Trademark Cases

3,740 decisions across India

India 3,740

Page 33 of 125

trademark mixed · May 2, 2024

M/S. Vaibhav Equipments v.Vandhana Jain & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 18382962

M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.
trademark mixed · May 2, 2024

Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 65321567

Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
trademark mixed · May 2, 2024

M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr

Delhi High Court · 116024933

The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
trademark mixed · May 1, 2024

Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Meet Dilipkumar Patel And Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 177888186

The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'KHADI ARK' and similar marks, maintaining the status quo during the ongoing suit. While the court upheld the protection of the plaintiff's trademark rights, discussions opened regarding a potential settlement, with the defendant offering an undertaking not to use the trademarks in the future if damages were waived. The matter was adjourned for further resolution.
trademark mixed · May 1, 2024

Liberty Group Marketing Division v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 175951080

The Delhi High Court allowed Liberty Group Marketing Division's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their trademark application. The court set aside the initial refusal, which was based on a cited mark under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act. Crucially, the court restored the application to its original number but made it conditional: the applicant must first take steps to have the cited mark cancelled or rectified before the merits of their own application will be considered.
trademark mixed · May 1, 2024

Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 34939403

In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
trademark mixed · Apr 30, 2024

Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay High Court · 148484857

The Bombay High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals against Corona Remedies concerning the marks STIMULIV and STIMULET. The core dispute involved the validity of the Defendant's trademark registration, which the Plaintiff challenged. Satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity was prima facie tenable, the court framed an issue on this matter and adjourned the suit for further proceedings.
trademark dismissed · Apr 30, 2024

Green Gold Animation Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 50571783

Green Gold Animation Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the abandonment of opposition proceedings related to the 'MIGHTY RAJU' device mark. The High Court was asked to restore the opposition and allow the applicant to file a counter statement. However, the appellant subsequently conveyed instructions that they did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
trademark settled · Apr 30, 2024

Marico Limited v.Bayer AG

Madras High Court · 191245340

The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark cancellation petition filed by Marico Limited against Bayer AG. The court noted that despite delays in execution due to one signatory being in Germany, the parties had reached a full settlement regarding the trademark No. 1296206. Consequently, the original petition was closed, and both parties were directed to file a formal memo of settlement with the Registry.
trademark mixed · Apr 30, 2024

New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 149209124

In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
trademark defendant favorable · Apr 30, 2024

M/s Munjal Showa Limited v.M/s Star India Private Limited

Madras High Court · 69598865

The Madras High Court addressed a batch of petitions concerning the rectification and removal of several trademarks, including 'MANJAL.' The court accepted the first respondent's affidavit stating that some trademarks had expired and others were not being put to use despite renewal. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, directing the first respondent to initiate necessary cancellation applications before the Trade Marks Registry within a specified timeframe.
trademark dismissed · Apr 29, 2024

Sebile Educations Private Limited v.Nikita Dubey Rai

Madras High Court · 135259103

Sebile Educations Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Nikita Dubey Rai and others for infringing its registered trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINS', and violating copyright laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'LEARNING EINSTEINS' in educational services. However, despite previous court directions to file proof affidavits and documents before the Master, the plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit for default.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 29, 2024

M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries

Madras High Court · 94135331

The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
trademark settled · Apr 29, 2024

M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar v.G.Saravanan

Madras High Court · 20501546

The Madras High Court closed an Original Petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration after both parties entered into a joint compromise memo. The petitioner, M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar, successfully secured commitments from G.Saravanan to cease using the disputed mark and take steps within 30 days to cancel Registration No. 3814752 in Class 29. This settlement provides a definitive resolution to the trademark dispute.
trademark dismissed · Apr 29, 2024

Richi Mathew v.Muthoot Finance Ltd; The Trademark Registry

Madras High Court · 66540659

The Madras High Court addressed two Original Petitions concerning the rectification and expungement of specific trademarks registered under Trademark Nos. 1880132 and 1248199 in Class 36. However, before any substantive ruling could be made on the merits of the trademark entries, the petitioner filed an endorsement stating that they no longer wished to pursue these petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Original Petitions as withdrawn.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 29, 2024

The Procter & Gamble Company v.Rspl Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 81882770

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by The Procter & Gamble Company against Rspl Limited, directing the removal of the trade mark 'VINGS'. The court found that 'VINGS' was phonetically and identically similar to the petitioner's prior registered trademark 'WINGS', which covered identical goods (sanitary pads). Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of use for their mark during the application process. While the immediate rectification is granted, the broader issue regarding Rspl's descriptive use of 'with wings' remains open and will be decided in a separate suit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 29, 2024

