Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 56 of 123

trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 28, 2023

M/s Rockmed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Nukind Healthcare & Anr.

Delhi District Court · TM No. 21/2016

The suit was filed under Section 27 of the Trade Mark Act against M/s Nukind Healthcare and others, alleging that they were passing off pharmaceutical products under the identical trademark 'KETOGOLD'. The plaintiff established extensive use, goodwill, and reputation of the mark. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
trademark settled · Mar 28, 2023

Ht Media Limited v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO(OS) (COMM) 155/2018 & CM APPL. 29789-29790/2018

The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit between Ht Media Limited and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. The original dispute centered on the use of trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'PEHLA NASHA.' Crucially, both parties successfully reached a settlement through the court's mediation center. Consequently, the High Court decreed the underlying suit based on the terms of the executed Settlement Agreement, effectively concluding the litigation.
trademark mixed · Mar 28, 2023

Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 145/2023 & I.As. 4912/2023, 4913/2023, 4914/2023, 4915/2023, 4916/2023

This Delhi High Court order addresses an infringement suit filed by Rspl Health Private Limited against Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of 'XPERT' in its registered word mark, 'HARPIC DRAIN XPERT,' infringed upon the plaintiff's device mark registration. While the court acknowledged the merits of the dispute, it primarily issued procedural directions, allowing the suit to proceed and setting timelines for filing written statements and interim replies.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 28, 2023

M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf v.Paras Agarwal T/A M/S Purushottam Agarwal and Co & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 161/2023

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf, against the Defendants. The suit alleged infringement and passing off concerning registered trademarks and copyright related to jewellery products. Given the strong goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's 'MD' marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the Defendants' use of similar marks like 'MD PAYAL', the court found a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff. The injunction restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks until further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 27, 2023

Krbl Limited v.Manoj Sah

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 385/2019

Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Manoj Sah and others for infringement, disparagement, and dilution of its flagship trademark 'INDIA GATE', used for Basmati Rice. The court found that the defendants' actions amounted to infringement under Section 29(8) and 29(9) of the Trademark Act, 1999.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 27, 2023

Jagdish Prasad v.Jay Prakash Rai And Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 309/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration for sanitary fittings. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and established that the subsequent, registered mark was deceptively similar to their own long-standing mark. Crucially, the court noted that the Respondent's use lacked credibility as it appeared primarily associated with trading services rather than the goods for which the mark was registered, thus failing to accrue genuine goodwill.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 27, 2023

Dinesh Kumar Mittal M/S Paras Enterprises v.Pragya Trading Company, Kaserate

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 487/2022

In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the removal of the impugned mark from the Trademark Register. The court noted that despite the petitioner's claims, the registration had expired on February 21, 2022, and the statutory one-year period for restoration under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had lapsed without any renewal application being filed. While this order addresses the validity status of the mark, it explicitly leaves all merits of the dispute open for future consideration.
trademark mixed · Mar 27, 2023

Mirza Ahmed Baig Alias Asad v.Mirza Afser Baig & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 89/2023, 90/2023, 91/2023

The Delhi High Court heard petitions challenging the registration of several marks held by the respondent, focusing on issues of user claim and proprietorship. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of continuous use and ownership, particularly regarding the mark 'MIDLAND'. The court noted these submissions but reserved judgment, scheduling a further hearing to allow the respondents to respond to the detailed challenges raised by the petitioner.
trademark mixed · Mar 24, 2023

M/S Malabar Gold Private Limited v.Mr. M. Manuvel And Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 62/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed interim applications in the trademark dispute between Malabar Gold Private Limited and Mr. M. Manuvel. The defendant argued that the existing injunction should be vacated because the plaintiff failed to disclose specific conditions imposed by the Trade Marks Registry regarding their trademarks, particularly concerning the exclusive right over 'M' or 'MALABAR'. The court accepted submissions from both parties and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 23, 2023

Under Armour, Inc v.Shri Jagmeet Singh

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 187/22

Under Armour filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shri Jagmeet Singh and others for infringement and passing off related to its trademarks 'UA' and 'UNDER ARMOUR'. The plaintiff argued that these marks are well-known globally and in India, leading to violation by the defendants. The court found in favor of Under Armour, granting a permanent injunction.
trademark settled · Mar 21, 2023

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Nuberg Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 814/2022

Sun Pharma and Nuberg Pharmaceuticals reached a full settlement in their commercial IP dispute before the Delhi High Court. The court formally decreed the suit based on the agreed-upon terms, which included significant concessions from both parties. Furthermore, the judgment mandated that Respondent No. 2 remove a specific trademark entry (No. 3797651) from the Register of Trademarks within six weeks.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 21, 2023

