Trademark Cases

3,667 decisions across India

India 3,667

Page 98 of 123

trademark plaintiff favorable · May 5, 2016

Solmec Earthmovers Equipments v.Registrar Of Trademarks

Gujarat High Court · C/SCA/4608/2016

Solmec Earthmovers Equipments approached the Gujarat High Court seeking directions to restore or renew its trademark 'SOLMEC' (Registration No. 929232). The petitioner argued that a lack of proper documentation had delayed the filing, but confirmed that renewal applications were filed on the day of the petition. The court disposed of the Special Civil Application by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and pass an order regarding the pending renewal application.
trademark plaintiff favorable · May 3, 2016

A.P. Organics (P) Ltd., Ludhiana v.Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh · ITA No.63/Chd/2016

The assessee claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as revenue expenditure for using the brand name "RICELA" from Ricela Health Foods Ltd., but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed it, treating it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payment was merely a license fee and thus a revenue expense.
trademark interim order · Apr 27, 2016

Eveready Industries India Ltd v.Roshanlal Jain & Anr

Calcutta High Court · CS No.116 of 2016

In this trademark dispute, Eveready Industries India Ltd filed a suit alleging both trademark infringement and passing off against Roshanlal Jain & Anr. The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint subject to seeking leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The court granted leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and directed the defendants to respond regarding the application for Clause 14 leave, allowing the litigation to proceed.
trademark mixed · Apr 26, 2016

Nirali Shail Patel & 1 v.M/S Ellorapark Hospitals Pvt Ltd

Gujarat High Court · C/CRA/485/2015

This Gujarat High Court order addresses a Civil Revision Application challenging the validity of a trademark suit. The applicants argued that since the plaintiff's trademark was unregistered at the time of filing, there was no cause of action under Section 27 of the Trademark Act. Citing Supreme Court precedent (K. Narayanan & Anr.), the court determined that this issue required further consideration and scheduled a hearing.
trademark mixed · Apr 25, 2016

Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.355/2014

Roche Products, the originator of the biological drug Trastuzumab (marketed globally under HERCEPTIN®), filed a suit seeking injunction against competitors launching purported biosimilars like CANMAb and HERTRAZ. The plaintiffs contended that these drugs were being misrepresented as 'Trastuzumab' or similar to HERCEPTIN®, without following proper regulatory guidelines for biologics. The court issued an interim order, restraining the defendants from making misleading claims and using proprietary data until the final decision on bio-similarity is reached.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 22, 2016

M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited v.Radhey Shyam Agencies

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.3341/2015 (I.A. No.23526/2015)

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, who is the registered proprietor of the 'ASHOKA' trademark. The plaintiff sought protection against defendants for alleged infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their edible oil products. Given that the plaintiff holds a valid registration and has established a strong prima facie case regarding market confusion, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark pending the final outcome of the suit.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Apr 19, 2016

Polycon Industries Pvt. Ltd v.The Union Of India & Ors

Gauhati High Court · Writ Petition (C) No.2830/2007

The petitioner challenged an order directing it to change its name because the 4th respondent claimed ownership of the trade mark "POLYCON". The court quashed the impugned order, finding that the Regional Director improperly invoked retrospective powers under Section 22 of the Companies Act and failed to consider factors like different product classifications (Class 17 vs Class 19) and distinct geographical markets.
trademark interim order · Apr 18, 2016

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay High Court · NMS1233-09-PALM GROVE-F.DOC (in Suit No. 815 of 2009)

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.
trademark mixed · Apr 18, 2016

Delhi Public School Society v.Dps World Foundation And Anr

Delhi High Court · IA 2920/2016 in CS(COMM) 154/2016

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Delhi Public School Society against Dps World Foundation And Anr. The court restrained the defendants from using the registered trade mark 'DPS' or any deceptively similar mark, citing infringement and passing off. While the plaintiff sought protection for its crest logo under copyright, the court denied this specific relief due to lack of evidence regarding continuous use. This ruling sets a precedent for protecting established educational brand identities in litigation.
trademark defendant favorable · Apr 5, 2016

Department Of Income Tax v.Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health ...

