| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Case Identifier | Plaintiff/ Petitioner/ Appellant | Defendant/ Respondent | TM Number(s) | Court | Technology Field | Cause of Action | Key Dates | Outcome | Notes | Links | |||||||||||||||
3 | 1 | Cadila Healthcare Limited vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited (2001) 2 PTC 541 (SC) | Cadila Healthcare Limited | Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Limited | Supreme Court | Pharmaceutical/medicinal products for treatment of cerebral malaria (Falciparum malaria), specifically drugs containing Artesunate (Falcigo) and Mefloquine Hydrochloride (Falcitab) | - Suit for injunction in passing off: Cadila Healthcare sues Cadila Pharmaceuticals in the District Court, Vadodara, alleging that use of the mark “Falcitab” for an antimalarial medicine amounts to passing off of its product “Falcigo”, due to deceptive and confusing similarity between the marks, both being medicines of last resort for the same disease. - It is not primarily an infringement action based on a registered mark in this judgment; the Court explicitly treats it as a passing‑off action and lays down principles for passing off and for deceptive similarity of medicinal marks. | - 20 August 1996: Cadila Healthcare applies to the Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad for registration of “Falcigo” in Part A, Class 5. - 7 October 1996: Drugs Controller General (India) grants permission to Cadila Healthcare to market the drug under the mark “Falcigo”. - October 1996: Cadila Healthcare starts manufacture and sale of Falcigo all over India. - 10 April 1997: Cadila Pharmaceuticals obtains permission from the Drugs Controller General (India) to manufacture a drug with Mefloquine Hydrochloride and to import it. - April 1998: Cadila Healthcare claims to learn that Cadila Pharmaceuticals is selling its antimalarial drug under the mark “Falcitab”. - 30 May 1998: Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara, dismisses interim injunction application, holding no likelihood of confusion. - 26 March 2001: Supreme Court judgment date. | - Does not interfere with the refusal of interim injunction in this particular case, mainly because evidence on merits may be required at trial, and directs expeditious disposal of the suit. - Uses the case to lay down general principles for assessing deceptive similarity and passing off in pharmaceutical trademarks, and expressly disapproves aspects of the earlier S.M. Dyechem v. Cadbury approach, emphasizing phonetic similarity and stricter standards for medicinal products. - | - Reaffirms classic Indian trademark/pass‑off principles from National Sewing Thread, Corn Products, Amritdhara, Durga Dutt Sharma, and Hoffmann-La Roche and distinguishes/partly disapproves S.M. Dyechem. - Emphasizes that in India tests must consider: - Average consumer with imperfect recollection, including illiterate or semi‑literate purchasers. - Stricter scrutiny for medicinal products since confusion may be life‑threatening (“Drugs are poisons, not sweets”). - High importance of phonetic similarity and overall impression, not microscopic comparison of differences. - Suggests that drug regulators (under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, including Section 17‑B on spurious drugs) should, before granting permission for a brand name, check for potential confusion and possibly require an official search report from the Trade Marks Office | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1114158/ | |||||||||||||||
