Trademark Cases

2,115 decisions across India

India 2,115

Page 4 of 71

trademark · Aug 19, 2026

Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar v.State of Maharashtra And Anr.

Bombay High Court

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2026 registered with the State Excise Department, Kagal, District Kolhapur, for offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Applicant contended he was arraigned solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, while the prosecution alleged his involvement and that he received money in his account, with the owner of Canus Packaging stating the Applicant managed the company's day-to-day affairs. Since the Applicant cooperated with the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required, the application was disposed of.
trademark · Aug 17, 2026

Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders

This is an order of the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, had been granted an ad interim injunction on 05.08.2026 restraining the Defendants from using the trademarks 'GOLA', 'GOLA SIZZLERS' and 'GOLA RESTAURANTS'. The Defendants' appeal against the injunction was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.08.2026 without interfering with the injunction, with a direction to the Single Judge to finally dispose of the pending applications. The Court listed the applications for final hearing on 20.08.2026.
trademark · Aug 17, 2026

State v.Mohd. Nafees

Delhi District Court

The case involved allegations that the accused, Mohd. Nafees, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious articles bearing the falsified trademark of 'HP' in violation of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademark Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case as the complainant, examined as PW-2, did not depose in accordance with the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused or the case property. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
trademark · Aug 14, 2026

Vishal Aggarwal And Ors v.State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders

The petitioners sought quashment of FIR No. 336/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi, for offences under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, arising from allegations of selling counterfeit Raymond branded clothes. During pendency of proceedings before the JMFC, the complainant company (M/s Raymond Limited) settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.08.2026, and respondent no.2 stated he did not want any action against the petitioners. The State also did not oppose the quashing, and the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
trademark · Aug 14, 2026

State v.Manmeet Singh Anand and Ors.

Delhi District Court

This case involved three accused persons charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly dealing in counterfeit CEAT inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution failed to produce its star witness, the complainant, whose firm was found to have been non-operational for 11 years, and the Legal Manager of CEAT Ltd. who authorized the complaint also never appeared. The Court acquitted all three accused, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
trademark · Aug 11, 2026

Metro Brands Limited v.Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe And Ors.

Bombay High Court

The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in relation to footwear, sought withdrawal of its Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Plaintiff explained that earlier proceedings filed in 2021 against the same Defendants were inadvertently not followed up, and the material facts relating to those proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition.
trademark · Aug 11, 2026

State v.Manoj Kumar

Delhi District Court

The State prosecuted Manoj Kumar for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging possession and sale of counterfeit CEAT Limited inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution's case collapsed when its star witness, the complainant Mr. Mohit Singh Rautela, turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's narrative. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Delhi, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
trademark · Aug 10, 2026

Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v.Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders

Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Getmohit Cab Private Limited and others for allegedly using the 'BHARATBENZ' mark and associated device marks/logo on buses. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, and the Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement.
trademark · Aug 10, 2026

Stanley Black and Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products

Delhi High Court - Orders

The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend its written statement to add formal paragraphs relating to additional documents already taken on record, specifically the withdrawal of its trade mark applications in Classes 7 and 9. The court allowed the amendment, observing that the documents served to abide by and perform an undertaking dated 25.01.1975 given by the defendant to the plaintiff's alleged predecessor, and that the amendment was formal in nature. The court directed that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiff's claims, and re-notified the matter to allow parties to take instructions on the plaintiff's request for further undertakings and withdrawal of opposition.
trademark · Aug 10, 2026

Rakesh Jain v.Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP

Delhi High Court - Orders

The plaintiff, Rakesh Jain, filed a commercial suit against Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP alleging trademark infringement and passing off of the registered word mark 'RANI SAHIBA' in respect of basmati rice (Class 30). The defendant was alleged to have dishonestly appropriated the plaintiff's mark while selling rice under its house brand 'GA SE GAANV'. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, allowed filing of additional documents, registered the plaint, and issued summons, while also granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.
trademark · Aug 10, 2026

MLCU Pvt. Ltd. (Marachhiya and Laxmi Satyam Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) v.RBI Through Regional Officer

Patna High Court - Orders

The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of iron pipes, filed a writ petition seeking conversion of its cash credit accounts into term loans, reduction of interest rates, grant of a 12-month moratorium, and enhancement of credit limits up to Rs. 2 Crores from ICICI Bank. The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that ICICI Bank is a private financial entity not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because it is regulated by the RBI. The court further held that the reliefs sought were contractual and commercial in nature and did not involve any public duty or statutory obligation.
trademark · Jul 18, 2026

Inderjeet Singh Rathore v.M/s Gulvez Rahat Shahvez Rahat & Co. & Ors.

Delhi District Court

This was a commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 4,47,319.30 filed by a fruit supplier against a partnership firm and its partners for unpaid dues arising from fruit supplies. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear despite service of summons. The District Judge (Commercial Court) dismissed the suit, holding that while the invoices and delivery challans proved supply and delivery of fruits, the plaintiff failed to prove the exact outstanding balance because the statement of account was merely marked for identification and not duly exhibited in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
trademark · Jul 17, 2026

Shri Ram Hosiery Group v.Jagdamba Hosiery

Delhi District Court

This was a suit for recovery filed by Shri Ram Hosiery Group, a readymade garments business and proprietor of the registered trademarks SHARP and SENTY, against Jagdamba Hosiery for outstanding payment of Rs.2,27,806/- towards goods supplied over several years. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte. The court, after examining the plaintiff's evidence and documentary record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
trademark · Jul 13, 2026

