Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 121 of 123

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 19, 1985

K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. v.Khosla Extrakting Ltd. And Ors.

Delhi High Court · null

The plaintiff, K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd., a pioneer in the air compressors industry, filed a suit against defendants for using the name 'M/s Khosla Extraktions Ltd.' The plaintiff argued that its name and family goodwill ('Khosla') are strongly associated with its group of companies in the capital market, and the defendant was attempting to cash on this reputation through deception.
trademark settled · Jan 31, 1985

Sandoz Limited And Anr. v.Pharmaceutical And Chemical ...

Delhi High Court · 28(1985)DLT222

The plaintiffs, holding the registered trademark 'Syntocinon', filed a suit against defendants marketing 'Synthocilin' due to alleged deceptive similarity. The trial court declined an interim injunction, leading to this appeal. The High Court considered the prior finding of deceptive similarity but opted for settlement rather than granting immediate restraint.
trademark defendant favorable · Aug 9, 1984

Hami Brothers v.Hami & Co. And Anr.

Bombay High Court · AIR1985BOM306

In this Bombay High Court case, Hami Brothers challenged the registration of the 'Majmua 96' trade mark held by Hami & Co., arguing that the numeral '96' was descriptive and thus invalid. The court examined whether the mark retained distinctiveness despite its age and use across various products. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mark had lost its distinctive character or that it was registered fraudulently.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 10, 1983

Desu Venkata Subba Rao v.Wealth-Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad · [1983]6ITD341(HYD)

The assessee challenged the inclusion of the value of his registered trade mark 'Triveni' in his net wealth computation under wealth tax laws. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, ruling that while a trade mark is an asset, its valuation should not be included in the global assessment unless specific statutory requirements are met or if it was purchased as part of goodwill.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 3, 1983

N.V. Philliphs, Eindhoven, Holland And ... v.Banga Watch Company

Punjab-Haryana High Court · AIR1983P&H418

This Punjab-Haryana High Court judgment addressed a suit for passing off concerning the 'Philips' trademark. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite their formal registration not covering watches and clocks, they had established immense goodwill and reputation in India through their extensive marketing of electrical goods. The court affirmed that the defendants dishonestly adopted the mark to mislead consumers into believing their watches were associated with the plaintiff's brand, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 16, 1983

Jawahar Engineering Co. And Ors. v.Javahar Engineering Private Ltd.

Delhi High Court · null

The suit was filed by plaintiffs claiming rights over the registered trade mark 'Javahar' for diesel oil engines, seeking perpetual injunction and passing off relief against defendants who applied for a similar mark. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
trademark defendant favorable · Nov 4, 1982

Union Of India v.Indo-French Pharmaceutical Company

Madras High Court · Writ Appeal (implied)

The Union of India appealed against an order allowing Indo-French Pharmaceutical Company to clear three Indian Pharmacopoeia products without paying excise duty. The dispute centered on whether a small symbol and name used on the product label qualified as a proprietary mark under the Central Excises and Salt Act, thereby attracting excise duty.
trademark mixed · Aug 13, 1982

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.C.V.S. Mani

Delhi High Court · ILR1983DELHI548

This case challenged specific amendments made to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which mandated that certain single-ingredient drugs could only be marketed under their generic or proper scientific name. Petitioners, including Hoechst Pharmaceuticals, argued that this prohibition on using established trade names violated their constitutional rights. The Delhi High Court ultimately struck down the most restrictive clause of the amendment, holding it illegal and ultra vires, while allowing a lesser restriction requiring the proper name to be displayed more prominently than the trade name.
trademark interim order · Jul 21, 1982

Bijoli Grill Spencer'S Product v.Spencers & Co. Ltd.

Calcutta High Court · null

Bijoli Grill Spencer's Product sought an injunction to protect its right to use the trade mark and trade name 'Spencer' in relation to mineral aerated waters, challenging Spencers & Co. Ltd.'s rights. The court examined the history of the marks and found that the petitioner could not establish a concurrent right.
trademark defendant favorable · Sep 10, 1981

Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.The District Judge, Ghaziabad And Ors.

