Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 66 of 123

trademark mixed · Aug 1, 2022

Sanjeev Juneja & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar Bhatia

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 615/2017

In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit after making changes to their trademark, label, and packaging/trade dress. Despite the intention to withdraw, counsel requested an adjournment due to scheduling conflicts in another court. The Court granted the request, listing the matter for further hearing on August 24, 2022.
trademark mixed · Aug 1, 2022

Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd v.The Bci Forum Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 575/2021

The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Core Integrated Management Systems Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution related to the marks 'CONTINUITY AND RESILIENCE' and 'CONTINUITY & RESILIENCE'. Given that oppositions have been filed against the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, the court suspended the registration certificates. Consequently, both parties agreed that the pending opposition proceedings must be decided first before the injunction application can proceed. The court also directed both sides to file documents detailing the nature of use of the disputed mark.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 29, 2022

Mensa Brand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Kartik Fashion & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 519/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mensa Brand Technologies against Kartik Fashion & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized that the defendants were deceptively using the 'DENNIS LINGO' mark, along with similar trade dress features, to ride on the plaintiff's reputation in the e-commerce market. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods, and document their infringing activities.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 29, 2022

Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm.Div.) Nos.28 & 29 of 2021

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
trademark settled · Jul 28, 2022

Hachette Filipacchi Presse v.Aerolite Industries And 5 Ors

Bombay High Court · 906-COMIP.55.2010

The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 55 of 2010 after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The Consent Terms mandated that the defendants agree to use and register the trademark 'elle' in lowercase lettering while restricting its use in specific classes, and crucially, they committed not to adopt an identical or similar font to the plaintiff's registered mark 'ELLE'. This resolution provides clarity on brand usage rights through mutual agreement.
trademark mixed · Jul 28, 2022

M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · A.No.1851 of 2022 Batch (in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.75 of 2022)

This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.
trademark mixed · Jul 28, 2022

Disposafe Health And Life Care Ltd & Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Limited v.Rajiv Nath & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 139/2016 & CS(COMM) 1494/2016

The Delhi High Court consolidated two related commercial suits concerning trademark disputes involving the 'DISPOSAFE' and other 'DISPO' formative marks. The court framed detailed issues covering questions of mark proprietorship, alleged infringement, passing off, and prior user rights. This consolidation paves the way for a comprehensive trial to determine the validity and scope of the trademarks in the medical device sector.
trademark dismissed · Jul 27, 2022

Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public International School

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 322/2021 & I.As. 462/2022, 5410/2022

The Delhi Public School Society filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Delhi Public International School for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the use of 'DPIS' was deceptively similar to their established brand 'DPS'. The court initially granted an interim injunction recognizing the plaintiff's prior rights. However, upon considering subsequent developments, particularly the change in name by the defendant school, the court concluded that the main cause of action no longer survived against all parties. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, allowing the plaintiff to pursue remedies regarding pending trademark applications.
trademark mixed · Jul 25, 2022

Apple Hair And Beauty Services Private Ltd. v.Kavita Ankush Borude

Bombay High Court · 38-ao-106-2021

This appeal before the Bombay High Court challenges a trial court order that restrained Apple Hair and Beauty Services from using the trade mark 'Apple Unisex Salon.' The appellant raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the suit should have been filed in the Commercial Court due to its valuation and nature (trade mark infringement/passing off). The court granted time for the respondent-plaintiff to address this issue before proceeding with the appeal.
trademark mixed · Jul 25, 2022

Kajaria Ceramics Limited & Ors. v.Mr Suresh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS (COMM) 624/2021

In this commercial suit concerning trademark matters, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues raised by the defendants. Despite initial difficulties in compliance with court orders, the Court allowed the written statement to be filed after imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000. The Court also directed that Defendant No. 1 would participate virtually due to health reasons and set future dates for the proceedings.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 25, 2022

Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 490/2022

Infiniti Retail Limited successfully sought judicial intervention against an infringing website, www.cromawholesellersltd.co.in, which was identified as using its registered trademarks and logo. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead the website owner as a defendant and extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim injunction to cover this new party. Crucially, the court directed the suspension of the infringing domain name and mandated that the responsible parties provide detailed registrant information, reinforcing strong protection for well-known trademarks in the digital space.
trademark mixed · Jul 22, 2022

RRR Motion Pictures And Ors v.Shahe Ali

Delhi High Court · CM (M)-IPD 16/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking to set aside an order that framed issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether the Petitioners' request for permission to file a rectification petition under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been properly considered. The Court clarified that while a civil court must examine the prima facie tenability of an invalidity plea, this process is not equivalent to granting 'permission.' It directed the Commercial Court to decide on the validity application before proceeding with the main infringement trial.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 22, 2022

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 684/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'JIMSUN' held by Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd. The court granted the relief based on a settlement reached between the parties, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to have no objection to the cancellation. This order effectively cleared the path for the Petitioner to remove the disputed mark from the registry.
trademark mixed · Jul 21, 2022

Usha International Limited v.Citizen Udyog

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 348/2021 & I.As. 9439/2021, 16161/2021, 16162/2021

The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant seeking vacation of an interim injunction and return of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. While the defendant argued that all operations were outside Delhi, the plaintiff countered by citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and evidence showing export activities originating from ICD Delhi. The court directed both parties to obtain and file the Local Commissioner's report and related photographic evidence before proceeding with the substantive arguments.
trademark mixed · Jul 21, 2022

