Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 72 of 123

trademark settled · Feb 25, 2022

Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Tata Motors Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 131/2022

The dispute between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited and Tata Motors Limited regarding the use of 'T-Series' marks was amicably settled in the Delhi High Court. The settlement requires Tata Motors to acknowledge the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in 'T-Series', undertake not to use the mark on automobile products, and remove all related content from its websites and social media platforms. In return, Super Cassettes acknowledged the rights of Tata Motors in marks like 'Tata' and agreed to drop claims for damages.
trademark interim order · Feb 24, 2022

Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors. v.Venkata Siva Suhas Kumar Bommisetty & Ors.

Bombay High Court · IN COMM. IP SUIT (L) NO. 4378 OF 2022 / INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 4383 OF 2022

The Plaintiffs, Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors., filed an interim application seeking relief against the Defendants for infringement of their registered 'NATURAL' family marks and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordering them to remove related online advertisements.
trademark settled · Feb 24, 2022

The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc (COMPTIA) v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited (The Times Group)

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 467/2021

This Delhi High Court judgment records the amicable resolution of a trademark dispute between COMPTIA and The Times Group. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement, wherein The Times Group acknowledged COMPTIA's ownership of 'CHANNELCON' and agreed to immediately cease using it or deceptively similar marks like 'CHANNELICON'. Furthermore, The Times Group committed not to oppose future registration efforts for the mark.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 23, 2022

Ageless Clinic Private Limited v.Am Ageless Private Limited

Bombay High Court · 908-IAL-29744-21

The Bombay High Court granted further interim relief in favor of Ageless Clinic Private Limited against Am Ageless Private Limited. Despite previous orders, the Defendant failed to comply by continuing to use infringing business names on signage, maintaining deceptive domain names (like i-am-ageless-aesthetic-and-dental-centre.business), and active social media accounts. The Court made absolute the Leave Petition for Letters of Patent and issued a strong injunction restraining the defendant from using any mark or handle containing 'AGELESS' that could lead to passing off.
trademark interim order · Feb 22, 2022

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Walpar Healthcare And Anr.

Bombay High Court · IAL.28131.21 in COMIPSL.28123.21

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed an Interim Application against Walpar Healthcare & Anr. alleging passing off and trademark infringement concerning their respective marks, DUZELA and DIZELA. The court found a case made out for granting ad-interim relief based on the findings of the previous order.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 22, 2022

Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited v.Black Diamond Motors Private Limited

Delhi High Court · CM(M)-IPD 4/2022 & CM APPL. 8379/2022

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited challenging an order from the Commercial Court. The court upheld the necessity of protecting the registered trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND' during pending litigation, despite previous rulings that allowed both parties to use the mark under specific conditions. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction and affirmed the court's power to issue protective directions regarding goods release and security deposits.
trademark mixed · Feb 22, 2022

Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 16/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. challenging the Senior Examiner's refusal to register the trademark 'DISPOSAFE'. While granting procedural exemptions regarding document submission, the court formally initiated the substantive appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that their unique combination mark should not have been rejected as generic or descriptive. The matter is now set for further hearing after notice has been issued to the Respondent.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 21, 2022

M/S Slv Enterprises v.M/S Sree Nandi Upachar; M/S Hotel Sree Saravana Bhavan

Karnataka High Court · WRIT PETITION NO.21611 OF 2021 (IPR)

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Slv Enterprises seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged trademark infringement. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the lower trial court to decide on its interim application promptly. However, the High Court declined to interfere in the trial court's discretionary power, noting that the respondents were granted time to file their written statements and objections. The judgment emphasizes allowing the trial court to manage the proceedings while encouraging the petitioner to pursue matters there.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 18, 2022

Lt Foods Limited v.Sri Annapurna Agro Indsutries & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 381/2021

The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on a comprehensive settlement reached between Lt Foods Limited and Sri Annapurna Agro Industries. The defendants formally acknowledged Lt Foods as the exclusive proprietor of the trademark 'HERITAGE/INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT.' Crucially, the defendants undertook to cease all use of the mark, refrain from registering similar marks globally, and pay damages amounting to INR 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 18, 2022

Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 104/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited against the defendants. The court found that the defendants were fraudulently adopting and misusing Hero's registered trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero Motocrop') and identity materials to set up fake dealerships, thereby deceiving the public. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using these marks or offering services under the plaintiff's name, and associated domain names and bank accounts were ordered to be frozen pending the final disposal of the suit.
trademark mixed · Feb 17, 2022

Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. v.Amit Saini & Ors.

