Trademark Cases

3,740 decisions across India

India 3,740

Page 42 of 125

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 4, 2024

Jrpl Riceland Llp v.Neeraj Mittal & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 66077217

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jrpl Riceland Llp against Neeraj Mittal & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting the identical use and color scheme (green and gold) of the 'Biryani King' trademark on both parties' rice products. This interim order restrains the defendants from using the disputed mark or any deceptively similar permutations until the final hearing, safeguarding the plaintiff against irreparable harm.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 4, 2024

Abhinav Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 166912410

The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'VISA EXPERTS - PARTNERING LIFE CHANGING DECISIONS' for visa and immigration consultancy services. The court ruled that the composite nature of the mark prevents it from being deemed merely descriptive under Section 9(1)(b). Furthermore, addressing the likelihood of confusion (Section 11(1)), the Court noted an agreement with the conflicting trademark owner to proceed provided a disclaimer of the word 'VISA' is included. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised for registration.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 3, 2024

Biofarma v.Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd

Madras High Court · 53230377

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Biofarma seeking the removal of a registered trademark (No. 3599190) held by Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 3, 2024

Tirupati Foam Limited v.Shri Vignesware Fibres Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · 1759519

The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by Tirupati Foam Limited against the entry 'SLEEP LIKE A DREAM' (No.2064365) in Class 20. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default. This highlights the importance of diligent representation in trademark litigation.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 3, 2024

Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. v.M/S Vans Inc Usa

Delhi High Court - Orders · 124498268

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. challenging an interim order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the word mark 'IVANS'. The court noted that the petitioners had previously withdrawn their challenge to the same interim order, and therefore, any substantive arguments should be reserved for the final hearing of the underlying cancellation petition. This decision reinforces the principle that challenges to IP decisions must be pursued through appropriate procedural channels.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 28, 2023

Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.

Delhi High Court · 148686013

The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 22, 2023

Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Https://Www.Cyberxg.Top/ And Others

Delhi High Court - Orders · 158123192

The Delhi High Court allowed Inter Ikea Systems Bv's application to implead the registrars of the infringing domain names in the ongoing trademark suit. This crucial procedural step allows the plaintiff to directly target the parties responsible for operating the websites, strengthening their case against trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court extended the existing injunction order to these newly added defendants, maintaining the status quo until the final judgment.
trademark dismissed · Dec 22, 2023

Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain

Madras High Court · 48714559

The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
trademark mixed · Dec 22, 2023

Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 29451853

The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
trademark mixed · Dec 21, 2023

BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 195479637

The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
trademark mixed · Dec 21, 2023

Walter Bushnell Private Limited & Anr. v.Ramesh Juneja & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 155968751

Walter Bushnell Private Limited filed a petition seeking contempt action against Ramesh Juneja and others for violating an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order. The IPAB had previously directed the removal of the trademark 'DROTIKIND' (Registration No. 1309918). Despite this directive, the respondent renewed the impugned trademark. Consequently, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their appearance and initiating proceedings related to the alleged violation.
trademark mixed · Dec 21, 2023

Phoola Rani v.Anita Kharbanda & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 99643070

Phoola Rani filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Respondent No. 1's registered trademark 'PREM DI HATTI' (No. 2543229) in Class 43, arguing that she has been using the mark extensively since 1969 for similar food and restaurant services. The court found that the Petitioner prima facie is an aggrieved party due to the similarity of the marks and business purposes. Consequently, notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was scheduled for further proceedings.
trademark mixed · Dec 21, 2023

M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited v.Selvam Hardwares

Madras High Court · 26248041

In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 20, 2023

M/s Levi Strauss & Company v.Vishal Kashyap

Delhi District Court · 154340995

Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Vishal Kashyap alleging that he was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the defendant had illegally adopted the plaintiff's distinctive features and infringed upon its rights.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 20, 2023

M/s Meenu Electric Co. v.M/s Dynamic Electricals; M/s Golden Cab Industries; M/s Vijay Cable Co.

Karnataka High Court · 38765808

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside a trial court's order that had stayed an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the defendants could invoke Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to halt proceedings pending rectification before the IPAB. The Court ruled that merely having rectification applications filed during the pendency of the suit is insufficient; the plea of invalidity must be raised specifically and before the commencement of trial, otherwise, it is deemed abandoned.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 19, 2023

ATC IP LLC & Anr. v.Owner Of <Https://Atcindiatower. In/> & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · 23186420

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of ATC IP LLC, granting a permanent injunction against the operators of infringing domain names. The court found that the defendants' websites copied the plaintiffs' registered trademarks ('ATC', 'ATC India') and logos, causing potential misuse. Furthermore, the court ordered NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the infringing domain name www.atctower.in to ATC IP LLC, effectively resolving the dispute through summary judgment.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 19, 2023

