Trademark Cases

1,271 decisions across India

India 1,271

Page 5 of 43

trademark remanded · Jun 5, 2025

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v.West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(GI)No.2 of 2023

The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 4, 2025

Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Klm Pharma Seema Aggarwal Proprietor

Delhi District Court · CS(Comm.) No. 1068/2023

The plaintiffs, part of the Hamdard Group, sued KLM Pharma for infringing their well-known Unani medicine trademark 'SAFI' and its associated trade dress. The defendant was found to be using a deceptively similar mark, 'SAIFI,' for identical goods (blood purifier).
trademark defendant favorable · Jun 3, 2025

Anil Jain v.Rajan Bhutani

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM.) 883/2024

The plaintiff, trading as Mahavira Tractors, filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'REAL DIAMOND' (registered mark) versus 'STAR DIAMONDS' (defendant's mark) used for Mechanical Seals. The court found that the marks were not deceptively similar and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 31, 2025

Astral Limited v.Mahavir Electric And Hardware Stores

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM.) NO. 273/2023

Astral Limited filed a suit against Mahavir Electric & Hardware Stores and Vikram Traders for infringement and passing off related to its well-known trademark 'ASTRAL'. The court found that the defendants were adopting and using an identical trademark on counterfeit pipes and fittings, violating Astral's exclusive rights.
trademark mixed · May 30, 2025

Cipla Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2025, CM 88/2025-U/S 149 CPC

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Cipla Limited and the Union of India regarding a trademark application. Recognizing issues with traceability of previous notices, the court allowed Cipla to proceed by granting permission to file applications for the restoration and renewal of Trademark Application No. 1694972 within two weeks. The petitioner was also directed to complete necessary procedural filings within four weeks, effectively allowing the matter to move forward.
trademark mixed · May 29, 2025

Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Union Of India & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 120/2025

The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a rectification petition filed by Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills. The petitioner sought the removal of the registered trademark 'DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND' (Registration No. 5574981) from the Trade Marks Register, which was held by respondent no.2. The court accepted notice on behalf of one respondent and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter for further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 29, 2025

M/S Mishu Enterprises v.M/S Nakshatra 13

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 295/2022

The plaintiff, M/S Mishu Enterprises, owns and uses the distinctive mark 'MACHHMANI' for selling sea stones and related jewellery. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, M/S Nakshatra 13, alleging unauthorized use of the same mark to deceive the public. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunctions.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 28, 2025

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 243/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
trademark mixed · May 27, 2025

Punjab Fc Private Limited v.Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 127/2025

Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 27, 2025

Rakesh Kumar Mittal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-IPD 40/2024

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Rakesh Kumar Mittal, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore his trademark 'MILTON/'. The core issue was the removal of the mark due to non-renewal. The court held that the removal was illegal because the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedure—specifically, issuing a Form O-3 Notice as required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for administrative action in trademark law.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 26, 2025

M/S Ambika Industrial Corporation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-IPD 35/2022

The Delhi High Court quashed an order by the Trade Marks Registry that had allowed a change in the registered address for the 'AMBIKA' trademark. The petitioner firm argued that the change, filed by a former partner (Respondent No. 2), lacked justification and was detrimental to the established proprietor. The court ruled that since the petitioner remains the undisputed registered owner, the registry could not unilaterally alter the address based on an unsupported application, thereby restoring the original details.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 19, 2025

Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.

Calcutta High Court · IPDCR/32/2022

Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
trademark mixed · May 15, 2025

Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ram Kumar & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 117/2025

The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the dispute between Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited and Ram Kumar & Anr., addressing both rectification and interim stay applications. The court granted an interim stay on the registration of trademark No. 5849311, recognizing the petitioner's prior rights concerning similar packaging and marks (JK/JKLC). Furthermore, the court directed the initiation of formal proceedings for the rectification of the impugned mark in Class 19, setting clear timelines for notice and response from all parties.
trademark mixed · May 14, 2025

M/S Aggarwal Trading Company v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 35/2025

M/S Aggarwal Trading Company approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of their trademark register entries (Registration Nos. 671443 and 671598). The petitioner argued that despite the marks being valid up to specific future dates, the online system incorrectly displayed messages indicating renewal failure due to delays. The court took cognizance of this discrepancy and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, directing them to provide clarifications regarding the validity and renewal status of both trademarks.
trademark defendant favorable · May 14, 2025

M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited v.Sukanya Gupta

Delhi District Court · OMP (COMM) 46/24

The petitioner, M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited, filed a petition to set aside an arbitral award against Mrs. Sukanya Gupta, alleging breach of contract and misuse of intellectual property related to beauty pageants. The petitioner claimed damages for her running a competing pageant shortly after the agreement expired. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding no patent illegality in the arbitrator's findings.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 14, 2025

Ms C R Auluck And Sons Private Limited v.Ms Dharamlaxmi Machines Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 243/2024