Bombay High Court · 08-IA.L.27950 of 2021 (in Commercial IP Suit No.39 of 2022)

The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. against Amit Saini & Ors. The court found sufficient grounds, based on prior ex-parte findings, to establish a case for passing off and trademark infringement. This interim order prohibits the defendants from copying or counterfeiting the plaintiff's 'STREAX PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPER' products or using deceptively similar marks like 'STREAX,' thereby preventing them from misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiff.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 17, 2022

Mr. Sanjay Chadha Trading As Eveready Tools Emporium and Another v.Union Of India And Another

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-IPD 12/2021

The Delhi High Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to cancel a registered trademark. The petitioners, who owned the 'EVEREADY' word mark for hand tools, challenged its removal by the respondent, Eveready Industries India Limited. However, the court found that the IPAB had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the petitioners' adoption and use of the mark were dishonest and lacked continuous user. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
trademark mixed · Feb 16, 2022

Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 134/2021

In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
trademark mixed · Feb 16, 2022

Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 379/2020

In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
trademark dismissed · Feb 15, 2022

Medal Electronics Private Limited v.M/S Goldmedal Electricals Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO-IPD 2/2022 & CM 6499-6500/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Medal Electronics challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted against them in a trademark dispute. Despite arguments regarding prior use and alleged acquiescence, the appellants chose to withdraw their appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty for the appellants to file appropriate applications before the Trial Court, urging the lower court to expedite the decision on the interim injunction application.
trademark mixed · Feb 14, 2022

Indus Tmt Industries Ltd v.M/S Mega Steel Industries

Karnataka High Court · O.S. No.1/2022 (and O.S. No.2/2022)

This case involved Indus Tmt Industries Ltd filing Original Suits against M/S Mega Steel Industries alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks and design. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for the unauthorized use of similar marks like 'Index Gold'. During the proceedings, the court permitted the plaintiff to delete the prayer pertaining to the Designs Act, 2000, leading to the suits being remanded back to the Trial Court to resolve the remaining disputes.
trademark settled · Feb 10, 2022

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sham Bansode

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 365/2021

The dispute between Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Sham Bansode regarding the 'Dream11' trademarks was amicably settled through mediation. The parties agreed that the court would decree the infringement suit based on the settlement terms. Key provisions included the defendant acknowledging ownership of the plaintiff's listed trademarks, agreeing to cease all use of similar marks, transferring the domain name www.mydream11.in, and paying a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
trademark settled · Feb 10, 2022

Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Elder Labs Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 503/2021

The dispute between Himalaya Wellness Company and Elder Labs Limited was resolved through mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement accepted by the Delhi High Court. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs' rights in trademarks like 'Liv.52' and 'HIMALAYA', as well as their trade dress (orange and green color combination). In exchange for discontinuing infringing activities and paying damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 8, 2022

Levi Straus & Company v.Braint Denims

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm.) No. 2989/2019

The plaintiff, Levi Straus & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademarks (including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design') by the defendant, Braint Denims. The court found that while exact damages were difficult to calculate, it awarded punitive damages of ₹2,00,000/- against the two defendants due to their evasion of court proceedings.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 7, 2022

M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited v.M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 88/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited against M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd. The court found that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'NATURASSENCE' was closely identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'NATURE'S ESSENCE'. Given the prima facie case made by the plaintiff regarding goodwill and reputation, the court restrained the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or trade dress until further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 7, 2022

Dr Ashim Kumar Biswas v.A To Z Pharmaceuticals And Laboratory & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 86/2022, I.A.s 2051-54/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Ashim Kumar Biswas against A To Z Pharmaceuticals for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's product was an exact copy of the plaintiff's Ayurvedic medicine, using a deceptively similar mark ('DR. BISWASH') while also naming the plaintiff as the manufacturer. Given the clear prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation, the court restrained the defendants from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
trademark interim order · Feb 3, 2022

Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Sharmila Lalit Vyas And Anr.

