IP Cases — 2023
1,199 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 36 of 40 · 1,199 total
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v.State Of U.P. And 11 Others
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking directions to state authorities to initiate proceedings against private respondents for alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner sought mandatory action under both IP statutes. However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that if any violation exists, the petitioner must pursue remedies through an FIR or other permissible legal actions, rather than seeking enforcement via writ jurisdiction.
American International School Chennai v.American International School Greater Noida & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of American International School Chennai against American International School Greater Noida. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of the name 'American International School' was likely to deceive the public. This crucial early ruling protects the plaintiff's registered trademarks while the full litigation proceeds.
Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd against the Trademark Registry's refusal of its application for 'TRAVELODGE SKYE'. Despite concerns regarding similarity with prior marks, the court directed that the subject mark be permitted to be advertised without acceptance. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with the registration process while any underlying disputes over the core 'TRAVELODGE' mark remain pending.
Vending Updates (India) Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Vending Updates (India) Private Limited against the refusal of its device mark registration. The initial objection, based on similarity to Amazon's registered trademark, was overcome when Amazon Technologies, Inc. provided a Letter of Consent. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection order and directed the application to proceed towards publication and registration.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition seeking mandamus from the Delhi High Court to compel the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to restore his patent application. The application, for a "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," had been deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. Chaudhary contended that the abandonment was an error caused by his erstwhile Patent Agent and that he never intended to abandon the invention.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietor M/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff, H.S. Sahni, seeking a stay under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued notice to the defendants and set the matter for return on July 4, 2023. This order indicates that the dispute regarding trademark rights is actively progressing through litigation.
Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its trademark application, 'THE SERAI JAISALMER.' The court found that the mark was not descriptive for Class 43 services, especially given the existence of a nearly identical registered mark in the same classes. Furthermore, considering the lapse or refusal status of most cited prior marks, the Court directed the Trademark Registry to process and advertise the application, subject to an explicit disclaimer regarding the word 'JAISALMER.'
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd. v.M/S S M Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd against a prior order that denied a temporary injunction. The plaintiff sought to stop the defendant from using the trade name 'POLYGON', claiming it infringed upon their registered trademark 'POLYCON'. However, the court found no prima facie case for infringement or passing off, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding market goodwill or proof of prior use. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the court clarified this ruling does not prejudice the final trial on merits.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mobilfuels Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Exxon Mobil Corporation challenged the use of an impugned mark by Mobilfuels Private Limited. While the defendant claimed to be giving up the mark, the court noted that the defendant had also filed a registration application which needed withdrawal. The court directed the defendant to place communication regarding the withdrawal on record and scheduled a future hearing specifically to address claims for costs and damages.
Gopika Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the renewal of Trademark No. 1039952, which was originally registered under Dayal Industries Limited but subsequently renewed in the name of its sister concern. The court heard arguments regarding whether this change constituted a bona fide mistake or an improper transfer. To clarify the complex factual matrix, the Court issued directions requiring all relevant respondents to file detailed affidavits and produce supporting documentation within three weeks.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim injunctive relief regarding trademark infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found prima facie substance in Glaxo Group Limited's claim against Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning the marks BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, ruling that these were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks (BETNESOL/BETNOVATE). Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using these specific marks pending the final suit. However, the court declined to grant an injunction against the mark BETASON.
Kamal Kumar & Ors. v.Jagteshwar Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Kamal Kumar & Ors. against Jagteshwar Singh & Anr., which originated from a suit involving trademark and copyright infringement claims. The court noted that due to regulatory notifications, the matter needed specific handling within the IP division of the High Court. Consequently, the Registry was directed to re-register the appeal and schedule its hearing before the Intellectual Property Division on March 14, 2023.
Star Sintered Products Ltd. v.Karan Bhutani
The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.
XY LLC v.The Asst .Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in April 2023.
Marico Limited v.Narico Agrovet Private Limited & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Marico Limited against Narico Agrovet Private Limited. The court was reviewing Defendant 1's compliance with a previous directive to change its company names to avoid infringing on Marico's registered trademark. However, the defendant raised procedural hurdles related to the unavailability of necessary e-forms from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Consequently, the Court directed the MCA to appear and clarify this position, ensuring that administrative difficulties do not impede the legal process.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Hitesh Ghanshyamdas Shah & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition filed by the Petitioner alleging non-compliance with a prior court decree, specifically concerning Trademark application No. 1865799. While the parties initially debated the status of the cancellation request before the Registry, both sides ultimately agreed on a path forward. The Court clarified that the Petitioner was free to approach the Registrar directly for cancellation based on the existing decree and correspondence, leading the Petitioner to withdraw the petition.