4 | 2 | Cadbury Ltd. And 2 vs Itc Ltd. And 1, 2005 (30) PTC 711 (Guj). | Cadbury Ltd., Cadbury Schweppes Plc., and Cadbury India Ltd. (part of Cadbury Schweppes group). | ITC Ltd. (owner of Candyman) and manufacturer of Candyman Choco Eclairs. | Plaintiffs' registered trademarks: 15813, 318934, 327607, and 353398 for Cadbury marks, including labels for chocolate eclairs. | City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (trial court, rejected temporary injunction on May 16, 2005); Gujarat High Court (appeal court). | Confectionery products, specifically chocolate eclairs (sugar-boiled confectionery with chocolate centers | -Trademark infringement and passing off; defendants' "Candyman Choco Eclairs" used purple-gold color scheme, get-up, layout, and deceptively similar styling to plaintiffs' "Cadbury Dairy Milk Eclairs" labels, risking consumer confusion. | - Plaintiffs adopted purple-gold trade dress for Dairy Milk Eclairs in June 1994; defendants launched impugned label October 2004; suit filed ~March 2005; ex-parte injunction April 1, 2005; trial court order May 16, 2005. | - Gujarat High Court reversed trial court, granted temporary injunction restraining defendants from using "Candyman Choco Eclairs" label/packaging; suit to continue with defendants filing accounts. | - Dispute centered on trade dress (purple-gold colors) distinctiveness despite being unregistered as combinationcourt found prior use since 1994, deceptive similarity on small wrappers sold per piece (esp. to children), rejected "common to trade" defense as minor players only; balance of convenience favored plaintiffs. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1960724/ | ||||||||||||||
5 | 3 | Bata India Limited vs Chawla Boot House & Anr, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8147 | Bata India Limited | Chawla Boot House and ANR | Multiple registrations for "POWER" (word, device, combinations like POWER SPORTS, POWER ULTIMO); oldest from 1971 (e.g., POWER with arrow logo and BATA), standalone POWER device/word from 1975; several valid, others lapsed. | Delhi High Court; trial court for CS(COMM) 110/2019. | Footwear manufacturing and sales (sporting, leather, accessories). | -Trademark infringement and passing off; defendants' "POWER FLEX" (inside sole) and tagline "THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER" violated plaintiffs' prior "POWER" rights, despite dictionary word claim. | - Plaintiff adopted "POWER" early 1970s/1971; defendant applied 2009, used ~2011/2017; suit filed 2019; interim order February 27, 2019; judgment April 16, 2019. | - Permanent injunction restraining "POWER FLEX"/"POWER" in footwear; permitted existing stock sale (~38,000 pairs) with monthly statements and tagline use (no prominence to "POWER"); Defendant No.1 (retailer) deleted from array. | - "POWER" held suggestive/inherently distinctive (not descriptive) after 48+ years use, Rs.480cr+ annual sales, endorsements (Kapil Dev, Sachin, Smriti Mandhana); rejected delay/concurrent use defenses; estoppel as defendant applied for registration; no dissection of sporting vs. leather footwear. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3770661/ | ||||||||||||||
6 | 4 | N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr, (1996) 5 SCC 714 | N.R Dongre and Others | Whirlpool Corporation and ANR | Delhi High Court (Single Judge: temporary injunction 31.10.1994; Division Bench affirmed 21.4.1995); Supreme Court of India | Washing machines and household appliances (electrical appliances in classes 7, 9, 11). | -Passing off; defendants' use of "WHIRLPOOL" for washing machines deceived buyers into believing association with plaintiffs' prior-established mark, despite defendants' registration. | - Plaintiffs' "WHIRLPOOL" since 1937 worldwide, India registration 1956-57 (lapsed 1977); defendants applied 6.8.1986, advertised 16.10.1988, registered 30.11.1992; suit 4.8.1994; SC judgment 30.8.1996. | - Supreme Court upheld Delhi HC temporary injunction restraining defendants from using "WHIRLPOOL" or similar; suit to continue; defendants can use other marks like USHA-SHRIRAM. | - Landmark on trans-border reputation protecting unregistered marks via passing off (s.27(2) TMM Act); prior user/reputation trumps registration; no acquiescence/delay by plaintiffs; Whirlpool sales to US Embassy/ATO in India noted. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1732339/ | |||||||||||||||