Allahabad High Court · Article 226 petition (related to Civil suit No. 163 of 1980)

The petitioner, Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent and temporary injunction against defendants for using a deceptively identical trade name ('Victory Goods Transport Company'). The courts below dismissed the application for temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case or establish balance of convenience. The High Court upheld this decision.
trademark defendant favorable · May 29, 1981

The Indian Association Of Thermometry v.Hicks Thermometers (India) Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 20(1981)DLT246

The Delhi High Court upheld the registration of the trademark 'Hicks' to Hicks Thermometers (India) Ltd., dismissing objections raised by The Indian Association Of Thermometry. The court found that the foreign proprietor had effectively abandoned the mark, allowing the respondents to acquire reputation and register it in their own name. Furthermore, the court clarified that an unregistered association qualifies as a 'person' under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act.
trademark defendant favorable · Nov 26, 1980

Dolphin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Kaptab Pharmaceuticals

Calcutta High Court

The plaintiff (Dolphin Laboratories) sued the defendant (Kaptab Pharmaceuticals) alleging infringement/passing off regarding the trade mark 'Amotid' for the drug Amoxycilin Tri-hydrale. The core legal controversy was whether the plaintiff, in its Section 120 suit, could restrain the defendant from filing a separate passing off suit. The court held that while the defendant must stop making unjustified threats, it retains the fundamental right to institute a passing off suit.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 4, 1980

Registrar Of Trade Marks v.Hamdard National Foundation (India)

Delhi High Court · AIR1980DELHI180

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by the Registrar of Trade Marks, upholding the single judge's decision to register the trademark 'SAFI' for medicinal preparations. The core issue was whether 'SAFI,' a word meaning 'pure' or 'clear,' was descriptive and thus unregistrable under Section 9 of the Act. The court ruled that even if a mark has an initial reference to quality, it can acquire a secondary meaning through continuous use in trade, making it capable of distinguishing the goods of a particular trader.
trademark mixed · Jan 30, 1980

J.M.A. Industries Ltd. v.Union Of India

Delhi High Court · AIR1980DELHI200

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses procedural fairness in trademark registration, specifically concerning the 'registered user' application. The petitioners challenged the Central Government's decision to refuse their application based on public interest grounds without providing specific facts or adequate reasoning. While the court initially found the process flawed due to a lack of detailed justification, it ultimately refused to quash the order entirely. Instead, the court directed the government to grant one final hearing to the petitioners, ensuring they have a true opportunity to rebut the concerns regarding indigenous industry and public interest.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 21, 1980

K.R. Beri & Co. v.The Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P)

Delhi High Court · AIR1980DELHI299

The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal to register the trade mark 'FIVE 50' in favor of The Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P). The court found that the appellant's proposed mark was highly likely to deceive and confuse consumers due to its substantial similarity to the respondent's established marks, 'Fifty' and '50'. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove concurrent use or acquiescence against the respondent, whose extensive prior usage and market reputation were well-documented.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 16, 1980

Central Camera Co. Private Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Bombay High Court

Central Camera Co. Private Ltd. appealed against the Registrar's refusal to register the trademark 'Solar' for photographic apparatus. The Registrar refused registration on two grounds: that 'Solar' was descriptive (Section 9(1)(d)) and that it conflicted with existing marks (Section 12(1)).
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 18, 1979

Amrutanjan Limited v.Amarchand Sobachand

Madras High Court · null

Amrutanjan Limited sued Amarchand Sobachand for infringing its registered trade mark 'AMRUTANJAN' used on pain balm. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar name ('Amar's Pain Balm') and an imitation carton design, leading to consumer confusion. The court found infringement but dismissed claims for damages as passing off was not proven.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 8, 1979

Chandra Bhan Agarwal And Anr. v.Arjundas Agarwal And Ors.

Calcutta High Court · AIR1979CAL280

The appeal challenged the registration of the trade mark 'Dora' (No. 252040) used by H. P. Textile Mills for hosiery goods. The appellants argued that 'Dora' is a common, generic word meaning thread or stripe and thus lacked distinctiveness. The court agreed that while the design acquired some distinctiveness, no monopoly should be granted over the word 'Dora' simpliciter.
trademark defendant favorable · Nov 7, 1978

Gazipur Chemical Works And Ors. v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks And ...

Calcutta High Court · AIR1979CAL238

This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses an appeal against the refusal to register a trade mark for 'Keora water.' The core dispute revolved around whether the proposed mark was deceptively similar or conflicted with existing registered marks held by the opponent. While the appellant argued that the Deputy Registrar erred in his assessment of similarity, the court ultimately upheld the registrar's decision. The judgment reinforces established principles regarding consumer perception and the necessity of considering the 'whole picture' when determining trade mark confusion.
trademark defendant favorable · Oct 25, 1977

Telerad Private Ltd. v.Jugmug Electric & Radio Co.