Applicant/Plaintiff (Name not specified) v.M/S.Knoll Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · A.No.4257 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.82 of 2022

The Madras High Court addressed an application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to initiate fresh trademark rectification proceedings against a registered mark held by the respondent. The court noted that multiple rectification actions were already pending before the Registrar and other forums initiated by both parties. Consequently, the court rejected the plaintiff's request for leave, emphasizing that existing legal processes must be allowed to run their course to prevent conflicting judgments.
trademark settled · Mar 21, 2023

Rspl Limited v.Grindwell Norton Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 144/2023 & I.A. 4907-4910/2023

Rspl Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Grindwell Norton Limited before the Delhi High Court. The parties reached a compromise where Grindwell Norton agreed not to manufacture or market products under deceptively similar marks (like 'COMPASS GHADI CHAP') in specific classes, while Rspl Limited withdrew its opposition and agreed not to seek damages. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without protracted litigation.
trademark mixed · Mar 20, 2023

M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr v.The Supreme Industries Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.R.P. 66/2023

This Delhi High Court order addresses a revision petition filed by M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr against The Supreme Industries Ltd. The underlying suit concerns permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement and passing off. While an exemption application was allowed, the main stay application concerning the striking off of the defendant's defence has been listed for further consideration on March 24, 2023.
trademark mixed · Mar 20, 2023

Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS)(COMM) 50/2023

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
trademark mixed · Mar 20, 2023

Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2023

Bundl Technologies Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY', initiated proceedings against Pankaj Garg & Anr. alleging dishonest adoption of the mark. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties regarding the procedural aspects of the case, including filing replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. The court also set dates for the completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar and subsequent hearing before the Court.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 17, 2023

Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v.Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 2023:DHC:1982

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited against a deceptively similar trademark registered by its former employees' company, Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was identical and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ALPHA' brand in real estate services. Given the respondent's dishonest adoption of the mark to ride on the petitioner's goodwill, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
trademark mixed · Mar 16, 2023

Sun Hydraulics Llc v.Sun Hydraulics Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 299/2019 & I.As. 3678/2020, 3679/2020

In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to introduce a rectified Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) late in the proceedings. Although the Defendant argued that the document was already in the Plaintiff's possession and control, the Court found that the newly issued LPC was not available at the time of filing the suit. However, due to the significant delay, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Plaintiff.
trademark remanded · Mar 15, 2023

Smt. Veena Kumaravel v.Acit, Central Circle - 2 (1)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai · I.T. A.No.1936/Chny/2019

Smt. Veena Kumaravel appealed an order confirming the levy of capital gains tax on Rs. 6.5 crores received from M/s Groom India Saloon & Spa Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated this amount as capital receipt upon transfer of trademark 'Naturals'. The assessee argued it was only a license deposit, not a sale or transfer.
trademark dismissed · Mar 15, 2023

Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks, The Trademarks Registry; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises

Madras High Court · W.P.No.7899 of 2023

The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash the registration of the trademark 'OMBC' under application no.5054052, which was held by Respondent No. 2. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
trademark dismissed · Mar 15, 2023

Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises

Madras High Court · W.P.No.7764 of 2023

The Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd against The Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash a registered trademark 'OMBC' held by Respondent No. 2, arguing infringement or improper registration. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 13, 2023

Levi Strauss & Company v.Mr. Surender Talwar

Delhi District Court · CS No.131/2020

Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Mr. Surender Talwar for infringement of its trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and copyrights, alleging that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods bearing deceptively similar marks. The court found the defendant guilty of passing off and trademark infringement.
trademark mixed · Mar 10, 2023

Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 8219/2020

This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
trademark dismissed · Mar 10, 2023

Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India

Madras High Court · WP No.17350 of 2009

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
trademark dismissed · Mar 10, 2023

Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India

Madras High Court · WP No.17351 of 2009

The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
trademark dismissed · Mar 10, 2023

Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India

Madras High Court · WP No.17349 of 2009

The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
trademark dismissed · Mar 10, 2023

Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India

Madras High Court · WP No.17350 of 2009

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
trademark dismissed · Mar 10, 2023

Umai Mohonot v.Union of India

Madras High Court · WP No.17351 of 2009

The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
trademark dismissed · Mar 10, 2023

Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks

Madras High Court · WP No.17349 of 2009

The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
trademark mixed · Mar 10, 2023

Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ramesh Kumar & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 740/2022, etc.

In a series of rectification petitions, Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited sought the cancellation of several trademarks owned by Ramesh Kumar and others. The court noted that the respondents had entered into a settlement with the petitioner and subsequently filed applications with the Trade Marks Registry to voluntarily withdraw or cancel the disputed marks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of these withdrawal applications within three weeks, effectively disposing of the rectification petitions pending compliance.
1 •••555657•••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 →