Popsockets Llc v.Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.496/2020

In this trademark infringement suit, Popsockets LLC sought remedies against Flipkart India Private Limited for allegedly selling products under an infringing mark. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on November 12, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and permitted the issuance of summons to all defendants, while also noting the dispute regarding whether Flipkart itself was infringing by selling the product under the disputed trademark.
trademark mixed · Jul 21, 2022

General Mills Inc. v.Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd Federation

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 400/2018 & CC 4/2008

In this ongoing trademark dispute, General Mills Inc. sought to incorporate the registration of its mark 'TRIX' into the existing pleadings. The Delhi High Court accepted the amendment and subsequently framed a new, specific issue before the court. This new issue directly addresses whether the defendant's use of the 'TRIX' mark constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
trademark mixed · Jul 21, 2022

Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO (COMM) 107/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 20, 2022

Usha International Limited v.Tarun Arora Trading As Krishan Enterprises

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 122/2022

Usha International Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Arora for trademark infringement concerning sewing machines. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting Usha's long-standing use of the mark 'USHA' since 1936 and its status as a well-known mark. Finding that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WSHA', the court granted an interim restraint order, preventing the defendant from using the infringing marks until further proceedings.
trademark mixed · Jul 20, 2022

Essential Export Sociedad Anonima v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 131/2022 & I.As. 10199-201/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Essential Export Sociedad Anonima challenging the rejection of its multi-class trademark application (No. 3639686). While dismissing a request for stay, the court found prima facie grounds to reconsider the matter. The court noted that certain facts, including oppositions and COVID-19 related adjournments, had not been properly considered by the Registrar's Examiner. Consequently, the case was remanded back to allow for fresh consideration of the application.
trademark defendant favorable · Jul 20, 2022

Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2020

The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 19, 2022

The Goodyear Tire Rubber Company v.Deva Nand Sukhia

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 183/2022 & CS(COMM) 182/2021

The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the Trademark Registrar to immediately comply with a prior judgment favoring Goodyear Tire Rubber Company. The court confirmed that the defendant had paid the stipulated litigation costs. Crucially, the Registrar was directed to remove the defendant's infringing 'GOOD YEAR' trademark (No. 1120219) from the register and dispose of related rectification and opposition proceedings within one week. This order solidifies Goodyear's position against unauthorized use of its mark.
trademark mixed · Jul 19, 2022

M/S Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO (COMM) 188/2021 & CM APPL. 42089/2021, CM APPL. 1830/2022 & CM APPL. 6899/2022

The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in the trademark dispute between M/S Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The respondent was directed to modify his product's label, tagline, and general get-up to ensure no similarity with the appellant's registered marks. Concurrently, the appellant was required to submit clear copies of its trademarks. This order sets the stage for further evidence presentation in the ongoing infringement litigation.
trademark mixed · Jul 18, 2022

Godrej Properties Ltd. v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS (COMM) 154/2021

In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed the delay in deactivating infringing domain names. The court emphasized that Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) like GoDaddy must process valid requests from the plaintiff, especially when they relate to misuse of a protected mark. To resolve the dispute, the court directed GoDaddy to file an affidavit explaining why certain domains remain active and providing full details of the domain registrants.
trademark defendant favorable · Jul 18, 2022

M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd & Ors v.Swadesh Raiment Pvt Ltd

Punjab-Haryana High Court · RFA-1396-2017

The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd, upholding the trial court's decision regarding the usage of the trademark 'OSWAL'. The dispute centered on whether the appellants had the right to continue using the mark after a specific period. The court found that the defendant's claim based on the deed of assignment (valid for 15 years) was valid and the memorandum of understanding did not override this limitation, thus favoring the respondent.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 18, 2022

Excitel Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 5/2021

The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 15, 2022

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal

Madras High Court · O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 15, 2022

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal

Madras High Court · O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Shri Rhythm Agarwal. The core dispute revolved around the court's jurisdiction, as the respondent argued the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, not Chennai. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the lower court's decision, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the appellant had sufficient grounds under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to file the suit in its jurisdiction.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 15, 2022

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal

Madras High Court · O.S.A.(CAD) No.122 of 2021

M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson Paints'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction, with the respondent arguing the suit should have been filed in Uttar Pradesh where they operated. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that despite the defendant's arguments, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act to try the matter.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 15, 2022

Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Nixi & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 193/2019 & I.A. 31775/2024

The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in favor of Colgate Palmolive, addressing ongoing trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their brand name. The court directed the domain registrar, GoDaddy.com LLC, to immediately block and suspend the infringing domain www.colgatepalmolive.work. Furthermore, the court ordered the disclosure of registrant details for the domain and mandated the freezing of a bank account linked to the scam operation, demonstrating strong judicial action against brand impersonation and cyber fraud.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 15, 2022

Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders v.M/S Chacha Food Company & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 473/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Neeraj Kumar Trading As M/S Ganga Traders against M/S Chacha Food Company, finding that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress for non-alcoholic beverages. The court recognized a strong prima facie case and ordered the defendants to immediately cease all activities related to the infringing goods. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises to seize and seal all incriminating materials, including packaging and molds.
1 •••656667•••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 →