The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registered trademark 'DHARMLAXMI' belonging to the respondent, in favor of the petitioner who owns 'LUXMI'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting deceptive similarity between the two marks and products (sewing machines), noting that the respondent was using the mark in a manner different from its registration. This interim order is crucial for the petitioner as it prevents the respondent from continuing to operate under the disputed trademark while the rectification petition proceeds.
trademark defendant favorable · May 14, 2025

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Indorbit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 912/2024, I.A. 42669/2024-Stay

The Delhi High Court rejected Torrent Pharmaceuticals' oral request to pass a permanent injunction and decree against Indorbit Pharmaceuticals based on passing off and copyright infringement. Although the defendants failed to file written statements, the court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently established its prior adoption and usage of the new trade dress (SHELCAL-500) since September 2022. The judgment emphasizes that while a party's failure to respond can lead to a default decree, the threshold for such an order is high, especially in complex IP matters like pharmaceutical products, necessitating full evidence and trial.
trademark mixed · May 14, 2025

Cipla Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2025, CM 88/2025-U/S 149 CPC

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Cipla Limited and the Union of India regarding a trademark application. Recognizing issues with traceability of previous notices, the court allowed Cipla to proceed by granting permission to file applications for the restoration and renewal of Trademark Application No. 1694972 within two weeks. The petitioner was also directed to complete necessary procedural filings within four weeks, effectively allowing the matter to move forward.
trademark mixed · May 13, 2025

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 114/2025

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a Rectification Petition against M/S Martin And Brown Biosciences & Ors., seeking the removal or cancellation of the trademark registration 'SOMI-MB' (No. 5982177) in Class 5, arguing that it is confusingly similar to their existing mark 'SUMO'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and set timelines for filing written synopses and replies, indicating that the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
trademark mixed · May 8, 2025

Ms Khatema Fibres Limited v.Dr Rakesh Chandra Rastogi & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 910/2024

The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing Ms Khatema Fibres Limited to proceed with a rectification petition against the registered trademark 'KHATEMA' held by Defendant No. 1. The court formally initiated the proceedings, granting both parties specific timeframes—four weeks for the defendant's reply and six weeks for filing composite written synopses in related applications. This order sets the stage for a detailed legal battle over the validity of the trademark registration.
trademark mixed · May 8, 2025

Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 122/2022 with I.A. 10576/2024

Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies filed an application seeking to amend and file an auxiliary claim set in their patent appeal. The core legal question was whether such amendments were permissible at the appellate stage and if they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court analyzed precedents regarding amendment powers and found that the proposed changes narrowed the scope of the original claims by adding specific agents. Consequently, the court allowed the amendments and took the auxiliary claims on record.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 6, 2025

Goethe-Institut E.V. v.Abhishek Yadav & Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 541/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Goethe-Institut E.V., a well-known cultural institute, against Abhishek Yadav and others. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's use of similar marks like 'MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE' was likely to cause confusion among the public regarding their association with the established brand. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its prior goodwill and reputation in the market for German language courses, warranting immediate protective relief pending the final trial.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 5, 2025

Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 279/2023

Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 25, 2025

M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 76/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 22, 2025

M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-IPD 57/2021

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 15, 2025

Epifi Technologies Private Limited v.Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 20/2024

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Epifi Technologies Private Limited against Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr., successfully arguing that the respondent's registered mark 'F1' should be removed from the register. The court found that the impugned mark had not been used in commerce for the required continuous period, and furthermore, the respondent failed to obtain necessary regulatory approvals despite its registration date. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark registrations must reflect genuine commercial use.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 15, 2025

Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Oreo Healthcare

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM)-12/2024

The plaintiffs, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products under the registered trademark 'HAEMOCAL', sued defendants for using the deceptively similar mark 'HEMOCAL' and copying their unique packaging and labeling. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the public.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 1, 2025

Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. v.Satyendra Kumar Singh And Anr

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 251/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an infringing trademark registration. The petitioner, a major online travel platform operating under 'GOIBIBO', successfully argued that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Given the petitioner's extensive goodwill and prior use since 2009, the Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the conflicting registration.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 31, 2025

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Viraj Harjai & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 212/2024

The Delhi High Court granted rectification to Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a major online beauty retailer operating under the mark 'PURPLLE'. The court cancelled two registrations held by the respondent for similar marks ('PURPLLE TREE/'), finding that the petitioner was the prior and continuous user. This decision underscores the importance of establishing genuine, long-standing market presence over mere application dates when challenging trademark validity.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 31, 2025

Psychotropic India Limited v.Meridian Medicare Ltd And Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 370/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Psychotropic India Limited against Meridian Medicare Ltd. The court found that Respondent No. 1 adopted the mark 'TROMA' with malafide intent, capitalizing on the goodwill established by the petitioner in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the prior use and distinctiveness of the petitioner's marks (TROMANIL, TROMA), the court ruled that the registration held by the respondent was contrary to the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
1 •••456•••43
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 →