7 | 5 | Century Traders v RoshanLalDuggar Co. (1977 SCC OnLine Del 50) | Century Traders (plaintiff in Suit No. 381/1976). | Respondent No.1: Roshan Lal Duggar Co. (textile manufacturer); Respondent No.2: Proprietor of Respondent No.1; Respondent No.3: Processor (dyer/printer supplying to both parties). | Delhi High Court (Single Judge dismissed interim injunction; Division Bench on April 27, 1977 in Suit 381/1976). | Textiles, specifically voiles and mulls (processing, dyeing, printing). | -Passing off; respondents used identical stylized "RAJARANI" mark on voiles processed by common processor (respondent No.3), previously used by appellant since 1973. | - Appellant used mark from 1973 (processed by respondent No.3 till end-1975); discovered respondents' use mid-1976; suit filed 1976. | - Division Bench reversed Single Judge, granted interim injunction restraining respondents from using stylized "RAJARANI" on voiles (no costs). | - Unregistered mark; prior user trumps registration ("common to register" ≠ "common to trade"); no exclusive user needed if likelihood of confusion; processor's mark claim rejected; piracy allegation (both parties) irrelevant for interim relief if prior user shown. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1181080/ | |||||||||||||||
8 | 6 | M/s. L. D. Malhotra Industries v. M/s. Ropi Industries,(1975 SCC OnLine Del 172) | L.D. Malhotra Industries | Ropi Industries | Malhotras, registered 26.12.1967; label mark with "KISMAT" dominant for Ropis, applied 31.12.1969, registered 9.1.1973). | Trade Marks Registry (Bombay/Delhi: Asst. Registrar); Delhi High Court ( J., 28.10.1975); Additional District Judge (injunction). | Dress hooks (metal fasteners for garments/clothing). | - Rectification (s.56(2) TMM Act) and infringement/passing off; Malhotras' "KISMAT" violated Ropis' prior user since 1963; deceptive similarit | - Ropis user from 1.4.1963; Malhotras registered 26.12.1967 (proposed use); Ropis applied 31.12.1969, registered 9.1.1973; rectification applied 2.4.1971, ordered 30.4.1973; suit 6.9.1974. | - Asst. Registrar: Ropis registered, Malhotras' mark expunged; Delhi HC upheld rectification, granted injunction vs. Malhotras (FAO 113/1975), costs Rs.300. | - Prior user (1963) > registration (1967); honest concurrent use rejected (Malhotras knew Ropis' mark); no delay/acquiescence (proceedings continuous); common law rights unaffected by registration. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/524113/ | ||||||||||||||
9 | 7 | Neon Laboratories Ltd v 2015 SCC OnLine SC 905.) (Civil Appeal No 1018 of 2006) | Neon Laboratories Ltd. | Medical Technologies Ltd. | Defendants: "SROFOL" Reg. No. 583227 (19.10.1992, Class 5 pharmaceuticals, renewed); Plaintiffs: "SPROFOL" Appl. No. 803692 (24.5.1998, Class 5); Defendants' "SPROFOL" Appl. No. 677497 (14.8.1995, pending). | City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (ad-interim injunction confirmed 17.10.2005); Gujarat High Court ( 19.12.2005) | Pharmaceuticals/drugs (anaesthetic preparations like propofol). | - Passing off/infringement; defendants' "SROFOL" (used 16.10.2004) deceptively similar to plaintiffs' prior "SPROFOL" (1998/2000), risking confusion despite registration. | - Defendants registered 19.10.1992, used 16.10.2004; Plaintiffs' predecessor coined 1998, Plaintiff No.1 owned 17.2.2000, Plaintiff No.2 used 2000+; suit 2005. | - Trial court confirmed injunction; Gujarat HC upheld, restraining defendants from "SROFOL"/similar (no interference). | - Prior user/reputation > registration (s.27(2), s.33 TMM Act); phonetic similarity ("SPROFOL"/"SROFOL" from propofol) despite packaging differences; Schedule-H drugs still risk confusion; upheld Cadila factors. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/499078/ | ||||||||||||||