Bombay High Court · IAL No. 1684 of 2022 in COMIPL No. 1679 of 2022

Louis Vuitton Malletier filed an Interim Application seeking an injunction against the Defendants to prevent them from manufacturing, selling, or distributing products featuring the impugned LV mark or deceptively similar marks. The court directed the Applicant/Plaintiff to serve the proceedings on the Defendants before considering any ad-interim relief.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 3, 2022

Schaeffler Technologies Ag And Co Kg v.Ms Gangason Enterprises

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 80/2022 & I.A. 5854/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Schaeffler Technologies (FAG) against Ms Gangason Enterprises for alleged trademark infringement. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute through an amicable settlement, which the court formalized into a decree. Under the terms of this settlement, the Defendant acknowledged FAG's exclusive rights and agreed to cease all use of the mark 'FAG,' withdraw related trademark applications, destroy infringing products, and provide an apology for the violation.
trademark mixed · Feb 3, 2022

Dfm Foods Limited v.ITC Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 79/2022

The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark dispute between Dfm Foods Limited and ITC Limited. While the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, the court immediately directed both parties toward mandatory mediation. This order sets the stage for amicable resolution while allowing procedural steps like filing additional documents and exemptions from pre-institution mediation.
trademark mixed · Feb 2, 2022

Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.Needs Supermart Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 43/2021

In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'Nutella' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 2, 2022. While the court maintained the existing interim injunction against the defendant, it deferred the dispute over whether products were counterfeit to the trial stage. Furthermore, the court directed both parties toward mediation and conciliation to attempt a settlement of the ongoing litigation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 31, 2022

L'OREAL v.Haridas Pa

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 148/2020

The plaintiff, L'Oreal, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks ('L'OREAL', 'L'OREAL PROFESSIONNEL', 'L'OREAL PARIS') and passing off. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (LOERA, LORA) in relation to beauty care products and services, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 31, 2022

KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD v.UDIT KHATRI & ORS.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 72/2022, I. A. Nos.1590/2022 & 1673/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD against Udit Khatri & Ors. The court found that the defendants were engaging in blatant trademark infringement by selling spurious, sub-standard oil filters using names and get-ups deceptively similar to KLEENOIL's registered trademarks. Citing prima facie evidence, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from marketing or supplying products under 'KLEENOIL' or 'CLEANOIL' until further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 28, 2022

Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 62/2022

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Emaar Properties Pjsc against Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited. The plaintiff, a well-established global brand, alleged that the defendant was deceptively using the registered trademark 'EMAAR' for farm equipment to benefit from the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The court recognized the clear case of infringement and passing off, temporarily restraining the defendants from using the mark on any products or e-commerce platforms until further proceedings.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 28, 2022

Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. v.Sunil Kumar Saluja

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO (COMM) 182/2021 and CAV 62/2021 & CM Nos. 40967-40968/2021

The Delhi High Court dismissed Airtec Electrovision's appeal against the Commercial Court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. Airtec sought protection for its registered mark 'EIRTEC' against Sunil Kumar Saluja's use of 'AIRNET' on television sets, claiming deceptive similarity. However, the court found no sufficient phonetic or stylistic similarity and emphasized that common words like 'air' are often used in the electronics trade, ultimately upholding the lower court's decision.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 28, 2022

Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Through Its Proprietor & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 71/2022, I.A. 1538/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC), I.A. 1543/2022 (u/s 12 A Commercial Courts Act), I.A. 10960/2022

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Infiniti Retail Limited, granting a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and ordering the transfer of the domain name www.croma.in. The court found that the plaintiff's mark 'CROMA,' which is registered and declared well-known, was being illegally used by a third party who was profiting from its reputation through website squatting. This judgment reinforces the strong legal protection afforded to established, well-known trademarks in the digital space.
1 •••717273•••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 →