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh · ITA No. 475/Chd/2002

The appeal was filed by the Department of Income Tax against an order regarding assessment year 1997-98. The core dispute involved whether the Rs. 4.5 crore compensation received by Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health upon termination of the 'ENO' and 'Fruit Salt' trademark license agreement constituted a taxable income or capital receipt.
trademark defendant favorable · Apr 4, 2016

Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.Mr. Raymond Bickson, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer

Delhi High Court · CCP(O) No.126/2014 in CS(OS) No.1960/2006

The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition filed by Jiva Institute against Mr. Raymond Bickson regarding the alleged misuse of the 'JIVA' trademark. While acknowledging that the defendants had violated previous injunctions by using the mark on various goods, the court ultimately gave them the benefit of doubt. The judgment allowed the respondents to continue using the mark for their spa services and certain related items, provided they strictly avoid using it for soaps, cosmetics, ayurvedic products, or other allied/cognate goods, thereby balancing trademark protection with commercial reality.
trademark settled · Mar 30, 2016

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Psycoremedies Ltd.

Madras High Court · C.S.No.609 of 2014

The civil suit was filed regarding the alleged infringement of a trademark. The parties subsequently entered into a Memo of Compromise, resolving all disputes between them.
trademark mixed · Mar 18, 2016

S.K.Janimiya (M/s.Crescent Therapeutics Ltd.) v.Mr.Narender Pal; Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks; Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Madras High Court · W.P.No.2760 of 2010

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by S.K.Janimiya challenging an adverse order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the trademark OLAPIN. While noting the petitioner's lackadaisical conduct and delay in presenting evidence, the court ultimately set aside the IPAB's finding that no documents were filed. The matter was remitted back to the IPAB for a fresh examination, allowing them to consider the records and take further evidence.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 11, 2016

Essel Propack Ltd. v.Essel Kitchenware Ltd. And Anr

Bombay High Court · SUIT NO. 272 OF 2010 (Notice of Motion No. 370 of 2010)

Essel Propack Ltd. filed a suit seeking injunctions for trade mark infringement and passing off against Essel Kitchenware Ltd. The court considered the convoluted litigation history and arguments regarding sufficient cause for interim relief. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, finding that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient cause.
trademark defendant favorable · Mar 10, 2016

Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited v.Sulthana Restaurant

Madras High Court · O.A.Nos.374 & 375 of 2023 and A. No.2519 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No. 100 of 2023

The plaintiff, Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited, filed Original Applications seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Sulthana Restaurant, from passing off or infringing its registered trade mark 'SULTHAN'S BIRIYANI'. The defendant argued that the names were not deceptively similar, that they cater to different customer classes, and that the name 'SULTANA' is a common universal term. The Court dismissed the applications, finding no deceptive similarity and ruling in favor of the respondent.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 9, 2016

Pfizer Products, Inc & Anr v.Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd & Ors

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.2246/2011

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pfizer Products, Inc. in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. The court found that the defendant was illegally selling a drug under the deceptively similar trademark BEQSULE against the plaintiff's registered mark BECOSULES. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendant adopted an identical trade dress (white and reddish orange color combination) to mislead consumers, leading to a decree of injunction.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 29, 2016

Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Abdul Mueed & Ors.

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) (COMM) 1/2016

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Qarshi Industries challenging the denial of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Hamdard in a passing off suit. The court found that given the complexity of the arguments—including issues regarding the descriptive nature of the Urdu words 'JAM-E-SHIRIN' and potential suppression of facts related to Pakistani trademark disclaimers—the prima facie case was not strong enough for an immediate injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, requiring both parties to complete their pleadings before further relief could be considered.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 19, 2016

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Jagdale Industries Private Limited

Madras High Court · (T) CMA (TM) No.61 of 2023

Sanofi-Aventis challenged the registration of Jagdale Industries' trademark 'CALDALE,' arguing that it was deceptively similar to their own mark 'CARDACE.' The Madras High Court examined the phonetic similarity and potential for consumer confusion, especially given that both products are prescription medicines. Ultimately, the court found no remote possibility or slightest chance of confusion, dismissing Sanofi-Aventis' appeal and upholding the trademark registration.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 16, 2016

Visakha Chemicals v.The Central Government Of India And Another

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 8028/2010

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an IPAB order regarding trademark invalidity. The judgment affirmed the Full Bench's ruling that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on pleas of trademark registration invalidity, even within the context of an infringement suit. Furthermore, the court clarified the conditions under which an infringement action may be stayed pending rectification proceedings, emphasizing that a civil court must find the plea prima facie tenable before staying the suit.
trademark defendant favorable · Feb 10, 2016

Aura Synergy India Ltd. v.M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 3295/2015 (I.A. Nos.23095/2015 & 26213/2015)

The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction request filed by Aura Synergy India Ltd. against M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trade name 'AURA' for metallic false ceiling products. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' application. The judgment highlighted that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts and made misstatements regarding their business history and relationship with the defendants, leading to the vacation of the ex-parte injunction.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 10, 2016

Adidas Ag v.Union Of India & Anr.