State v.Amrit Lal @ Raja & Ankit Jain

Delhi District Court

The Delhi District Court acquitted accused Amrit Lal @ Raja and Ankit Jain of charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, arising from FIR No. 861/2014, PS Sarai Rohilla. The prosecution alleged that the accused were dealing in counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks/trade descriptions of Mico/Bosch/Kirlosker products. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, as the most crucial witnesses—the complainant Jitender Kumar and Gulfaraz Makani—failed to appear despite being summoned repeatedly over nearly a decade, and the sole testimony of ASI Mam Chand was insufficient for conviction.
trademark defendant favorable · Apr 7, 2026

Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited

Calcutta High Court · P96166255

The appeal challenged a judgment that revoked an interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's urgent relief application. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off between the appellant (using 'RALLI') and the respondent (using 'Really'). The court found that the appellant was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2018, based on participation in a fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges.
trademark defendant favorable · Apr 7, 2026

Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited

Calcutta High Court · 199207716

The appeal challenged a single judge's order that vacated an interim injunction and revoked leave granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant claimed infringement and passing off based on the defendant using 'Really' while the appellant used 'RALLI'. The court found evidence (participation in a 2018 fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges) establishing that the appellant was aware of the respondent's product use since at least 2018, dismissing the appeal.
trademark interim order · Mar 25, 2026

Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt v.Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt Ltd and Others

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench · 175184306

The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for dishonestly adopting and using the impugned mark "SUPER AGRO-TECH" along with deceptively similar packaging and trade dress in relation to agricultural goods. The applicant sought dispensation of pre-institution mediation, arguing that urgent interim relief was necessary due to immediate market confusion and injury.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 11, 2026

Universal Test Solutions Llp v.Punam Kumari Singh and Others

Bombay High Court · 76781503

The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 9, 2026

Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Geonix International Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 20719639

The appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) bearing their registered trademarks. The respondents purchase these HDDs after they reach an 'end-of-life' stage, are extracted from equipment abroad, and imported into India. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that neither trademark infringement nor reverse passing off was established.
trademark dismissed · Mar 7, 2026

Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v.Tata Play Limited and Others

Bombay High Court · 199912464

The plaintiff, Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, sought an interim injunction restraining Tata Play Limited and others from using the mark 'ASTRO DUNIYA', alleging trademark infringement and passing-off. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the coined mark used for astrological services since 2005. However, the court found that no prima facie case was made out for either infringement or passing off, dismissing the interim application.
trademark mixed · Mar 4, 2026

M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited v.M/S. Rohm Gmbh

Karnataka High Court · 122708296

The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 2, 2026

J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)

Madras High Court · 60245007

The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 26, 2026

Kas Zainulabdin And Co v.Gokul Chand Manoj Kumar And Sons Gm And Sons Private Limited And Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 4314002

This case involves a suit for infringement and passing off. The defendants argued that the plaintiff suppressed facts regarding their knowledge of the impugned product. However, the court dismissed the application seeking dispensation under Section 12A, finding that the grounds provided by the plaintiff were sufficiently explained and the cause of action was continuing and recurring in nature.
trademark interim order · Feb 13, 2026

Merchint Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Samtani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bombay High Court · 143591927

The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to institute a suit against the respondent. The petitioner argued that despite the respondents residing outside the court's jurisdiction, the transactions and effects of trademark infringement and passing off were felt within Mumbai. The Court granted leave for the proposed suit.
trademark mixed · Feb 12, 2026

Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi Trading As M/S PUSHKAR PAIN CLINIC AND PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTER SENIOR HOUSE v.Mr Tivender Kumar Kaushik

Madhya Pradesh High Court · 77173180

The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi against the rejection of his interim injunction application. The court recognized the appellant's claim that the respondent, a former employee, was infringing upon his established trademark, 'Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Center.' As an interim measure, the High Court granted a temporary restraint, allowing the respondent to continue operating their clinic but strictly prohibiting the use of the disputed name until further hearing.
trademark interim order · Jan 15, 2026

Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks Govt. Of India

Madhya Pradesh High Court · 155771502

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim measure in the trademark opposition case filed by Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks, Government of India. The court directed that no further proceedings related to the specific publication date (11.08.2025) shall be taken until the next hearing date. This temporary stay provides crucial breathing room for the petitioner while procedural requirements are met.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 12, 2026

Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties v.M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre

Madhya Pradesh High Court · 16453549

This matter originated from a civil suit filed by M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre seeking an injunction against Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties for trademark infringement. The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of their application regarding mandatory pre-litigation mediation proceedings. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the impugned order was passed by a Civil Judge below the rank of a District Judge, necessitating an appeal to the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court.
trademark interim order · Jan 6, 2026

Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 78617575

The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in products that infringe their Indian Patent No. 426553, specifically mentioning the brand name NYKRON. The court accepted notice and directed the defendants to file a reply within two weeks.
trademark interim order · Jan 6, 2026

Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v.Lyka Bdr International Limited

Bombay High Court · 72897277

The applicant filed an Interim Application in aid of Execution Application seeking the execution of an award dated November 15, 2023. The court granted directions requiring the respondent to disclose all particulars of their assets, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks), within four weeks.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 6, 2026

People Interactive India Private Limited v.Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani And 3 Ors.

Bombay High Court · 129855062

The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known matrimonial platform 'Shaadi.com', filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against the Defendants who used the similar mark and domain name 'getshaadi.com'. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and awarding substantial costs due to the Defendants' non-participation.
1 •••345•••71
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 →