Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 68 of 123

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 3, 2022

S M Motorenteile Gmbh v.Maharashtra Motors & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 425/2022

S M Motorenteile GmbH successfully pursued an infringement suit in the Delhi High Court regarding its 'SM' trademark used for high-quality automotive parts. While a settlement was reached with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the court decreed the suit against Defendants 4 to 6, finding them liable for selling counterfeit products under the disputed mark. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining clear documentation of brand history and rights in complex international IP disputes.
trademark mixed · Jun 3, 2022

Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv v.Ms Originals Clothing And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · EX.P. 35/2022 (arising from CS(COMM) 298/2021)

In this execution petition, Tommy Hilfiger sought to enforce a settlement decree against Ms Originals Clothing for continuing the sale of its branded goods. Despite having previously settled, the Decree Holder alleged that the Judgment Debtors continued infringing on their trademarks both in physical stores and online platforms. The court allowed the application for local commissioners to conduct an investigation into post-decree sales and directed the Judgment Debtors to provide access to relevant financial records.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 3, 2022

Ambuja Cements Limited v.Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 431/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ambuja Cements Limited against Shiv Kripa Steels & Anr. The court found that the defendants' use of marks was a slavish imitation of Ambuja's registered trademarks 'AMBUJA' and 'VIRAT'. Given the likelihood of customer confusion in the common building materials trade, the injunction prevents the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or devices related to cement and allied goods.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 2, 2022

Tube Investments Of India Limited v.M/S Jagdamba Enterprises & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS (COMM) 416/2022

Tube Investments Of India Limited successfully moved the Delhi High Court to protect its 'DIAMOND' trademark against widespread counterfeiting in the automotive parts market. The court recognized the extensive goodwill associated with the mark and the clear evidence of infringement presented by the plaintiff, including discrepancies found via QR codes and packaging differences. Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct seizures and verification across various premises.
trademark mixed · Jun 2, 2022

One Moto Scooters Trading Llc v.Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider (CSG ICP)

Delhi High Court - Orders · O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 176/2022

The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of One Moto Scooters Trading Llc, restraining Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider from using the trademark 'ONE MOTO' or any deceptively similar mark. This protective order was granted to prevent imminent threat of unauthorized use, including manufacturing automotive products. Furthermore, the court directed that the domain name 'www.one-moto.in' remain blocked, maintaining the status quo until further proceedings.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 2, 2022

Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. v.Ramesh Kumar Malhotra

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 414/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Kathuria & Anr. against Ramesh Kumar Malhotra regarding the disputed trademark 'ROSABAGH'. The plaintiffs, who own and use the mark for furniture and artifacts, successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of a similar mark for a banquet hall constituted potential dilution and infringement. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to an immediate restraint on the defendant's use of the contested trademark until further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 1, 2022

Capital One Financial Corporation v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 398/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital One Financial Corporation against Ashok Kumar & Anr. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were unauthorizedly using marks and domain names deceptively similar to 'CAPITAL ONE' to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with the major US bank. Consequently, the court restrained the parties from using these infringing marks and directed Google LLC to block the associated email address.
trademark mixed · Jun 1, 2022

Mohit Varshney Proprietor, M/S Raj Food Products v.Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 46/2021 & CS(COMM) 522/2020

In a complex cross-suit involving competing snack food brands, the Delhi High Court addressed trademark disputes between M/s Raj Food Products ('DECY') and Serveshwar Food Product Pvt. Ltd. ('LACY'). While acknowledging that the Plaintiff (Serveshwar) had prior registration of 'LACY', the court sought to balance interests by directing the Defendant (Raj Food) not to expand its product line under 'DECY' until further decision on injunctions. Crucially, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable resolution for both trademark and packaging disputes.
trademark settled · Jun 1, 2022

Kamla Kant And Company Llp v.Sanjay Gupta & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 396/2022

