Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 81 of 123

trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 14, 2020

Minda Corporation Ltd. v.Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 449/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Minda Corporation Ltd. against Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's adoption of the 'STAR MINDA' mark was deceptively similar to their registered device marks, leading to a risk of consumer confusion and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 13, 2020

Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited v.Voltronic India Lubricants & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · IA 9281/2020 in CS(COMM) 560/2019

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited, to appoint two more Local Commissioners in its ongoing infringement suit. The court recognized that new entities were using the registered trademark 'GULF PRIDE 4T PLUS' and employing deceptively similar trade dress for their engine oil products. This order allows the plaintiff to further investigate and seize infringing goods from newly identified parties, reinforcing the court's initial finding of widespread infringement.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 12, 2020

Giani S Foods Private Limited v.Mr. Keshav Aggarwal, Trading As M/S Keshav Foods & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.439/2020

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Giani S Foods Private Limited against Mr. Keshav Aggarwal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, noting irreparable harm to its commercial interests due to the unauthorized use of the 'GIANI'S' mark and associated trade features by the defendant. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the protected trademark or similar marks on their products and from utilizing any distinctive store layouts or fixtures belonging to Giani S Foods.
trademark mixed · Oct 12, 2020

Astral Poly Technik Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee Through Its Proprietor Ms Pooja Surendra Ayre & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS (COMM) 440/2020 & I.A. No. 9225/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Poly Technik against Astralglee, concerning the use of 'Astral' and 'Astralglee' in Class 3 goods. The court noted conflicting arguments regarding prior use, consumer confusion, and the scope of statutory rights conferred by registration. Given the complex factual matrix and competing legal precedents cited by both sides, the judge decided to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues.
trademark defendant favorable · Oct 9, 2020

Pm Diesels Pvt Ltd v.Thukral Mechanical Works And Ors

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 4846/2011

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an IPAB order that rejected its request to implead the original trademark assignor. The court held that since the petitioner was questioning both the initial registration and the subsequent assignment as potentially fraudulent, the assignor (M/s Jain Industries) should have been included from the outset. Given the passage of time, the High Court found it inappropriate to allow impleadment at this late stage, thereby upholding the IPAB's decision.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 9, 2020

Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Gepl) v.Gadham Ramesh

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 436/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (GEPL) against Gadham Ramesh regarding alleged trademark infringement. GEPL, claiming extensive use and registration of the 'GMR' mark across various sectors since 1978, sought protection against the defendant who was using a similar mark for a news channel on YouTube. The court found that GEPL had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable damage to its goodwill.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 8, 2020

Ascot Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Prashant Sharma & Dikshant Sharma

Delhi High Court - Orders · EX.P. 53/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed an execution petition concerning a prior settlement where the judgment debtor had agreed to cease using the trademarks 'SAVOY SUITES' and 'SAVOY'. The court found that the judgment debtor was violating this undertaking by advertising their property in Mumbai under the same name, thereby leveraging the goodwill of the decree holder. Consequently, the Court issued strict directions compelling the defendant to immediately remove all references to the trademark from websites and third-party platforms, including major booking sites.
trademark settled · Oct 5, 2020

Sarla Holdings Private Limited v.Pathways School Gurugram Parents Association

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 413/2020

Sarla Holdings Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the 'PATHWAYS' mark, sought to restrain a parents' association from using its trademark. The Delhi High Court mediated a settlement where the Defendants agreed to modify their association's name and remove all references to 'PATHWAYS' or 'PSG' from their communications and social media platforms. This order allows the Plaintiff to protect its brand identity while accommodating the community interest.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 30, 2020

ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v.CHARANJEET SINGH

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) No.1839/19

The plaintiff, Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling perfumes under deceptively similar trademarks ('DAVIDOFF'/'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER'). The court found that the defendant's use of the mark caused confusion and injury to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, ordered delivery up of goods, and awarded damages.
trademark mixed · Sep 30, 2020

Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd. v.Culinary Communications Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO 178/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd., challenging a restraining order issued by the District Judge regarding the use of the 'Culinary Culture' trademark. The appellant argued that the injunction unfairly restricted its business operations in Classes 38 and 42, where it holds registered marks. While the respondents initially sought restraint only in Class-35, the court allowed both parties time to file comprehensive replies and rejoinders before the matter is heard expeditiously by the Trial Court.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 29, 2020

Bharat Bhushan Gupta Prop. Bharat Light Machines v.Nitin Mittal Prop. M/S G.K. Trading Co.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 404/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bharat Light Machines regarding its trademark OZOMAX. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deceptively using a similar mark, OZOWAX, and copying the artistic packaging for body massagers. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and the clear imitation of the product packaging.
trademark dismissed · Sep 28, 2020

M/s. M.S.Milk Product v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks Intellectual Property Building, et al.

Madras High Court · W.P.No.2239 of 2014

M/s. M.S. Milk Product filed a Writ Petition seeking an order to expedite the registration process for two trademark applications in Class 29. However, during the hearing before the Madras High Court, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that both trademark applications had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 24, 2020

Living Media India Limited & Anr. v.Www.News-Aajtak.Co.In & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.395/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Living Media India Limited, who claimed ownership of the 'AAJ TAK' trademark. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement by various defendants using similar marks in their domain names. Consequently, the court directed the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to immediately block and suspend the infringing websites and take down related content from social media platforms.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 18, 2020

Vikas Jain And Anr. v.State Drugs Controller Haryana & Ors.

