Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 111 of 123

trademark defendant favorable · May 15, 2007

M/s Satnam Overseas v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks And ...

Delhi High Court · MIPR2007(2)309

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over the geographical scope of the 'KOHINOOR' trademark for rice. The appellant, Satnam Overseas, sought rectification to limit the respondent's registered mark to only a few cities in Uttar Pradesh, alleging lack of bona fide use nationwide. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the broader registration rights of the original user (the respondent). The ruling emphasizes that restricting a trademark based on limited local usage is impractical and contrary to normal trade practices.
trademark defendant favorable · May 9, 2007

Krishna Oil Industries v.Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · null

Krishna Oil Industries appealed the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks which treated their opposition against the registration of the trade mark 'EKKA' as abandoned. The appellant argued that they had filed their evidence before the abandonment order was passed, despite delays due to internal issues. The IPAB dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the Assistant Registrar's decision because the appellant failed to file evidence within the final extended period.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 24, 2007

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v.Income-tax, Range-10(2)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai · I.T.A. No. 4259/Mum/2007

The assessee, Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., appealed against the denial of depreciation on an acquired trade mark ('Snuggy') and associated goodwill. The Assessing Officer denied the claim based on lack of valuation reports and the inclusion of goodwill in the purchase price. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that both trade marks and associated goodwill are intangible assets eligible for depreciation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 23, 2007

R.K. Patel And Co., Tobacco ... v.Shri Rajdhar Kalu Patil @ Patel And Ors.

Bombay High Court · Trade Mark Suit No. 1 of 1999 (Appeals)

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (R.K. Patel And Co., Tobacco) against the defendants, finding that the defendant's actions constituted trade mark infringement and passing off. The judgment affirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief based on prima facie evidence. Furthermore, the Court directed the expeditious disposal of the underlying suit, recognizing its age.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 20, 2007

Starlinger And Co. Ges.M.B.H. v.Lohia Starlinger Limited

Allahabad High Court

The appeal concerned a dispute over the continued use of the name 'Starlinger' and associated know-how by Lohia Starlinger Ltd. after the original joint venture agreement concluded. The High Court found that the right to use the name was intrinsically linked to the contract, and allowed the appeal.
trademark defendant favorable · Apr 18, 2007

Contests2Win.Com India Private v.Cell Cast Interactive India Private

Bombay High Court · null

The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant committed passing off by using the mark 'Bid2Win'. The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using similar marks. The court examined the claims, noting that the word '2win' is common worldwide and the defendant was using it bona fide.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 4, 2007

Ayurherbs Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Three-N-Products Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 141(2007)DLT609

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ayurherbs Pharmaceuticals, finding that Three-N-Products Private Limited was engaging in passing off by using the name 'Ayur' in its corporate identity. Despite arguments regarding product differences and derivation from Ayurveda, the court held that the use of the suffix 'Ayur Herbs Pharmaceuticals Private Limited' was likely to confuse the ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces the principle that trademark infringement can occur even if the goods are not identical, provided there is a likelihood of deception.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 27, 2007

Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v.Rgv Film Factory And Ors.

Delhi High Court · 138(2007)DLT312

Kanungo Media sought a permanent injunction against Rgv Film Factory for using the title 'Nishabd' for their film, claiming it was deceptively similar to their award-winning film 'Nisshabd'. The plaintiff argued that its prior recognition and association with the name gave it exclusive rights. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the interim injunction application due to significant delay in approaching the court, noting that the balance of convenience had shifted heavily in favor of the defendant as the film was nearing release.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 22, 2007

Encore Electronics Ltd., A Limited v.Anchor Electronics And Electricals

Bombay High Court · 2007(5)BOMCR262

The Bombay High Court upheld an earlier injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark 'Encore' was deceptively similar to the established plaintiff mark 'Anchor,' particularly when considered phonetically and visually in Indian languages like Gujarati and Devanagari scripts. Given the plaintiff's extensive reputation and investment, the court determined that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
trademark interim order · Feb 5, 2007

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.Asia Today Ltd.