Tvs Electronics Limited v.Jitender Kumar

Madras High Court · 109829619

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tvs Electronics Limited against a lower court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. The plaintiff, owner of the 'TVS Electronics' mark, sought restraint against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to CCTV cameras. However, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised regarding the balance of convenience, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark subject to maintaining accounts.
trademark mixed · Dec 19, 2023

Vega Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Sagar Jain & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 110141933

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Vega Industries challenging the registration of the trademark 'VIGA' by Vinod Sagar Jain. While noting that the correct remedy for the appellant might be rectification, the court preliminarily found no cause for grievance if certain listed products were excluded from the scope of goods. The stay application filed by Vega was ultimately rejected, and the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 18, 2023

Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v.Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited And Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 196253579

The Delhi High Court dismissed the trademark cancellation petitions filed by Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited against Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited. The dismissal was based on a pre-existing settlement agreement from 2010, which stipulated that both parties would continue using their respective shade numerals and adopt unique identifiers for future shades. This compromise effectively resolved all disputes related to the trademarks in question.
trademark settled · Dec 18, 2023

Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v.Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · 173439999

Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2023

Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks

Delhi High Court · 22509076

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
trademark dismissed · Dec 15, 2023

Manohar Singh v.Shyam Singh

Madras High Court · 186452163

Manohar Singh filed a civil suit against Shyam Singh and others, alleging infringement of his registered trade marks ('Singh') and associated copyrights in connection with mehandi products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Raju Singh' and 'Ram Singh'. However, due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation in recording oral evidence over the years, the court ultimately dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.
trademark settled · Dec 15, 2023

Til Healthcare Private Limited v.M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited

Madras High Court · 47135849

Til Healthcare Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited and others, alleging multiple infringements related to the brand 'APETAMIN'. The claims included trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress misuse, and copyright violation concerning its product label. Although the initial prayer sought permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement.
trademark settled · Dec 14, 2023

Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. v.Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 16666729

The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark cancellation petition filed by Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. against Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd. The dispute centered on the conflicting marks 'DROTIN' and 'DROTAGAN' in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to Respondent No.1 agreeing to surrender its registration for 'DROTAGAN' and acknowledging the Petitioners' rights in 'DROTIN'. The court accepted this agreement, effectively resolving the dispute.
trademark mixed · Dec 14, 2023

Iconic Ip Interests Llc & Anr v.Varshaben Kantilal Talreja & Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · 2357116

In this trademark dispute, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in Delhi High Court, arguing they only operate in Gujarat. The court permitted the defendants time to file their written statement and replication. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on both the injunction application and the issue of maintainability.
trademark dismissed · Dec 14, 2023

M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. v.M/S.Supreme Tile Works

Madras High Court · 26893255

M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. filed two Original Petitions seeking the expungement and removal of registered trademarks belonging to M/S.Supreme Tile Works from the register. The petitions targeted marks like 'SUPREME TILE WORKS' and 'AMARJYOTHI' in Class 19, alleging grounds for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, before any substantive hearing could take place, the petitioner chose to withdraw both Original Petitions.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 14, 2023

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Jogaram Sirvi And Ors.

Bombay High Court · 127554665

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement. Crucially, the court affirmed that the 'ATOMBERG' brand qualifies as a well-known trademark across all classes of goods and services. This landmark decision reinforces the high level of protection afforded to coined and inherently distinctive marks with established national reputation.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 13, 2023

Quantum University v.International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc

Delhi High Court · 141696461

This case involved a challenge by Quantum University against an arbitration award that directed the cancellation of its domain name (www.quantumuniversity.edu.in). The respondent, International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc., had successfully argued that the petitioner's domain was confusingly similar to their prior formative domain names (e.g., quantumuniversity.com). The Delhi High Court examined this challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ultimately upholding the original award.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 13, 2023

Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sujatha Manthri trading as Herald Healthcare

Madras High Court · 189278299

The Madras High Court allowed Corona Remedies' petition to rectify the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'B9' (No. 3281514) registered by Sujatha Manthri. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established mark 'B29', especially considering both marks were used for pharmaceutical products. Given Corona Remedies' long history of use, significant sales turnover, and reputation, the court ruled in favor of removing the conflicting registration.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 13, 2023

Contitech USA Inc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · 9553720

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Contitech USA Inc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'TORQFLEX'. The court found that there was an arguable case suggesting the goods associated with TORQFLEX (power transmission belts) were not similar enough to the cited conflicting mark (TORSIFLEX, used for couplings). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that protection is only granted if identical or similar marks are used on identical or similar goods, thereby directing the application to proceed for advertisement.
1 •••414243•••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 →