The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Kamla Kant & Company LLP against Sanjay Gupta & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of similar marks ('RAJ', 'KG') for tobacco and allied products, infringing upon the Plaintiff's established trademarks 'RAJSHREE' and 'KP'. Through a settlement agreement, the court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using confusingly similar marks while allowing them to use 'KANTHA RAJA' under strict conditions. The parties also agreed on financial compensation and the destruction of infringing materials.
trademark mixed · May 31, 2022

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Chardikla Accessories & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 384/2022, I.A. 8941/2022

In the ongoing trademark dispute between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Chardikla Accessories, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 24, 2023. The court noted that Defendant No. 4 expressed a willingness to settle the matter, similar to Defendants No. 1 through 3. Consequently, the case was listed for further proceedings and settlement discussions on April 6, 2023.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 31, 2022

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Indiabullsdhanifinance.Co & Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 674/2019

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., finding that the defendant's website and domain name were engaged in trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and identical get-up was designed to mislead customers into believing the fraudulent site was affiliated with the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendant was permanently restrained from using the infringing marks and their website operation was suspended.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 30, 2022

M/S Dreams Lingerie Products v.Akash Chaudhary

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 370/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Dreams Lingerie Products against Akash Chaudhary, restraining him from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'DREAM'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, inventory infringing goods, and examine manufacturing records.
trademark mixed · May 30, 2022

ITC Limited v.Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 377/2022

ITC Limited filed a suit against Fortune Holidays Inn And Suites Private Limited and others, alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the use of the 'FORTUNE' brand in the hospitality sector. The court acknowledged ITC's extensive rights over the 'FORTUNE' trademarks and noted the potential for consumer confusion caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use. While reserving a full hearing on the merits, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, immediately stopping the Defendants from making new bookings under the disputed mark.
trademark settled · May 27, 2022

Khandelwal Laboratories P Ltd v.Nava Healthcare P Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 531/2021 & I.A. 8627/2022

The Delhi High Court formally recorded an amicable settlement between Khandelwal Laboratories P Ltd and Nava Healthcare P Ltd regarding trademark infringement. The Defendant, Nava Healthcare, acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in 'KHANDELWAL' and 'KLAB' logos used for pharmaceutical products. As part of the settlement, the Defendant agreed to a permanent injunction, ceased using the marks, committed to disposing of existing stock by specific deadlines, and agreed to pay outstanding liabilities totaling over Rs 1.51 crores.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 27, 2022

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S. K.K.Garments, Through Its Owner

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 368/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. K.K.Garments, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed multiple Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants' premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK trademarks, and demand disclosure of financial records, significantly bolstering the plaintiff's ability to enforce its rights.
trademark mixed · May 27, 2022

Shivan Ramachandran & Anr. v.Madhur Sharma

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 367/2022

In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on May 27, 2022. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents while simultaneously accepting a significant undertaking from the defendant. The defendant agreed to withdraw pending trademark applications and cease all sales of the disputed products, providing an affidavit detailing existing stock and past sales figures.
trademark mixed · May 26, 2022

Patanjali Aryurved Limited v.Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 66/2022 & I.As. 2401/2022, 4593/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'PATANJALI' brand, specifically 'PATANJALI COW'S GHEE'. While the Plaintiff sought strict enforcement against alleged counterfeiters, the court opted for an amicable resolution approach. The parties, including Defendant No.1 (Raj Mandir Retails Private Limited) and Defendant No.3, were referred to the Mediation Centre. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief allowing Defendant No.1 to exhaust its existing genuine stock while seeking a structured path toward resolving the dispute.
trademark mixed · May 26, 2022

Sterne India Private Limited v.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO (COMM) 83/2022 & CM APPL. 25270/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 25, 2022

A India Print House Through Its Partners Kunal Kapoor and Vibha Kapoor v.Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 358/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of A India Print House against Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was deceptively using the identical trademark, trade-dress, and color scheme ('MERCURY') for playing cards, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion and passing off. The Court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.
trademark defendant favorable · May 24, 2022

Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited

Delhi High Court · CRP-IPD 2/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 23, 2022