Delhi High Court · CM (M) No. 183/2007

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Asia Today Ltd., addressing the rampant misuse of the 'Zee' trademark. The court restrained the Registrar of Trademarks from processing or advertising any pending applications for 'Zee', effectively halting further registrations. Furthermore, existing registrations held by certain respondents were stayed until the matter could be fully heard, protecting the petitioner's established rights and preventing dilution.
trademark mixed · Feb 3, 2007

Golden Star Paints And Chemicals Private Limited v.Eastern Chemicals & J&R Associates

Kerala High Court · RFA.No. 187 of 2007 (A)

The Kerala High Court addressed an appeal concerning allegations of passing off involving red and black oxide products. The court found that the appellants' product names, despite minor differences like adding 'New,' were deceptively similar to the respondent's well-known brand, GOLDSTAR'S EAGLE. Consequently, the finding of passing off was upheld, confirming the perpetual injunction against the second appellant. However, the court partially allowed the appeal by setting aside a specific decree related to artistic work under the Copyright Act, noting that the suit was fundamentally one of passing off.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 31, 2007

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Cipla Limited

Bombay High Court · 2007(109)BOM.L.R.445

The Bombay High Court rejected Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's application for an interim injunction against Cipla Limited regarding the use of the trade mark 'Graniset'. Despite the similarity in marks and their use in treating nausea related to chemotherapy, the court found that the plaintiff lacked a prima facie proprietary right in the mark. The judgment highlighted the importance of prior user rights versus registration, while also noting the plaintiff's failure to provide supporting medical evidence for potential consumer confusion.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 25, 2007

Mrs. Ishi Khosla v.Anil Aggarwal And Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS (OS) No. 309 of 2005

The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Ishi Khosla against Anil Aggarwal and others regarding the use of the trademark 'Whole Foods'. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of prior use, distinctiveness, and reputation associated with her brand. This ruling protects her goodwill against deceptive imitation by competitors, reinforcing the importance of early action in trade mark disputes.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 21, 2006

B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre v.Shree Rajmoti Industries

Trademark Tribunal · 2007(34)PTC288(REG)

The dispute concerned a proposed opposition to a trade mark application (Application No. 1279800). The question before the Tribunal was whether the notice of opposition filed by Shree Rajmoti Industries on August 28, 2006, was within the prescribed statutory period, considering procedural delays and late receipt of Trade Marks Journals.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 20, 2006

Eureka Forbes Ltd. v.Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka High Court · 2007(4)KARLJ122

The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes Ltd. (Eureka Forbes) against Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., granting an interim injunction to protect its brand, Aquaguard. The court found that Pentair's advertisement was disparaging and maligning towards Eureka Forbes' UV purifier technology, despite the trial court's initial dismissal of the plea. This decision underscores the importance of protecting established market leaders from false or damaging comparative advertising.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 13, 2006

Nitin Sethi And Anr. v.Frontier Biscuit Factory Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 2007(34)PTC78(DEL)

This case involved a dispute over the use of the 'FRONTIER' mark, where the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging copyright and passing off infringement by the petitioners using 'OM FRONTIER'. The petitioners sought to implead the original author of the copyright under Section 61 of the Copyright Act. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prima facie evidence provided by the respondent's certified copy from the Copyright Register established the respondent as the owner, thereby negating the need for the author's mandatory impleadment.
trademark mixed · Nov 20, 2006

B.I.C. Sales Corporation And Anr. v.Tinwari Automobiles And Anr.

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · 2007(34)PTC366(RAJ)

The Rajasthan High Court admitted appeals challenging a temporary injunction granted in an action under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Despite initial arguments regarding irreparable injury, the court ultimately decided that the balance of equities favored staying the existing injunction during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants were mandated to provide detailed accounts of their manufacturing and selling activities to ensure transparency while the main suit proceeds.
trademark dismissed · Nov 16, 2006

Bal Krishan Jindal v.Mohinder Singh And Anr.

Intellectual Property Appellate Board · TRA/136/2004/TM/DEL and TRA/155/TM/DEL

Two applications were filed before the IPAB seeking rectification/cancellation of the trade mark 'Citizen' by both parties. Shri Kishan Jindal claimed prior adoption and use, while Mohinder Singh claimed his own rights to the mark. The Board found that the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding lack of distinctiveness or deception.
trademark defendant favorable · Nov 6, 2006

Intel Corporation v.Anil Hada And Ors.

Delhi High Court · Not specified (Suit No. 209/2004 & Suit No. 933/2002)

Intel Corporation sought an interim injunction against defendants using 'INTEL' in their corporate names, citing trademark infringement and dilution. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the applications for interim relief, finding that there was no prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants. The court noted the significant delay in filing suit (over 15 years) and balanced this against the defendants' established reputation, leaning the balance of convenience in their favor.
trademark defendant favorable · Nov 1, 2006

Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. v.Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · Suit No.456 of 2004 (and related IAs)

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Soongachi Tea Industries, granting an interim injunction against Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. The court found that despite Sona Spices' prior use of the mark for spices, they had not established a prima facie case regarding their use of 'Sona' for tea before 1993. Given the Defendant's long-standing and substantial business in Sona tea, the balance of convenience lay with protecting the existing market player.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 19, 2006

