Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 83 of 123

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 24, 2020

M/s Audioplus v.Manoj Nagar

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.193/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s Audioplus against Manoj Nagar regarding trademark infringement. Audioplus, owner of the registered mark 'STUDIOMASTER' for audio equipment, alleged that Nagar was attempting to capitalize on its reputation using deceptively similar marks like 'STUDIOMIN' and 'STUDIOMAN'. The court found that Audioplus had established a prima facie case and granted immediate relief, restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademarks pending the full trial.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 22, 2020

Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico, S. De R.L. de C.V. v.Whiskin Spirits Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.186/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico regarding its registered trademark 'CORONA'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using social media advertisements that disparaged its product by likening it to Coronavirus. The court found a prima facie case for disparagement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff's statutory and commercial interests, temporarily halting the offending advertisement.
trademark defendant favorable · Jun 19, 2020

Darshan Singh & Sons (Huf) v.Baldev Singh Trading As M/S Madaan Plastic Industry & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · FAO 134/2020

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Darshan Singh & Sons (Huf) challenging an injunction preventing them from using the trademark 'House of Madaan'. The court found that the respondent, Baldev Singh Trading As M/S Madaan Plastic Industry, was the prior and exclusive owner of the similar mark 'MADAAN' since 2003. Although the appeal was dismissed, the parties reached a settlement where the injunction was modified into a comprehensive undertaking by the appellant to cease using the disputed trademark until the final disposal of the suit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 17, 2020

Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya And Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 178/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling fruit candies under a phonetically similar mark ('PULLS') and using deceptively similar packaging to the registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and granted relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
trademark settled · Jun 16, 2020

M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS (COMM) 174/2020

This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
trademark settled · Jun 15, 2020

Yanka Industries Inc. v.Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.149/2020

In a settlement order issued by the Delhi High Court, Yanka Industries Inc. and Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd. reached an agreement regarding trademark infringement concerns. The defendant agreed to change its trademark and logo from 'Master School' to 'Celebrity School' within two weeks. Furthermore, Starnet Masterschool committed to transferring the domain name www.masterschool.in to Yanka Industries, disclosing subscriber details, and removing infringing content from social media platforms.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 11, 2020

Ds Confectionery Products Ltd v.Chetan Gupta

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS (COMM) 168/2020 & I.A. No. 4405/2020

In a trademark infringement suit concerning confectionery products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('PLUSS+') and trade dress for their fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the registered 'PULSE' brand. Citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendant from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 10, 2020

Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.164/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. against Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a phonetically and visually similar mark ('PLUSS') and trade dress to sell fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that granting relief was necessary to protect its commercial interests.
trademark mixed · Jun 8, 2020

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM)No.157/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed an infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Healing Pharma India. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's trademark and trade dress were deceptively similar, specifically mimicking the plaintiff's 'rising sun' motif. While the court allowed procedural applications for document filing and curing deficiencies, it also moved forward with the litigation by ordering summons to be issued in the main suit.
trademark mixed · Jun 3, 2020

USV Private Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 152/2020 & I.As. 4162-66/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' on pharmaceutical labels. The plaintiff, USV Private Limited, alleged that the defendant's product used emphasized letters ('M', 'V', 'I') in a manner confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. In a significant development, the court accepted the defendant's willingness to modify the label and remove the disputed words, directing them to file an affidavit confirming this commitment.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 30, 2020

adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Anwar Ali

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm.) No.: 84/2020

Adidas AG and its Indian subsidiary filed a suit against Mr. Anwar Ali for infringing their registered trademarks ("adidas", "three bars", etc.) and copyrights on shoes and accessories. The court found that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, and selling inferior quality goods using deceptively similar marks, causing damage to Adidas' reputation.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 29, 2020

Nike Innovate C.V. v.Mr. Anwar Ali

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm.) No.: 85/2020

The plaintiff, Nike Innovate C.V., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing identical or deceptively similar 'Nike' trademarks and logos in Delhi. The court found that the defendant was causing confusion and deception among the public by using falsified marks on inferior quality goods.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 29, 2020

GS1 India v.Barcodes Sl & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 147/2020

GS1 India successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against a competitor operating barcode allocation websites. GS1, the sole licensed body in India for issuing standardized barcodes starting with '890', alleged that Defendant No. 1 was illegally allocating non-compliant and unverifiable codes, causing consumer deception. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of GS1, granting the injunction to protect its trademark rights and prevent irreparable harm to both itself and innocent customers.
trademark The Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining Zodley Pharmaceuticals from manufacturing, marketing, or selling pharmaceutical preparations under the mark ZOPOD or any deceptively similar variant. · May 27, 2020

fdc limited v.zodley pharmaceuticals pvt ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 138/2020

FDC Limited sued Zodley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its registered trademark ZIPOD (Class 5 - pharmaceuticals) alleging that Zodley was using the deceptively similar mark ZOPOD. FDC claimed ZOPOD had been in use since 2007 and achieved significant sales, while Zodley applied to register ZOPOD later.
trademark mixed · May 22, 2020

