Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 23 of 123

trademark mixed · Nov 13, 2024

Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 197/2022 & I.A. Nos. 4959/2022, 4960/2022, 21819/2022 & 4172/2023

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademarks, 'WIN HEALTH PHARMA,' under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core dispute revolves around prior use rights, as the plaintiff claims established goodwill with marks like 'WIN-HEALTHCARE' since 2005, while the defendant holds registrations for similar names. Given that both parties presented substantial arguments regarding priority and similarity, the court found prima facie merit in the plaintiffs' plea of invalidity.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 11, 2024

Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 773/2019

The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 8, 2024

Neetha Madala (Proprietor of M/s.Harsha Hospitals) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(TM) No.181 of 2023

The Madras High Court allowed Neetha Madala's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting aside an earlier refusal to register her device mark 'HARSHA HOSPITALS'. The court found that the Registrar had issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without clearly explaining how the mark infringed Sections 9 or 11 of the Act. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant had subsequently registered other marks, strengthening her claim for distinctiveness in her specific class (Class 44). Consequently, the application was restored and directed to proceed with the trademark registration process.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 7, 2024

M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 936/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of infringement against Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors. The court recognized that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks was likely to cause market confusion and irreparable injury to the plaintiff, who holds registered trademarks and copyrights in 'GOLDMEDAL'. This order temporarily halts the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing infringing labels until the final hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 7, 2024

Ask Automotive Limited v.A.S.K. Enterprises

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 563/2020

The plaintiff, Ask Automotive Limited, a major supplier of automotive friction products under the well-known trade mark 'ASK', filed a suit against A.S.K. Enterprises for infringement of its trademark and passing off. The court found that the defendant was illegally manufacturing and selling goods bearing the identical trademark 'ASK' to deceive the public.
trademark mixed · Nov 7, 2024

Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Abdullah Proprietor Of Azam And Company & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 170/2024 with I.A. 44330/2024

The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Tecniqua India Private Limited seeking permission to introduce additional legal proceedings certificates related to registered trademark applications of both parties. The court granted the request, subject to issuing proper notice to Respondent No. 1, setting a return date for January 15, 2025. This order indicates ongoing procedural steps in the trademark dispute.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 7, 2024

Monster Energy Company v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · C.M.A.(TM).No.3 of 2024

The Madras High Court allowed Monster Energy Company's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'SUPER FUEL.' The court found that the Registrar erred by comparing 'SUPER FUEL' (for non-alcoholic beverages) with a similar existing mark ('FUEL') used for different products. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be allowed to publish the trademark in the journal, allowing any third parties to file opposition petitions on merits.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 7, 2024

Samsudeen A v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Salama Eye Hospital Limited

Madras High Court · C.M.A.(TM)No.10 of 2024

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Samsudeen A against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to abandon a trademark application. The core issue was whether service via email, as per TM Rules, was sufficient when the applicant claimed non-receipt of the opposition notice. Applying a purposive interpretation in the interest of justice, the court ruled that since the appellant could not prove receipt, he was deemed not to have received the notice, thereby quashing the abandonment order and allowing him a chance to file his counter-statement.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 5, 2024

Beerco Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · CMA(TM) No.14 of 2024

The Madras High Court allowed Beerco Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar's refusal to register its trademark 'BeerCo' under Class 32. The court found that the initial rejection was based on a non-speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's existing registrations for similar marks. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing the Registrar to allow publication of BeerCo in the Trademark Journal so that third parties could raise any objections.
trademark defendant favorable · Oct 30, 2024

Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited v.Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd., Utracon Management Pte Ltd., and Utracon Engineering Services Private Limited

Madras High Court · Arb.Appln.No.486 of 2024 and Arb.OA.Nos.546 & 547 of 2024

The Madras High Court dismissed multiple arbitration applications seeking various interim injunctions against Utracon entities. The applicants, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, sought protection against client/employee poaching and the use of the 'UTRACON' name and logo. However, the court found that the non-compete and non-solicitation clause in the underlying Sale of Shares Agreement had expired after 10 years. Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, leading to the dismissal of all interim relief requests.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 29, 2024

M/s Rspl Limited v.M/s Sunil Store (Proprietor & Owner) Trading as M/s Parth Store

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM.) NO.313/2022

The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, M/s Sunil Store, alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights related to detergent products. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark GHARI/GHADI and passing off goods as belonging to the plaintiff.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 29, 2024

Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital Enterprises v.Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram Puranmall And Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 379/2022 & I.A. 29993/2024

The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, allowing them to incorporate facts regarding the subsequent registration of their trademark. The court emphasized that amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of a case and should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, especially when avoiding multiplicity of litigation is at stake. This ruling reinforces the liberal approach courts must take when considering pleadings amendments in IP disputes.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 24, 2024

Levi Strauss & Co v.Ashok Woven Labels And Ors

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM)701/2022

The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Co., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks, specifically 'LEVI's' and 'LEVI'S PREMIUM'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit labels and goods using the protected marks. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 24, 2024

Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-IPD 28/2024

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
trademark settled · Oct 24, 2024

V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited v.Jayashree

Madras High Court · OP(TM) No. 19 of 2024

In a dispute over the 'MANAPURAM' trademark, V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited successfully reached a settlement with Jayashree before the Madras High Court. The parties agreed that the Petitioner has prior rights to the mark and that the Respondent will cancel her existing registration (No. 5109630) and transfer associated domain names within ten days. This compromise resolves the petition seeking removal of the infringing trademark entry.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 24, 2024

Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-IPD 29/2024

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew a trademark registration (No. 1150198). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the certificate, coupled with failure to serve mandatory renewal notices (O-3 Notice), prevented them from renewing their mark despite its initial validity period expiring. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for administrative lapses by the Registry, mandating the restoration and subsequent renewal of the trademark.
trademark defendant favorable · Oct 23, 2024

Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. v.Rehan Talat Khan and N.S. Sangolli

Bangalore District Court · A.S.NO.43/2012

Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. filed an application to set aside an arbitration award dated 10-01-2012. The dispute arose from a partnership in M/s Gambaz Foods International, involving allegations of breach of trust, financial misappropriation, and trademark disputes related to the brand 'Prawnto'.
trademark mixed · Oct 15, 2024

Kedar Nath Mishra v.Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO (COMM) 159/2024, FAO (COMM) 160/2024

The Delhi High Court deferred the appeals filed by Kedar Nath Mishra against Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed further time for arguments and noted that the respondent required additional time to place documents on record regarding an amendment to its trademark registration, reflecting usage since 31.12.2007. Consequently, the appeals were released from part-heard status and rescheduled for a later date.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 15, 2024

Harvinder Kumar v.M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO (COMM) 206/2024

The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction in favor of Harvinder Kumar regarding the infringement of his registered trademark. The dispute centered on M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'s continued use of batteries and chargers bearing the plaintiff's mark after their agreement was terminated. The court found that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, granting directions to the respondent to cease using the marked assets and return them within one week.
trademark mixed · Oct 15, 2024

Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Chennai

Kerala High Court · WP(C) NO. 33254 OF 2024

Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited approached the Kerala High Court seeking intervention regarding pending trademark applications before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai. The petitioner sought a direction for timely disposal of their applications (Exts.P1 and P2). Recognizing the procedural backlog but acknowledging the need for resolution, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to take earnest efforts to pass orders on the pending matters within a stipulated period of four months.
trademark defendant favorable · Oct 14, 2024

M/s.Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited v.Union of India

Madras High Court · 2024:MHC:4124 (W.P.No.12314 of 2021)

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited, upholding an earlier order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The core dispute involved the use of the identical trade name 'Shaktiman' by both parties. The court affirmed that since the respondent company held extensive and long-standing trademark rights for 'Shaktiman,' its continued use by the petitioner was contrary to corporate incorporation rules, regardless of differences in product categories.
trademark mixed · Oct 14, 2024

Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A.No.127 of 2024

The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
trademark mixed · Oct 14, 2024

S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27) v.The Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD).Nos.27 & 28 of 2024

The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
trademark defendant favorable · Oct 4, 2024

M/s. Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Private Limited v.M/s. Narasu'S Saarathy Enterprises Private limited

Madras High Court · C.R.P.No.3534 of 2022

This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order by the Commercial District Court, Salem, which allowed the respondent to file a written statement beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner argued that since the suit was filed under the Trademarks Act and designated as commercial, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that because the specified value of the suit was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Courts Act did not grant jurisdiction to the court in the first place. Consequently, the Trial Court's decision to accept the written statement was upheld on the ground of lack of commercial jurisdiction.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 4, 2024

Ube Industries Limited & Anr. v.S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 807/2017, I.A. 5353/2018 & I.A. 11341/2018

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ube Industries Limited, granting a permanent injunction against S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors. for trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'UBE' mark. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated their long-standing use and registration of the distinctive trademark across various industries, despite the defendants claiming prior usage. This judgment reinforces the importance of established goodwill and registered rights in preventing unauthorized commercial exploitation.
trademark mixed · Oct 3, 2024

Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v.Babu Lal Aggarwal Trading As Modern Namkeen Udyog & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 195/2024

The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'MODERN' (No. 915745) from the register, alleging that the respondent has adopted an identical/deceptively similar mark and trade dress. While granting procedural exemptions to the petitioner, the court proceeded with the main petition by issuing notice to all parties. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing after both sides file their respective replies.
trademark dismissed · Oct 1, 2024

Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)Nos.138, 146 to 148 of 2023

The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
trademark mixed · Oct 1, 2024

Sreevidya Kumaramkandath v.Alkaabi Est & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 194/2024

The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Sreevidya Kumaramkandath seeking the cancellation (revocation) of the registered device mark 'TEATIME' held by Alkaabi Est & Anr. The court noted the petitioner's claim that the impugned mark causes confusion due to its deceptive similarity to the petitioner's trademark. While initial procedural issues regarding party addresses were addressed, the core dispute over trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion is set for further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 1, 2024

Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Kulbir Singh & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 191/2024

The Delhi High Court allowed Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited's petition seeking cancellation of a competing trademark, 'ROGER'. The court found that the impugned mark was liable to be removed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act due to non-use by the respondent. Given that the respondent failed to appear or file a reply despite being served, the petitioner's claims regarding extensive use and goodwill were deemed unrebutted, leading to the successful cancellation of the mark.
trademark · Oct 1, 2024

M S Cothas Coffee Co. v.Ms Cotha Associates

Bangalore District Court · O.S.No.5165/2015

The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.
1 •••222324•••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 →