10 | 8 | . S.Syed Mohideen v. P. SulochanaBai (2016) 2 SCC 683 | S. Syed Mohideen | P. Sulochana Bai | Plaintiff: "Iruttukadai Halwa" (registered 17.8.2007); Defendant: "Tirunelveli Iruttukadai Halwa" (registered 9.4.2008) | Trial Court (decreed suit 20.4.2011); Madras High Court (affirmed 7.6.2013); Supreme Court of India ( 17.3.2015). | Food/sweets (halwa confectionery) | -Passing off/infringement; defendant used deceptively similar "Tirunelveli Iruttukadai Halwa" exploiting plaintiff's prior "Iruttukadai Halwa" goodwill/reputation. | - Plaintiff family user from 1900; registered 17.8.2007; defendant shop ~40 years prior (Raja Sweets), used mark 2007+; registered 9.4.2008; suit post-20.7.2007 notice; decreed 20.4.2011. | - Trial court: Declaration, permanent injunction (no accounts); HC affirmed; SC dismissed appeal (upheld injunction), costs Rs.50,000 to respondent. | - Rights of prior user with over 100 years of use and household name recognition prevail over later registration under Sections 27(2) and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Concurrent registration does not bar passing off actions. Passing off protects goodwill against deception. Section 28(3) limits infringement claims between co-registrants, but passing off rights remain superior. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149416858/ | ||||||||||||||
11 | 9 | Nandhini Deluxe v Karnataka Co- Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd (2018) 9 SCC 183. | MS. Nandhini Deluxe | MS. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd | NANDINI" (with cow device, registered Class 29/30 since 1985); Appellant: "NANDHINI DELUXE" with Kannada logo/lamp (Appl. Nos. 982285 Class 29, 817305/982284 Class 30, registered 13.8.2007 excluding milk). | Trade Marks Registry (Deputy Registrar allowed registration 13.8.2007); IPAB Chennai (allowed respondent's appeals 4.10.2011, cancelled); Karnataka High Court (dismissed writs 2.12.2014); Supreme Court of India (26.7.2018) | Food/milk products (Class 29/30: milk/dairy vs. restaurant foodstuffs like meat, preserves, coffee). | -Opposition/rectification/infringement/passing off; "NANDHINI" deceptively similar to prior "NANDINI" (well-known, distinctive), likely confusion despite different goods/styles. | - Respondent adopted/used 1985; Appellant adopted 1989, applied post; registration 13.8.2007; IPAB cancelled 4.10.2011/20.4.2010 | - SC allowed appeals, restored Deputy Registrar's registration (excluding milk products); no costs. | - No confusion/deception (different goods/styles despite same class; phonetic similarity insufficient); no monopoly over entire class (Vishnudas principle); honest concurrent use; s.11/9/12 TM Act allow registration for distinct goods in class. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3173546/ | ||||||||||||||
12 | 10 | Marc Enterprises Pvt Ltd v Five Star Electricals (India) 2008 SCC OnLine Del 310. | Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd | Five Star Electricals | "MARC" Reg. Nos. 420735B (Class 9), 420736 (Classes 1/7), 420737B (Class 7) dated 16.4.1984 (renewed); Defendant No.1: "MARC" Reg. No. 1012263 (Class 9, applied 28.5.2001, advertised 25.10.2003). | Delhi High Court | Electrical/electronic goods (Class 7/9/11: fans, heaters, switches, sockets, plugs, holders). | -Trademark infringement (ss.28/29 TM Act 1999), copyright (s.51), passing off; defendant's "MARC" allegedly copied plaintiff's registered stylized "MARC" logo for similar goods. | - Plaintiff user since 1981, registered 16.4.1984; Defendant applied 28.5.2001, used April 2001; suit filed ~2005 (discovered end March 2005). | - No injunction either side; parties to display company name prominently on literature/packaging. | - No prima facie infringement/passing off (different styles/get-up/color; distinct goods despite overlap; "MARC" common/non-coined word used by many); co-registrants protected (s.28(3)); no monopoly over entire class (Vishnudas); honest use. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/700020/ | ||||||||||||||