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 3125/2013

The Delhi High Court overturned an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision that had dismissed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'RESPONSE'. The court held that the IPAB's interpretation of 'person aggrieved' was contrary to law, especially when marks and goods are identical. Furthermore, the High Court found factual inconsistencies in the IPAB's assessment regarding the petitioner's use of the mark. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the IPAB for a fresh hearing.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Feb 1, 2016

Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sanjay Kapur & Anr.

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) 247/2014

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the tea seller, Mr. Sanjay Kapur & Anr., finding that Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. had infringed upon their trade dress. The court held that despite minor variations, the overall get-up and striking similarity between the packaging—specifically the fabric sleeve used over a rectangular cuboid packet—was likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces that the overall visual impression of a product's packaging is a critical factor in assessing trade dress infringement, even when trademarks are displayed.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 28, 2016

Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v.Lavera Gmbh And Co.Kg

Delhi High Court · FAO (OS) 194/2015

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Lavera Gmbh, affirming that Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. was a dishonest adopter of the trademark 'LAVERA'. Despite initial contradictions regarding trans-border reputation, the court found that Lavera's international registration and intent to market in India entitled it to protection. The judgment emphasizes that dishonesty at the inception of mark adoption is fatal, even if subsequent use by the alleged infringer continues.
trademark settled · Jan 27, 2016

Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt., Ltd.

Madras High Court · O.S.A.NoS.111 to 113 of 2015

Wipro Enterprises Limited filed appeals against an order concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark rights. The dispute centered around Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.'s use of labels incorporating 'GLUCON-D VOLT' for their tangy orange flavoured glucose-based energy bites. The parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading to the disposal of the Original Side Appeals.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 20, 2016

Jagatjit Industries Limited v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders · Civil Appeal No. 430 of 2016

The dispute involved a conflict over the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'. The appellant (Jagatjit Industries Limited) sought to register an identical mark, leading to opposition by respondent No. 4 (a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A.). The case progressed through various legal challenges regarding the validity and rectification of the registration certificate.
trademark defendant favorable · Jan 20, 2016

Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India And Anr

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 6562/2012

The Delhi High Court dismissed Guruji Enterprises' challenge against the removal of its trademark 'GURUJI'. The petitioner argued that the Registrar failed to issue a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) before cancellation. However, the court found that since the Respondent stated the Form O-3 was sent by post in 2008, the law presumes service upon delivery, making the writ petition inappropriate for resolving factual disputes regarding receipt.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 5, 2016

Sanofi Aventis v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 2590/2008

Sanofi Aventis filed a suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to blood thinning medicines. The plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint to reflect significantly increased damages, as the losses mounted over the seven years the suit was pending. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct the cause of justice, especially when correcting valuation based on evolving market realities.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 23, 2015

Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Deepak Anand & Ors

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.2918/2014

Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a passing off/disparagement suit against Deepak Anand & Ors. The plaintiff sought to enhance the valuation of the suit from Rs.21,00,800/- to Rs.2,00,00,800/- based on reassessed damages and goodwill attached to its brand 'Snapdeal'. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should examine such applications from a commercial angle, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 23, 2015

Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.3047/1996

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (Plaintiffs) seeking to amend their plaint to enhance the suit's pecuniary valuation. The plaintiffs, who had initially valued their passing off suit at a lower amount, sought to reflect the actual high market value of their intellectual property rights. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for correction is made out.
trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 23, 2015

Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) No.985/2004

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (the plaintiff) seeking to amend its plaint to enhance the valuation of a commercial dispute. The suit, originally concerning passing off, was valued low, but due to re-assessment of potential damages and profits, the plaintiffs sought to increase the value significantly. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
1 •••979899•••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 →