Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 61 of 123

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 13, 2022

Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Ashutosh Kumar Singh & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 867/2022&I.A. 21142/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp against Ashutosh Kumar Singh and others. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and associated copyrights, alleged that defendants were using a deceptive website ('www.rajnigandhadealership.online') to lure the public into fake distributorships under their brand name. Consequently, the court restrained the defendants from using the trademarks or the domain name and directed the domain registrar and bank to take immediate action.
trademark mixed · Dec 13, 2022

Ramesh Chander v.Pritam Das

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 22/2022

This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition filed by Ramesh Chander against Pritam Das. The petitioner claims prior use and ownership of the mark 'ANIL' for confectionary goods, arguing that the respondent's later registration is barred under Section 12(1) and obtained through fraud. The court issued directions to serve notice on the respondent and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, moving the matter forward in the opposition proceedings.
trademark mixed · Dec 13, 2022

Somani Industries v.Registrar Of Trade Mark, Government Of India; Somani Ceramics Limited

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur · S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18226/2022

Somani Industries approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking intervention regarding a long-pending trademark application ('SOMANI'). The petitioner sought direction for the Registrar of Trade Marks to expedite the decision process, especially considering an existing opposition from Somani Ceramics Limited. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Registrar to decide both the pending application and the associated opposition at the earliest, preferably within two months.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 13, 2022

Biogaia Ab v.Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Biogaia Ab against the Senior Examiner's refusal of the 'PROTECTIS' trademark for Class 5 goods (pharmaceutical products). The court found that 'PROTECTIS,' being an arbitrary term with no dictionary meaning, possesses sufficient distinctiveness and is not descriptive. Furthermore, the court noted that prior objections regarding similarity to other marks were unsustainable after reviewing their status. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the trademark application was directed to proceed for registration.
trademark mixed · Dec 12, 2022

Electronica Semiconductors Pvst Ltd v.Naveen Goel And Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 230/2021

The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark opposition proceedings involving Electronica Semiconductors Pvt Ltd against Naveen Goel and others. The court directed the parties to cure registry objections, provide necessary documentation, and file consolidated briefs of submissions within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for further substantive arguments regarding the trademark dispute.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 12, 2022

Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International v.Qaysa Care Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 863/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff, Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International, against Qaysa Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'NEW IMPROVED HAMMER OF THOR' was virtually identical to the plaintiff's registered marks and trade dress, constituting prima facie passing off and trademark infringement. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff's brand while the main suit proceeds.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 12, 2022

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS)(COMM) 322/2022

The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against the denial of an interim injunction concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court held that since both parties are generic drug manufacturers launching products after patent expiry, and given the similarity of the marks is based on active ingredients, there were no strong equities in favor of either party at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, the appellant's registered mark had not been used for over twenty-four years, which weighed against granting immediate protection.
trademark mixed · Dec 8, 2022

Deepak Khanna M/S B.D. Khanna Jewellers Pvt Ltd. v.Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 437/2022 & connected matters

The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark infringement and rectification petitions involving the 'BDK' mark. Following the abolition of the IPAB, the court revived the suit for infringement alongside the pending rectification matters. The court appointed a new Local Commissioner to proceed with recording evidence, setting a timeline for completion within three months.
trademark settled · Dec 8, 2022

Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 307/2021

The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
trademark mixed · Dec 8, 2022

Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 45/2022

The Delhi High Court remanded an appeal filed by Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd regarding the rejection of its trademark application 'Modern Namkeen Karare Lal'. The core issue was whether the appellant could proceed with the appeal despite a previous rejection order from 2018. Recognizing the merits of the case, the court ordered the matter to be sent back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the original review application. However, this remand is conditional: Modern Snacks must first prove that the prior rejection order was never properly communicated to them.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 8, 2022

Exhibitions India Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Exhibitions India Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the 'SMART CITIES INDIA' device mark. The court found that the mark was not merely descriptive or generic, especially given the Appellant's extensive history of using it for organizing exhibitions since 2015. Furthermore, the court determined that the mark was not deceptively similar to conflicting marks cited by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Trademark Registry was directed to process the registration.
trademark mixed · Dec 8, 2022

Nif Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 29/2021

In this appeal concerning trademark registration, the Registrar of Trade Marks argued that Nif Private Limited was seeking repeated registrations for the same device mark. The court noted conflicting claims regarding prior and subsequent applications related to the brand 'Namaste India Creamy Delicious Dahi'. To properly adjudicate whether multiple registrations were being sought for the identical mark, the High Court directed the appellant to place both relevant trademark application documents on record.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 8, 2022

Loreal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 119/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed Loreal's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'PILLOW PROOF BLOWDRY' for hair care products. The court found that the mark was suggestive rather than descriptive, noting that while individual words are common, their combination does not immediately describe the product. Consequently, the court set aside the previous orders and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with registration, provided a disclaimer is placed on the rights of the individual component words.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 8, 2022

Joy Universal Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 141/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Joy Universal Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the word mark 'PRINCESS PAT'. The court found that the grounds for refusal, based on similarity to earlier marks under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, were unsustainable. Crucially, the court noted that several cited conflicting marks had since been removed or refused registration, significantly changing the circumstances. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed, subject to a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights are granted in 'PRINCESS' or 'PAT' individually.
trademark mixed · Dec 6, 2022

EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 573/2022 and I.A. 13138/2022

In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
trademark mixed · Dec 5, 2022

Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 522/2021

The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
trademark mixed · Dec 5, 2022

Sandisk Llc v.Patel Mobile Accessories And Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 694/2022 & I.A. 20409/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed Sandisk LLC's application to amend its suit, permitting the impleadment of three additional parties—Shree Mataji Mobiles, Target Telecom, and Paravathi Telecom. These entities were identified as selling and marketing counterfeit products bearing Sandisk's registered trademarks. The court granted the amendments sought by the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed against a broader set of alleged infringers.
trademark defendant favorable · Dec 2, 2022

M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India

Madras High Court · W.P.No.28593 of 2012

This Madras High Court judgment addressed a challenge by Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against an order directing it to change its corporate name. The dispute centered on the use of 'Raymond,' which was claimed by another entity (Respondent 3) to be protected under trademark rights and prior incorporation dates. The court upheld the administrative decision, finding no illegality in requiring the petitioner to alter its name.
trademark mixed · Dec 2, 2022

Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
trademark mixed · Dec 1, 2022

Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO (COMM) 182/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
trademark remanded · Nov 30, 2022

Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 570/2022

Plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with medicines bearing marks like 'NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE', alleging misuse of confidential information related to their multi-micronutrient supplement, 'TRIMACARE'. The court examined claims of passing off and similarity between the marks. Ultimately, the ex-parte order was vacated, but the defendants were directed to disclose sales data.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 30, 2022

ITC Limited v.Khayrul Bashar And Anr.

Calcutta High Court · TMA/5/2022

The Calcutta High Court allowed ITC Limited's application for rectification against the trademark 'NEEMYLE'. The court found that the registration was obtained wrongfully because the Registrar failed to conduct a proper and adequate search of earlier, similar marks. Given the prior extensive use and established goodwill of ITC's mark 'NIMYLE', the continuance of the impugned mark was deemed contrary to public interest, leading to its cancellation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 30, 2022

M/S Jindal (India) Limited v.M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles Through Its Partners Rakesh Gandhi and Vinay Gandhi

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 826/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Jindal (India) Limited against M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks, such as 'JINDAL ROOFING SYSTEM' and 'JINDAL RANGOLI,' on roofing sheets, which infringed upon Jindal's registered trademarks like 'JINDAL SABRANG.' Recognizing a prima facie case and irreparable harm to Jindal's reputation, the court immediately restrained the defendant from selling or advertising goods using these infringing marks.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 28, 2022

Ajinomoto Co Inc v.Dattatrey Studios & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 822/2022

Ajinomoto Co Inc successfully secured an interim injunction against Dattatrey Studios in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark 'AJI-NO-MOTO,' argued that the upcoming movie title infringed its rights and was disparaging, linking the brand to negative health claims. The court granted the relief, preventing the release of any film bearing the disputed name until further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 25, 2022

Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory v.Rafeeq Beedi Factory

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 373/2021

The plaintiff, Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory, sued several defendants for infringing its proprietary trademarks, copyrights, and trade dresses related to its 'Bidis' business. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over marks like DEEWANA BIRI NO. 302, which was registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (DEEBAN BIRI and numerical 305) in relation to the same goods.
trademark mixed · Nov 25, 2022

Siddhant Icecreams Llp v.Ameet Pahilani

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 735/2022

In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court facilitated an agreement between Siddhant Icecreams LLP (Plaintiffs) and Ameet Pahilani (Defendant No. 2). The court mandated that Defendant No. 2 cease using the terms 'Natural' and 'Naturals' in relation to ice creams across various media, including packaging and online platforms, to protect the Plaintiffs' trademark rights. However, the order provided specific carve-outs allowing the use of the mark 'NIC' under certain conditions within India and outside India, while also permitting the sale of existing stock until a specified date.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 25, 2022

Apollo Tyres Limited v.Glory Enterprise & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 815/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Apollo Tyres Limited against Glory Enterprise & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's 'APOLLO' mark and the defendants' 'OPOLLO' mark used on automotive tyres and tubes. Furthermore, the Court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct comprehensive searches, seizures, and inventories at the defendants' manufacturing premises to gather evidence against the alleged counterfeit operations.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 25, 2022

Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh v.Geetan Luthra

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 820/2022 & I.A. 19757/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh against Geetan Luthra regarding the use of the mark 'VBM'. The court found that despite prior distribution agreements, the defendant's subsequent registration and use of a deceptively similar mark for medical equipment constituted infringement. The ruling emphasizes the need to prevent consumer confusion when one party leverages another's established brand identity.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 24, 2022

Krbl Limited v.Ashok Kumar

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 230/2020

Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered trademark, 'INDIA GATE with device of INDIA GATE', which is used in the business of rice. The court found that Defendant No. 1 was fraudulently using the trademark through an impugned website and domain name, leading to unauthorized sales and collection of money.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Nov 24, 2022

Levi Straus & Company v.Sunil Yadav

Delhi District Court · Cs (Comm.) No. 1870/19

The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Sunil Yadav for the clandestine manufacturing, storing, and selling of jeans and accessories bearing falsified trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'Levi's', 'Two Horse logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design'. The court found that the defendant was blatantly infringing the registered trademarks and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
1 •••606162•••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 →