13 | 11 | Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. vSoongachi Tea industries Pvt. Ltd. 2007(34)PTC91(Del) | Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd | Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd | Plaintiff: "SONA" Reg. No. 367241 (7.10.1980, Class 30 spices), Appl. No. 654828 (Feb 1995, tea); Defendant: "SONA" Reg. No. 407039 (23.6.1983, Class 30 tea). | Delhi High Court | Food/spices/tea (Class 30). | -Trademark infringement/passing off; mutual claims over "SONA" for spices (plaintiff prior) vs. tea (defendant prior/registered). | - Plaintiff user/spices ~1975, registered 7.10.1980, tea ~1993; Defendant tea user 1978-79, registered 23.6.1983; notice 3.2.2004; suits 2004 | - No injunction for plaintiff; injunction granted to defendant restraining plaintiff from "SONA" tea marketing until suits decided. | - The defendant was the prior user and registered proprietor of the "SONA" mark for tea, starting about ten years before the plaintiff entered that market. The plaintiff delayed raising any objection for more than twenty years, had low sales figures, and operated in a limited market. No risk of passing off was found to harm the plaintiff. The balance of convenience favored the established defendant with substantial sales | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1161491/ | ||||||||||||||
14 | 12 | Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v Union of India &ors 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1652. | r: Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (T-SERIES) | Union of India (R-1/2), Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO/Tata Motors, R-3) | Petitioner: T-SERIES Appl. No. 452037 (Class 9, late 1986, advertised 20.6.1991); Respondent R-3: "T" in circle variants (registered Classes 6/7/9/12, user 1974+). | Trade Marks Registry (Deputy Registrar rejected opposition 7.4.1995); IPAB (partly allowed R-3 appeal 1.10.2004); Delhi High Court ( 22.4.2010). | Electronics/audio-video (Class 9: cassettes, CDs, radio/TV apparatus vs. autos/engineering). | -Opposition to registration; R-3 claimed T-SERIES deceptively similar to "T" in circle (house mark), likely confusion (ss.9/11 TM Act 1958/1999). | - Petitioner user/adopted 1979, applied late 1986; R-3 user 1974+; opposition June 1991; DR order 7.4.1995; IPAB 1.10.2004; writ 22.4.2010. | - HC allowed writ, set aside IPAB order, restored registration to petitioner (Rs.10,000 costs on R-3). | - No deceptive similarity (different structure/style; T non-distinctive, no monopoly s.17 TM Act); goods dissimilar (electronics vs. autos); no confusion risk; composite mark rights whole only; prior use irrelevant absent similarity | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140982184/ | ||||||||||||||
15 | 13 | Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries vParul Food Specialties 2010 (44) PTC 736 (Del). | Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd | Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd | "KRISHNA" label (stylized with Lord Krishna on lotus, bean-encapsulated; registered Class 29 dairy). | Delhi High Court Single Judge | Dairy/milk products (Class 29: ghee). | -Infringement/passing off; defendant used "PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA" allegedly copying plaintiff's stylized "KRISHNA" for ghee. | - Plaintiff user since 1992, sales 1997-2009 rising to Rs.374cr; suit pre-2011 | - Partial injunction (defendant sell as "PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA" equal font/prominence); DB affirmed, added sales accounts | - "KRISHNA" (deity name linked to dairy) common, no monopoly despite registration/sales (secondary meaning diluted); label protects whole (Ashok Chandra); prefix "PARUL'S LORD" equal prominence avoids confusion; interim discretion affirmed (Wander Ltd.). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/298706/ | ||||||||||||||