Pankaj Jaiswal v.Virendra Prasad Jaiswal

Calcutta High Court

The plaintiff, Shiva Engineering Company, a manufacturer of electric fans under the registered trademark 'SEC', filed an appeal against an order restraining the defendant from using the word 'SEC'. The dispute centered on alleged passing off and infringement of trade marks and copyright by the defendant, who used similar branding and packaging. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had a strong case for passing off.
trademark defendant favorable · Sep 6, 2006

M/s.Bharat N.Parikh And Rajen A.Kamdar (Safe Earthing Electrodes / Kalpana Electric Co.) v.M/s.Ashok Tripathy (Ashlok)

Madras High Court · O.S.A.Nos.235 & 236 of 2005

The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by M/s. Bharat N. Parikh and Rajen A. Kamdar against an injunction granted in a trademark dispute involving earthing electrodes. The core issue revolved around whether the plaintiff's unregistered mark 'S.E.E.' could prevent the defendant from using a similar mark, despite the defendant having prior registration rights for their own mark. The court emphasized that while infringement requires registration, passing off (a common law remedy) is available to prior users, allowing the matter to be remanded back to the trial court for a comprehensive review of all facts.
trademark remanded · Sep 5, 2006

German Remedies Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai · null

German Remedies Ltd. challenged the Commissioner's decision regarding the classification and duty rate for its Acetyl Salicylic Acid (ASA) tablets. The dispute centered on whether the product, which was previously classified as a patent/proprietary medicament due to branding, should be treated as a generic product after dropping the trade mark. The Tribunal found that 'ASA' is merely an abbreviation of the chemical name and not a proprietary designation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 5, 2006

Dr. Anji Reddy (Appellant) v.Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft

Madras High Court · T.M.S.A. No.1 of 1999

The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft against a single judge's decision, restoring the original trademark registration order. The dispute centered on whether the mark 'Novigan,' applied for in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations), was deceptively similar to the existing registered mark 'Novalgin.' The court found that despite structural similarities, the marks were phonetically and visually distinct enough not to cause confusion among the general public. This ruling emphasizes deference to technical authorities like the Assistant Registrar when assessing trademark similarity.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 5, 2006

Dr. Anji Reddy v.Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft

Madras High Court · MIPR2007(1)202

This appeal concerned the registrability of the pharmaceutical trademark 'Novigan' against an objection raised by the owner of 'Novalgin'. The single judge had ruled that the marks were deceptively similar, but the Madras High Court overturned this decision. The court found no significant phonetic or visual similarity between the two marks, noting that common prefixes like 'Nova' are widely used in the pharmaceutical sector. Consequently, the original order allowing registration was restored.
trademark defendant favorable · Aug 29, 2006

Merck Kga A. v.Alpharma Inc.

Trademark Tribunal · 2006(33)PTC536(REG)

The case involved an opposition filed by Alpharma Inc. against Merck Kga A.'s trade mark application for 'ALPHAPHARM'. The core issue was whether the notice of opposition, filed after the prescribed extension period, was still valid given procedural delays in receiving the Trade Marks Journal.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 8, 2006

Wyeth Holdings Corpn. v.Controller General Of Patents, Desings ...

Gujarat High Court

The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad. The core issue was whether Rule 50(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, which governs filing evidence in opposition, was mandatory or directory. The court held that the rule should be interpreted as 'directory' to serve the interest of justice.
trademark defendant favorable · Jul 25, 2006

Jhaveri Industries v.Majethia Masala

Bombay High Court · 2007(34)PTC548(BOM)

The Bombay High Court ruled against Jhaveri Industries, finding that the use of 'Rajwadi' by Majethia Masala did not constitute trademark infringement or passing off. The court emphasized that since only 'Badshah' was registered and 'Rajwadi' had a disclaimer, the term is considered descriptive and generic for a type of masala. Consequently, the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief.
trademark defendant favorable · Jun 19, 2006

Bentec Electricals And Electronics v.Bentex Control And Switchgear Co.

Trademark Tribunal · 2006(33)PTC263(REG)

The dispute concerned an opposition filed by Bentex Control & Switchgear Co. against a trademark application for 'BENTEC'. The core issue was whether the notice of opposition and the request for extension were within the statutory time limits, given delays in receiving the Trade Marks Journal.
trademark defendant favorable · May 31, 2006

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v.Girnar Exports (and others trading as M/s. Girnar Exports)

Trademark Tribunal · CAL-214278

The dispute concerned an opposition filed by Girnar Exports against the trademark 'RED LABEL' owned by Brooke Bond India Ltd. The core issue was whether the late filing of the opposition, necessitated by a perceived error in the re-advertisement of the mark, was within the statutory period.
1 •••110111112•••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 →