Delhi High Court · 13(1977)DLT315

The Delhi High Court upheld the cancellation of the 'Telerad' trademark registered by Jugmug Electric & Radio Co. The court found that despite the goods being in different classes (Class 9 vs Class II), the likelihood of deception and confusion was high because both types of electrical goods were sold through common trade channels, and customers generally associate these products with the same type of manufacturer. This ruling emphasizes that contextual factors, such as shared markets, are critical when assessing trademark conflicts under Section 11(a).
trademark defendant favorable · Aug 22, 1977

Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works v.Pharmaceutical Company Of India

Bombay High Court · null

The plaintiff, proprietor of 'BUTACORTINDON', filed an infringement suit against the defendant, proprietor of 'BUTACORT'. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's use of BUTACORT constituted infringement. However, the defendants successfully argued that they were prior continuous users and thus entitled to protection under Section 33 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
trademark defendant favorable · Jun 14, 1977

The Imperial Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr.

Calcutta High Court · AIR1977CAL413

The Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. appealed the Registrar's refusal to register its trade mark, which featured 'Simla' and snow-clad hills on cigarette packets. The court examined whether the geographical name could be registered despite being inherently non-distinctive, even with evidence of extensive sales.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 24, 1976

S. B. S. Jayam And Co. v.Krishnamoorthi, Proprietor, Gopi ...

Madras High Court · null

The plaintiff, proprietor of the registered trade mark "Gopal Tooth Powder," sued the defendant for infringing this mark with "Gobi Tooth Powder." The primary preliminary issue was whether the Madras High Court had territorial jurisdiction, given that the infringement allegedly occurred only in Andhra Pradesh. The court held that since the registration of the mark (which is property) took place in Madras, the cause of action arose there.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 28, 1975

L.D. Malhotra Industries v.Ropi Industries

Delhi High Court · C.M. (Main) 67 of 1974; FAO 113 of 1975

The dispute involved two industries manufacturing dress hooks, Ropi Industries (prior user) and L.D. Malhotra Industries (earlier registrant). After Ropis successfully obtained the rectification of Malhotras' mark, Malhotras appealed to the Delhi High Court. The court ultimately allowed the appeal but granted an injunction in favor of Ropis.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 23, 1975

Rawal Industries P. Ltd. v.Duke Enterprise

Delhi High Court · 1975RLR440

Rawal Industries successfully sought a temporary injunction against Duke Enterprise for using the confusingly similar trade mark 'DUKE' on insulated automobile cables. The court found that despite the goods being different, there was a sufficient trade connection between the plaintiffs' automobile parts and the defendants' cables. Given the close resemblance of the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court granted the injunction to protect Rawal Industries' goodwill during the pendency of the suit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 29, 1975

Jagan Nath Prem Nath v.Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya

Delhi High Court · AIR1975DELHI149

The appeal concerned a suit for permanent injunction filed by Jagan Nath Prem Nath against Bhartiya Dhoop Karyalaya alleging infringement and passing off regarding his registered trade mark for agarbatis. The single judge had vacated an interim ex parte injunction, holding that the numerals 555 were not distinctive features of the appellant's mark. The High Court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the numerals '555' had acquired a distinctive meaning in the trade and the respondent's use was prima facie infringing.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 21, 1975

M/S. Sable Waghire & Co. & Others v.Union Of India & Others

Supreme Court of India · Writ Petition No. 37 of 1970 (and Writ Petition No. 38 of 1970)

The petitioners, owners of registered trademarks for 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Bidi', challenged the constitutional validity of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The government argued that the act was necessary to regulate the improper use of national emblems. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and its provisions.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 7, 1975

Khemraj Shrikrishandas v.Garg & Co.

Delhi High Court

The plaintiffs, publishers of 'Pt. Shrivallabh Maniram Panchang' since 1894 A.D., filed a suit alleging that the defendants were passing off their goods by printing and selling deceptively similar almanacs. The appeal was heard regarding the refusal of an ad interim injunction by the lower court. The High Court reversed the order, granting the injunction based on the principles of passing off.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 11, 1974

Lakshmi Narayan Karva And Ors. v.Satyanarayanan Khubchand Karva

Madras High Court

The appeal challenged the Assistant Registrar's order allowing rectification (expunging) of the appellant's trade mark. The respondents claimed the mark lacked distinctiveness and was obtained by false statements regarding use. The High Court held that the trade mark, considered as a whole, was distinctive and directed its transfer from Part A to Part B.
trademark defendant favorable · May 27, 1974

Bawa Masala Company v.Gulzari Lal Lajpat Rai

Delhi High Court · 11(1975)DLT270

The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the alleged infringement of Bawa Masala Company's registered trademark for 'Meat Masala' and claims of passing off. The court examined the visual identity (get up) of both parties' packaging, finding that despite some similarities in script usage, the overall design, color scheme, and distinctive features were dissimilar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, ruling that no consumer would be deceived into mistaking the respondent's product for the appellant's.
1 •••120121122123
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 →