16 | 14 | Proctor and Gamble v Joy Creators 2011 (45) PTC 541 | Procter & Gamble Company (OLAY) | Joy Creators (No.1/2), Joy Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (No.3), SKS Instruments (India) (No.4) | Plaintiff: "OLAY TOTAL EFFECTS" Reg. No. 903943, "OLAY" Reg. No. 895212 (Class 3 cosmetics); Defendants: "JOY ULTRA LOOK TOTAL EFFECTS" Appl. No. 1224385 (Class 3, claimed use Apr 2001). | Delhi High Court | Cosmetics/skin care (Class 3: anti-aging moisturizers, foundations). | -Infringement/passing off registered "OLAY TOTAL EFFECTS"; defendants copied essential "TOTAL EFFECTS" for identical age-defying products. | - Plaintiff global sales 2005-08 $236-344M, India launch 2007; Defendants claimed use Apr 2001; suit 2008 (discovered Apr 2008). | - Permanent injunction vs. "TOTAL EFFECTS"/similar; Rs.1L punitive damages each on D2/D3; delivery up infringing material; ex parte decree. | - "TOTAL EFFECTS" essential/integral to plaintiff's mark; deceptive use despite prefixes (JOY ULTRA LOOK); sales/reputation prove infringement; punitive damages justified (non-contest, deterrence); Cadila heightens cosmetics scrutiny. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59326898/ | ||||||||||||||
17 | 15 | Max Healthcare Institute Limited vSahrudya Health Care Private Limited 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12031. | Max Healthcare Institute Ltd | Sahrudya Health Care Pvt. Ltd. | Plaintiff: Label marks "MAX HEALTHCARE" Reg. Nos. 1248862, 1369064, 1369062, 1369065, 1369066, 1253026 (Class 42 healthcare/hospitals); Word "MAX" owned by Max Financial Services Ltd./Max India. | Delhi High Court | Healthcare/hospitals (Class 42: hospitals, clinics, medical services). | -Infringement registered label marks; defendant used "MAXCURE HOSPITAL/MAXKURE/MAXCURE MEDCITI" copying essential "MAX". | - Plaintiff operations 2000+; notice 4.3.2016/8.4.2016; suit 2016. | Rejected defendant's IA rejecting plaint (O.VII R.11 CPC); proceeded with infringement suit. | - "MAX" essential feature of plaintiff's label registrations (s.17 TM Act whole/composite rights); plaint discloses cause (no rejection for non-joinder); registered proprietor sues (ss.52/53/134); misjoinder not bar (O.I R.9 proviso exception necessary parties). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198847891/ | ||||||||||||||
18 | 16 | J. & P. Coats Ltd. vsChadha& Co. (India) [AIR 1967 Delhi 141] | J. & P. Coats Ltd. | Chadha & Co. (India) | Plaintiff: "Anchor Handicraft Box Top" Reg. No. 127250 (Class 23 threads), renewed 24.11.1959 (15 yrs from 10.1.1954). | District Judge Delhi (1.6.1961, dismissed); Delhi High Court (appeal dismissed). | Threads/sewing goods (Class 23?: stranded cotton skeins). | -Passing off/infringement; defendants' "Tiffan" box-top (dog device) allegedly imitated plaintiff's "Anchor" box-top get-up/packaging. | - Suit Dec 1959; no specific adoption/use dates. | -Suit/appeal dismissed; no injunction; parties bear costs. | - No deceptive similarity/confusion despite similarities (distinct devices: anchor vs. dog; words Anchor/Clark's vs. Tiffan/Chada's); common elements (size/color/fast colour) non-distinctive; illiterate buyers distinguish (Langer marka vs. Kutta marka); overall impression test (Corn/Durga Dutt). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/841126/ | ||||||||||||||