Sunit Shah v.Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 345/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sunit Shah against Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the similarity between the plaintiff's mark ('SHAH/SHAH NAMKEEN') and the defendant's mark ('SHAH JI NAMKEEN'), applied to identical goods (namkeen), created a likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing mark until further hearing, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize and inventory the disputed goods.
trademark settled · May 20, 2022

Welcome Shoes Private Limited v.Retro Footwears Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 2022/DHC/004677

The Delhi High Court judgment in Welcome Shoes vs. Retro Footwears concluded the dispute through an amicable settlement between the parties. The defendants agreed to withdraw several similar trademarks, cease using deceptively similar marks like 'BURE' or 'WELCOMO' for footwear, and refrain from diluting the plaintiff's established brands ('WELCOME' and 'PURE'). This resolution provides a clear path forward, binding both companies to the terms of the settlement decree.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 19, 2022

M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 330/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S JK Lakshmi Cement Limited against Raj Kumar Singla Trading As M/S Shiv Shakti Sanitary Store. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement, leading to the restraint on the defendants from using the 'JK Smart' mark for wall putty and related products. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods and inspect the defendant's accounts, reinforcing the immediate protective measures available in IP litigation.
trademark settled · May 19, 2022

Semco Infratech Pvt Ltd v.Simla Chemicals Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · CM (M)-IPD 10/2022 & connected matters

This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a trademark dispute between Simla Chemicals (owner of SIMCO) and Semco Infratech (using SEMCO). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to decree the original suit in terms of this agreement. Under the settlement, Simla retains ownership of 'SIMCO' but is permitted to expand its product range, while Semco can continue using 'SEMCO' for specific goods and services, provided they pursue necessary registrations. The ruling provides a clear path forward for both parties to operate without ongoing litigation.
trademark defendant favorable · May 19, 2022

Sudhir Bhatia Trading As V.Bhatia International v.Central Government Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · W.P. (C)-IPD 37/2021

This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the registration of the trademark 'LAXMAN REKHA' by arguing that the initial advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal was illegible. The petitioner sought to quash the advertisement and compel re-advertisement, claiming this error prejudiced their ability to file an opposition. However, the court ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing that while the Registrar has a duty to ensure proper advertising, the petitioner's significant delay in challenging the registration—despite learning of the issue years earlier—precluded the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 19, 2022

M/S Subros Educational Society v.Union Of India

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 2/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Subros Educational Society against the refusal of registration for its trademark 'SBS World School'. The court found that the Registrar failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing registrations for similar marks under 'SBS' in Class 41. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 19, 2022

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 328/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'FOLZEST' infringed upon the Plaintiff's registered mark 'FORZEST'. Recognizing the potential for irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from selling or manufacturing the infringing product until further hearing. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and seize all medicines bearing the impugned mark.
trademark mixed · May 18, 2022

Radico Khaitan Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 129/2021

The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd challenging the rejection of its trademark application for "EFKAY'S FIVE STAR MYSORE BRANDY." The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing assigned rights in 'EFKAY'S.' While this addressed the Section 11 objection, the court remanded the matter back to the Registrar. The examiner must now reconsider the application based on the remaining descriptive elements of the mark, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.
trademark mixed · May 18, 2022

Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 79/2021

Radico Khaitan Ltd. appealed the rejection of its trademark application 'EFKAY'S XXX RUM (DEVICE)' by the Registrar of Trademarks, citing conflicts with existing marks. The appellant argued that several related 'EFKAYS' series marks had been legally assigned to them. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the arguments and directed all related appeals concerning similar mark rejections to be listed together for a comprehensive hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 18, 2022

Makind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed Makind Pharma Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application for "DON'T WORRY" in Class 3. The court held that, given the Appellant's existing registrations of the mark across various classes, the refusal based solely on lack of distinctiveness was unwarranted. The application was permitted to proceed for advertisement before acceptance, provided it is associated with the registered trademark 'MANKIND'S DON'T WORRY', and no exclusive rights are granted in the words 'DON'T' or 'WORRY' alone.
1 •••676869•••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 →