Anuj Bindal M/S Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Tarsem Chand M/S R.D Traders

Delhi High Court - Orders · 132196567

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical trademark registration held by R.D Traders. The court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the animal feed market. Crucially, the court determined that while the Petitioner's prior use was not perfectly documented, the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed date of first use, thus invalidating the registration under Section 9(2)(a) and on grounds of fraudulent representation.
trademark mixed · Apr 26, 2024

Glow Shoes Private Limited v.Trk Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 19510850

The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant, Trk Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the validity of Glow Shoes Private Limited's trademark registration No. 1467735 ('TRV') in Class 25. Despite unsuccessful settlement attempts between the parties, the court issued notice and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on August 29, 2024. This order keeps the dispute alive, allowing both sides to proceed with their arguments regarding trademark validity.
trademark mixed · Apr 26, 2024

M.Anees Ahmed (M/s.Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Briyani

Madras High Court · 24465529

The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by M.Anees Ahmed concerning the alleged misuse of his trade name, "Ambur Star Briyani," by the defendant, "Star Briyani." The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing-off, as well as a declaration that his mark is a 'well-known mark.' The court examined the long history and extensive public recognition of the plaintiff's brand, which traces its origins back to 1890. While the judgment details the claims for relief, it appears to be an interim or procedural order given the lack of detailed findings on merits in the provided excerpt, setting the stage for further litigation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 26, 2024

Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Maventech Labs Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 54852669

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Shrinath Travel Agency against Maventech Labs Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively adopting their registered trademarks ('SHRINATH') and associated marks in the tour and travel industry, including through identical domain names. The court found a prima facie case was made out, noting that balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, leading to immediate restraint on the use of infringing marks and websites until the final hearing.
trademark mixed · Apr 26, 2024

Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 158880785

In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited sought clarification on the service status of a hearing notice related to their application. While the Registrar of Trade Marks cited database records indicating successful notice dispatch, the appellant argued that the portal did not confirm actual service. The court granted the appellant liberty to file an affidavit to substantiate their claim regarding the lack of service confirmation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 26, 2024

Mankind Pharma Limited v.Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 140880395

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case based on the phonetic similarity between the 'MANKIND' mark and the defendant's adopted variations, as well as the use of a deceptively similar logo device. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted suspicious corporate links, suggesting the defendant was incorporated by an ex-employee to dishonestly adopt the protected brand identity.
trademark mixed · Apr 26, 2024

Pluto Travels India Private Limited v.Ptw Holidays Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 193692065

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pluto Travels against Ptw Holidays. The court allowed several procedural requests, including condonation of delay and exemptions from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court noted the plaintiff's claim regarding the use of the identical mark 'PLUTO' for travel services and directed service of notice on the defendant concerning the injunction request, setting a date for further hearing.
trademark mixed · Apr 25, 2024

Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 186944135

Karan Rathore appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that dismissed his opposition against a trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to the respondents, who have been granted six weeks to file their reply and subsequent rejoinder.
trademark mixed · Apr 25, 2024

Zydus Healthcare Limited v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 188044467

The Delhi High Court addressed concerns raised by Zydus Healthcare regarding counterfeit goods sold on Flipkart. While acknowledging that e-commerce platforms have mechanisms in place, the court highlighted critical procedural flaws, particularly concerning seller onboarding, GST misuse, and product identification (FSN). The judgment mandates Flipkart to investigate these issues, provide specific documentation like bank details, and implement technical solutions to prevent genuine sellers from being unfairly de-listed.
trademark mixed · Apr 25, 2024

Bic Cello India Private Limited v.Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain

Delhi High Court - Orders · 32685793

Bic Cello India Private Limited initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the invalidation of a trademark registration held by Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain, specifically concerning the mark 'TRIMORE'. The court accepted the plaintiff's application and issued notice to the defendant. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity of the registered trademark.
trademark mixed · Apr 25, 2024

Belle Wears Private Limited v.Hobby Garments Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 131921486

The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.
trademark mixed · Apr 25, 2024

Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 31333277

The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 24, 2024

M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works v.Deluxeagriculture Industries Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 12491355

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, overturning a rectification made by the Trademarks Registry that had transferred ownership of the 'Deluxe' trademark to Deluxe Agriculture Industries Private Limited. The court found that the purported Deed of Assignment was invalid because Respondent No. 2 denied executing it and alleged forged signatures. Consequently, the registration was restored to M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, affirming their original proprietorship.
trademark mixed · Apr 24, 2024

Bp P.L.C. & Anr. v.Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises

Delhi High Court - Orders · 66960264

In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.
1 •••323334•••125
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 →