the common suffix 'BION' is widely used in the pharmaceutical industry. Crucially, the judgment noted the petitioner's lack of recent use of its mark and applied the strict test for confusion, concluding that the marks were sufficiently distinct.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 12, 2012

M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Service Tax

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · Service Tax Appeal No. 597 of 2007

Hero Honda appealed a Service Tax order confirming tax liability based on the Revenue's view that permitting third parties (BPCL, Tide Water, Savita Chemicals) to use its trade marks ('Hero Honda', 'Hero Honda 4T') constituted taxable Intellectual Property Services. The Tribunal ultimately ruled that the demand was largely barred by limitation because there was no evidence of suppression or malafide intent on the part of the appellant.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 12, 2012

Executive Access (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Anand Menon & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No. 527/2012

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction favoring Executive Access (India) Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Anand Menon and others. The plaintiff, which holds registered trademark rights for 'EXECUTIVE ACCESS' and its associated logo in India, alleged that the defendants were operating a competing executive search business using similar names and misrepresenting their affiliation with the plaintiff. The court found a strong prima facie case, recognizing the importance of protecting the plaintiff's territorial rights in the Indian market.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 16, 2012

Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v.Union Of India

Madras High Court · Writ Petition No.8681 of 2011

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Rhizome Distilleries, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark. The court held that the IPAB erred by applying grounds for refusal—which should have been raised at the time of initial registration—to a rectification application filed much later. Given that the petitioner had used the mark and faced prior objections which were withdrawn, the High Court found the subsequent attempt to cancel the mark was legally unsustainable.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 16, 2012

R.G. Oswal Hosiery Industries v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) No. 610 of 2010

The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by R.G. Oswal Hosiery Industries against an IPAB order that allowed rectification of its trademarks, DOLLOR (Nos. 249986 and 291763). The court held that the subsequent renewals were vitiated because they were filed by M/s. Kedia Knitwear, a mere licensee, who falsely represented themselves as the registered proprietor. This established a strict requirement under the Trade Marks Rules that only the registered owner can apply for renewal.
trademark remanded · Feb 6, 2012

Shree Siayaram Fab Private Limited v.Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Appeal (Lodging) No.71 of 2012 / Appeal (Lodging) No.72 of 2012

The appeals challenged the Single Judge's orders regarding a suit for infringement and passing off. The core issue was whether the plaintiff could file an infringement suit despite the defendant having a registered trademark, which the appellant argued barred the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 31, 2012

Trans Tyres India Pvt. Ltd. v.Double Coin Holdings Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) 296-97/2011

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the trademark 'Double Coin' used for tyres. The court examined whether Trans Tyres India Pvt. Ltd., which had established significant market presence and registered the mark, was entitled to protection against Double Coin Holdings Ltd. The judgment focused heavily on the principles governing interim injunctions, ultimately finding that a prima facie case existed in favor of Double Coin Holdings Ltd. based on the goodwill associated with the brand.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 13, 2012

M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises v.Sandeep Gullah

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No.2683/2011

M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises filed suit against Sandeep Gullah alleging that after his retirement from their partnership, he began using an identical and deceptively similar trademark, 'CITY BANQUETS,' in a nearby location. The plaintiff claimed this constituted passing off and infringement of their established trade mark, 'CITY BANQUET.' The court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a strong case for proprietary rights and that allowing the defendant to continue using the name would cause irreparable loss.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 13, 2012

M/s.Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.M/s.Shree Siyaram Fab Private Limited

Bombay High Court · NOTICE OF MOTION NO.50 OF 2012 in SUIT NO.2727 OF 2011

The defendants filed a notice of motion seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint, arguing that since their mark was also registered, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court rejected this contention, holding that while sections like 29 and 30(2)(e) provide defenses to an infringement action, they do not bar the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2012

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited

Bombay High Court · 1 nms174-11

The Bombay High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Sun Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTEN') and Emcure Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTINEX'). Although the plaintiff was the prior user, the court ultimately found that 'SUSTINEX' was not deceptively similar to 'SUSTEN'. The judgment emphasized phonetic distinctiveness, noting a clear audible divide in 'SUSTINEX', leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's notice of motion.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 2, 2012

Suresh Kumar Jain v.Union Of India & Anr

Delhi High Court · LPA 676/2010

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Suresh Kumar Jain challenging the rectification order passed by the IPAB against his trademark 'Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)'. The court upheld the finding that the registration was obtained on a false basis because the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim of using the mark since 1995. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the name is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness, reinforcing the principle that trademark registrations must be based on truthful representations.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 23, 2011

M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. v.Abhipray Securities Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No.2210/2011

The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. against Abhipray Securities Private Limited and others. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity between 'ABHIPRA' and 'ABHIPRAY'. Despite the defendants arguing lack of jurisdiction or non-similarity, the court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that confusion in business warrants protection even if adopted innocently.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 20, 2011

Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v.Radico Khaitan Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS)-549&567/2011

The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute between Carlsberg and Radico Khaitan regarding the use of the numeral '8' in their respective alcoholic beverage trademarks. Radico claimed infringement and passing off, arguing that Carlsberg's use of 'PALONE 8' was confusingly similar to its registered mark '8 PM'. However, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Carlsberg, finding no prima facie evidence of consumer confusion or actionable similarity between the two labels. The court emphasized that mere use of a common numeral or color combination is insufficient for an injunction.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 16, 2011

M/S S M K A Enterprises v.M/S Suchita Industries

Karnataka High Court · SCH N018

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of M/S S M K A Enterprises, granting a permanent injunction against M/S Suchita Industries for infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Tiny Care'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks and products was deceptive, causing confusion among consumers. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting established brand goodwill in the competitive FMCG market.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 2, 2011

Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. v.Word Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network

Madras High Court · O.S.A. Nos. 300 to 303 of 2011

Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. challenged Word Of God Fellowship Inc., claiming infringement and passing off related to its registered trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK'. The appellant sought permanent injunctions against downlinking, distribution, and use of the mark in India. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the respondent was honestly using their pre-existing global business name. Furthermore, the court held that since the program was originally designed by the respondent, they retained original ownership rights, preventing restrictions on their usage.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 29, 2011

Malhotra Book Depot v.Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) NO.7882/2010

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malhotra Book Depot, mandating the Union of India to restore and renew its trademark registration. The court found that the removal of the mark was illegal because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory 'O-3' notice required under Rule 67 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. Furthermore, the court held that restoration should not be viewed as a penal measure and that procedural lapses by the government do not bar the petitioner's right to renewal.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 18, 2011

Alaknanda Cement Private Limited & Raghav Cement v.Ultratech Cement Limited

Bombay High Court · app463-11.sxw

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Alaknanda Cement and Raghav Cement, upholding the single judge's order granting a temporary injunction to Ultratech Cement Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ULTRATUFF CEMENT,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ULTRATECH CEMENT.' Furthermore, the defendants were deemed not to have approached the court with clean hands due to presenting prima facie fabricated invoices.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 15, 2011

Rohit Khattar & Anr. v.Cookie Singh

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No. 559/2009

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Rohit Khattar & Anr., finding that the defendant's use of 'CHOR BIZZARE' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against their established brand, CHOR BIZARRE. The court noted that despite a mere misspelling, the similarity was sufficient to create confusion among consumers regarding the origin of the restaurant services. Consequently, the plaintiffs were granted permanent injunctions and awarded damages.
1 •••103104105•••123
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 →