Punjab-Haryana High Court · CWP-12097 of 2020 (O&M)

This petition challenged an order issued by the State Drugs Controller, Haryana, which directed the petitioners to cease using two cosmetic brand names, 'COSMO SILKY' and 'COSMO'. The controller had acted based on the lack of ownership proof in a family dispute pending before the Delhi High Court. The Punjab-Haryana High Court set aside this order, ruling that the regulatory authority overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing a blanket ban while complex trademark disputes were still sub judice.
trademark mixed · Sep 16, 2020

M/S Emco Thr. v.Union Of India Thr.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · WP.No.12921/2020

M/S Emco Thr. approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking intervention against the Trade Marks Registry's inaction regarding a trademark correction application for 'MADHUVAN'. The petitioner argued that due to administrative errors, they were not recognized as the registered owner despite having exclusive rights via an assignment deed and continuous use since 1982. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to adjudicate the pending representation/appeal within a stipulated period of three months.
trademark mixed · Sep 16, 2020

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

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 379/2020, I.A. 8147/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. While the court found that 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' is likely a descriptive and common term, thus denying the injunction against the mark itself, it granted protection for the plaintiff's trade dress/packaging and marketing content. This mixed ruling highlights the distinction between protecting generic product descriptors versus unique visual branding elements in IP law.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 14, 2020

Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 367/2020

Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
trademark mixed · Sep 14, 2020

Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 299/2020 & CS(COMM) 460/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 11, 2020

M/s. Cothas Coffee Co. v.Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd.

Bangalore District Court · O.S.No.4047/2015

The plaintiff, M/s. Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'Cothas'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Cotha Giri' on coffee products. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
trademark mixed · Sep 11, 2020

Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016

The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
trademark mixed · Sep 4, 2020

Jindal (India) Limited v.Vision Prime Tech Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 364/2020

In a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on September 4, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents while also accepting assurances from the defendant. Crucially, the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and provided statements denying the use of the impugned mark in the market. These procedural steps move the case toward a resolution based on the parties' commitments.
trademark mixed · Sep 3, 2020

VELCRO BVBA v.VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 261/2019

In this Delhi High Court matter concerning the 'VELCRO' brand, VELCRO BVBA filed an application seeking an urgent hearing due to allegations that the defendant continued infringing its trademark despite existing interim injunctions. The court noted the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and directed notice to be issued to the defendants for a returnable appearance on November 23, 2020.
trademark mixed · Sep 2, 2020

Makemytrip India Private Limited v.Wing In Travel Advisory Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.285/2020 & I.A. No. 6277/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Makemytrip against Wing In Travel Advisory and others. After hearing arguments, the court accepted an assurance from Defendant No. 1 that it would not bid for, adopt, or use Makemytrip's registered trademarks (MakeMyTrip/MMT) or any deceptively similar variants. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on these terms, without awarding damages or costs to the plaintiff. The court noted that the remaining defendants could not be proceeded against in the current form of the suit.
trademark mixed · Sep 2, 2020

Jindal Industries Private Limited v.Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 357/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jindal Industries Private Limited against Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr. The court rejected an application seeking to delete a defendant, noting that the defendant was involved in filing the relevant trademark application for 'JINDAL POWER.' Furthermore, the court disposed of another procedural application regarding the plaint's filing requirements and maintained the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction until further orders.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 2, 2020

Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Dream11 Team

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.355/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Dream11 Team, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendant was slavishly adopting identical trademarks and logos, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark or similar logos, and the court ordered the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend/block the infringing domain name www.dream11team.com.
trademark mixed · Sep 1, 2020

Harjit Kaur & Ors. v.Jaywantjit Singh & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 351/2020, I.A. 7540/2020, I.A. 7541/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'CAMPA,' which is registered to Plaintiff No. 2 (Campa Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, despite not being a shareholder or director, was filing numerous new trademark applications using the CAMPA prefix and managing brand operations. While the court allowed an exemption from filing original documents, it primarily focused on procedural steps for the main suit. Crucially, the court established that Defendant No. 1 is bound by his statement that he has not commenced use of the mark until a final decision is rendered in the ongoing litigation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 28, 2020

Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Amul Franchise.In & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 350/2020 I.A. 7456/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. against various parties operating fraudulent websites using the 'AMUL' trademark. The court found that these entities were impersonating and deceiving the public by offering fake dealerships, jobs, and distributorships, thereby causing irreparable harm to the brand. Furthermore, the registrars of the infringing domains were directed to immediately suspend or block the sites, while banks holding accounts related to the fraudulent operations were ordered to disclose account holder details.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 27, 2020

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Kumar Garments

Delhi District Court · TM No. 23/2018

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kumar Garments alleging that the latter was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas's registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys, leading to the decreeing of the suit.
trademark settled · Aug 24, 2020

M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries v.Pramod Kumar & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 321/2020

In a significant resolution for brand owners, M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries successfully secured a decree against Pramod Kumar & Anr. through a comprehensive mutual settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'ROBOTOUCH' trademarks and agreed to cease all use of the mark or deceptively similar marks in relation to wellness products. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing existing trademark registrations and opposition filings related to ROBOTOUCH, ensuring peaceful conduct of the plaintiff's business.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2020

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Shiv Chetna Hosiery

Delhi District Court · TM No. 22/2018

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Shiv Chetna Hosiery was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas' registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys.
1 •••808182•••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 →