Prem Raj Parekh (Deceased) / Abhishek Parakh v.Shah Food Products And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the substitution of the deceased Plaintiff, Prem Raj Parekh, with his legal representative, Abhishek Parakh. This order facilitated the continuation of the trademark suit, allowing the applicant to formally assign ownership of Trademark No. 543474 in his name. While the procedural hurdle was cleared, the court explicitly left open the substantive objections raised by the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's actual ownership of the trademark, setting the stage for further litigation.
Jockey International Inc v.Domain Administrator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Jockey International Inc's application to add domain name registrars and associated banks as additional defendants in its trademark infringement suit. The court granted crucial interim relief, directing the blocking and suspension of specific infringing domain names (www.jockeydealer.in and www.jockeyshops.in). Furthermore, it issued orders freezing bank accounts linked to these domains, significantly strengthening Jockey's ability to protect its 'JOCKEY' trademark against online infringement.
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd appealed a refusal order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant argued that the refusal order, which cited prior art D4, was bereft of any reasoning to support the conclusion of lacking inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order invalid due to lack of justification and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging piracy of registered designs (switch plates). The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation and expunction of these same designs. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of this counterclaim, arguing that only the Controller of Designs could handle such petitions under the 2000 Designs Act. The court rejected the objection, citing a Supreme Court judgment which reversed the view that cancellation pleas must be filed solely before the Controller.
M/S. Suparshva Swabs India v.Sh. Vipul Chhabra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's request to cancel a registered trademark, finding no deceptive similarity between the marks. The court held that despite both marks starting with 'T' and ending with 'IP', the overall visual, phonetic, and structural differences were substantial enough to prevent consumer confusion. This ruling emphasizes that similarity must be assessed as a whole, not merely by common letters.
Robotics Today B.V. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Robotics Today B.V., setting aside the rejection of its trade mark application 'ROBOTICS TODAY' under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the composite mark was suggestive rather than descriptive when used in the robotics industry, and determined that it was prima facie dissimilar to the cited conflicting mark. Crucially, the judgment mandated a disclaimer, ensuring the registered rights would only cover the combination 'ROBOTICS TODAY' and not the individual words.
Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited v.Chotiwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited against Defendant No. 5, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their registered mark 'CHOTIWALA,' which has acquired significant goodwill over decades, was being deceptively used by the defendant. This order provides immediate protection to the established brand while the main litigation proceeds.
Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa against the rejection of its trademark application 'LOUIS MOINET' for horological instruments and jewellery. The court recognized that the mark, being the founder's name used for luxury timepieces, possessed inherent distinctiveness. Despite objections regarding similarity to a cited mark ('LOUIS MONT'), the Court allowed the application to proceed to advertisement without acceptance, directing that any subsequent opposition must be decided on its own merits.
Anubhav Jain v.Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking cancellation of the 'Jain Shikanji' trademark registration. While dismissing the petitioner's initial arguments regarding lack of distinctiveness under Section 9, the court found technical deficiencies in the grant. Consequently, it directed the Registrar to re-examine two critical issues: the objections raised in the First Examination Report (FER) concerning prior marks (Section 11), and the validity of the claimed date of user. This interim order allows the respondent to continue using the mark while a de novo review is conducted.
Hermes International & Anr. v.Crimzon Fashion Accessories Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hermes International, declaring its 'H' trade mark as a well-known trademark. The court meticulously examined five factors outlined in Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, including global promotion, extensive use since 1997, international registrations across numerous countries, and successful enforcement actions abroad. This judgment solidifies the legal standing of globally recognized luxury brands within India.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Kentucky Fried Chicken's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'CHICKEN ZINGER'. The court found that while the word 'CHICKEN' itself is generic, the combination with 'ZINGER' was suggestive rather than purely descriptive. Crucially, the court clarified that KFC would not acquire exclusive rights in the common term 'CHICKEN', ensuring a disclaimer would be reflected upon registration.
M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v.Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.