G4S Plc.(Formerly Known As Group 4 Securicor Plc) v.G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 136/2020 & I.As. 3962-66/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and the core claim of trademark infringement brought by G4S Plc against G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited. While granting various procedural exemptions, the court specifically dealt with an application seeking an ad interim injunction. The court found that before deciding on the merits of the infringement claim—where G4S alleged deceptive similarity using marks like 'G4EX' and 'G4 Excellence'—the defendant must be granted a full opportunity to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendant for a hearing scheduled in June 2020.
trademark mixed · May 22, 2020

Vidya Mandir Classes Limited v.Swastik Classes Private Ltd &Others

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 134/2020

In this intellectual property dispute concerning educational services, the Delhi High Court issued an order addressing interim relief. The defendants committed to ceasing the use of the plaintiff's registered trademark and returning existing course materials. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to refer the ongoing disputes to sole arbitration, while also agreeing to provide a list of affected students to determine their future enrollment.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 30, 2020

R.K. Patel And Company, Tobacco Processors v.Jaju Tobacco Company

Bombay High Court · Appeal from Order No. 29 of 2019

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a District Court's order that granted a temporary injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the defendant's packaging was sufficiently similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress (yellow colour pouch/packet) to warrant injunctive relief. This ruling reinforces the importance of visual similarity and consumer perception in protecting trademarks within the tobacco industry.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 17, 2020

Snapdeal Private Limited v.M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 113/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Snapdeal Private Limited against M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing and tarnishing Snapdeal's registered trademark, not only through its use but also through false advertising claims. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the phrase "everything cheaper than Snapdeal" across all social media platforms pending further hearings.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 16, 2020

D & H India Ltd v.Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) (COMM) 237/2019 & CM APPL. Nos. 42840/2019, 42841/2019 & 230/2020

This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned a suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd against D & H India Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'SUPERON'. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the respondent could amend its plaint to establish prior user rights for 'SUPERON' since 1994. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the appellant, who had ample opportunity to contest the claim.
trademark mixed · Mar 16, 2020

Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1120/2018, I.A.Nos.12603/2018 & 15282/2019

The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 12, 2020

Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Harish Chaudhary & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 106/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv against Harish Chaudhary & Anr. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its 'IKEA' trademark, along with its trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar marks, and were also ordered to suspend specific domain names and social media accounts until further orders.
trademark dismissed · Mar 10, 2020

Coffee Board, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India v.Trade Marks Registry

Madras High Court · W.P.No.3506 of 2020

The Coffee Board filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious consideration and registration of specific trademark applications. The Trade Marks Registry responded by confirming that the applications had already been accepted, advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, and would proceed to registration subject to standard legal provisions. Given this confirmation from the Respondent, the High Court found no further order necessary and dismissed the writ petition.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 6, 2020

Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C) 13510/2019 & CM 54718/2019; W.P.(C) 13546/2019 & CM 54850/2019

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 6, 2020

V Guard Industries Ltd. v.Taisong Chong And Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 105/2020

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd., preventing the defendants from transferring or registering the disputed domain name, www.vguard.com. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the defendant was acting as a cyber squatter to exploit the plaintiff's established trademark rights. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that administrative decisions under ICANN dispute resolution mechanisms are not binding adjudications and do not prevent civil litigation.
trademark interim order · Mar 3, 2020

Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya v.A. Hafsabi & Anr.

Bombay High Court · IMAP 1 of 2020 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 157 of 2020

The plaintiff, Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against A. Hafsabi & Anr. for infringement and passing off related to his brand KIMIA (wet dates). The plaintiff holds registered rights in the word mark KIMIA and its original artistic label. The court found that the defendants' use of 'KIMAA' and 'KEEMA' under pirated artwork was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion.
trademark mixed · Mar 3, 2020

Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan v.Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic

Gujarat High Court · C/AO/60/2020

The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order in this trademark dispute, allowing the matter to proceed toward final disposal. The petitioner secured a stay on the previous trial court's injunction order, while simultaneously receiving assurances from the defendant that they would comply with the interim injunction and cease using the disputed trademark during the pendency of the case.
trademark mixed · Mar 2, 2020

Vishnu Kant & Ors v.Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 354/2017

The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark infringement suit, Vishnu Kant & Ors vs Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors. The court settled several key issues, including whether the plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark 'CURRIMAKERS' and their entitlement to injunctions and rendition of accounts. The parties were directed to file witness lists and affidavits within specified timelines, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 2, 2020

Shemford Schools Private Limited & Anr. v.R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 568/2019

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Shemford Schools Private Limited against R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off of the registered trademark 'SHEMFORD' by the defendants, who were operating schools under similar names like 'SHAMFORD'. Given the virtual identity between the marks and the potential for consumer confusion in the educational sector, the court found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss without immediate protection.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 27, 2020

M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D S Foods And Ors.

Delhi District Court · C.S. Comm No. 40 OF 2020

The plaintiff, M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunction and recovery against its franchisees (defendants) for unauthorized use of the 'Sagar Ratna' trademark after termination of the franchise agreement. The defendants argued that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause in the original agreement, making the court suit non-maintainable.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 27, 2020

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 375/2019

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited infringed upon its registered trademarks and committed passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'EDREAM 11' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'DREAM 11', especially given that both platforms offered identical paid fantasy sports services online. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark.
1 •••828384•••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 →