19 | 17 | Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited 2010 (44) PTC 736. | Marico Ltd. (Sweekar/Saffola) | Agro Tech Foods Ltd. (Sundrop) | Plaintiff: "LO-SORB"/"LOSORB" (Class 29 edible oils, effective 28.5.2001); Appl. No. 1012561 "LOW ABSORB" (withdrawn) | Delhi High Court | Edible oils (Class 29: sunflower oil with anti-foaming agent). | -Infringement "LOSORB"/passing off "LOW ABSORB"; defendant used "LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY" (TM) on Sundrop oil. | - Plaintiff coined/user 2001; ads 2005; discovered use Aug 2009; notice 14.8.2009; suit 2009. | -Vacated ex parte injunction; allowed defendant "LOW ABSORB TECHNOLOGY" descriptively (no TM abbreviation); dismissed plaintiff's IA. | -"LOW ABSORB" descriptive (character/quality via anti-foaming agent, PFA Rule 62A); no secondary meaning proven (sales/advertising insufficient); no confusion (distinct labels/trade dress: Saffola vs. Sundrop); s.30(2)(a)/35 defence (bona fide descriptive use); registration validity suspect (withdrawn appl.). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1058317/ | ||||||||||||||
20 | 18 | Himalaya Drug Company vs S.B.L Limited 2010 (43) PTC 739 (Del) | Himalaya Drug Co. (Liv.52) | SBL Ltd. (LIV-T) | Plaintiff: "LIV.52" Reg. Nos. 180564 (10.7.1957), 290061 (10.8.1973), 401959 (25.2.1987) (Class 5 liver medicines). | Delhi High Court | Pharmaceuticals/medicines (Class 5: ayurvedic liver tonic vs. homeopathic liver drug). | -Infringement registered "LIV.52"; "LIV-T" allegedly deceptively similar (common "LIV" prefix). | - Plaintiff adopted 1955; suit filed 16.5.1996 (notice 14.3.1996). | -Suit dismissed (costs Rs.50,000 on plaintiff); no infringement/passing off | -"LIV" generic/publici juris (liver abbreviation, 100+ marks); no deceptive similarity (distinct structure: Liv.52 vs. LIV-T; visual/phonetic differences); anti-dissection rule (compare whole, ignore generic); ayurvedic vs. homeopathic channels reduce confusion; no secondary meaning proven. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142780674/ | ||||||||||||||
21 | 19 | Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical vs Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticalson AIR 1998 Mad 347. | Indo-Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (ENERJEX). | Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (ENERJASE). | Madras High Court | Pharmaceutical/nutritional products: Plaintiff: allopathic infant/invalid food tonic syrup (bottles/tins). Defendant: ayurvedic energy/stress-relief capsules (strips in cartons). | -Trademark infringement and passing off: ENERJASE alleged deceptively/phonically similar to registered ENERJEX for related energy products. | - Plaintiff use of ENERJEX for about 15 years prior to suit; cease-and-desist notice 13.10.1995; defendant reply 29.11.1995; order under appeal 25.4.1997; DB decision 19.6.1998. | -Appeals dismissed; interim injunction refused/confirmed refusal; no prima facie infringement or passing off; balance of convenience in favour of defendant. | -Court treated “ENERJ” as abbreviation of generic “energy,” common to trade and public juris; no exclusive right in shared prefix. Suffixes JEX vs JASE held phonetically and visually dissimilar; different dosage forms (syrup vs capsules), systems (allopathic vs ayurvedic), packaging and indications reduce confusion. Applied Durga Dutt/Parle overall-similarity test and Wander Ltd. v. Antox standard of appellate deference to discretion. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/813498/ | |||||||||||||||
22 | 20 | Automatic Electric Limited vs R.K. Dhawan&Anr. 1994 SCC OnLine Del 632. | Automatic Electric Ltd. ("DIMMERSTAT") | R.K. Dhawan & Anr. ("DIMMER DOT") | Plaintiff: "DIMMERSTAT" Reg. No. 178464 (14.2.1957, Part A, Class 9 variable auto transformers). | Delhi High Court | Electrical instruments (Class 9: variable voltage auto transformers) | -Infringement/passing off registered "DIMMERSTAT"; "DIMMER DOT" allegedly deceptively similar (shared "DIMMER" prefix). | - Plaintiff adopted/user 1945, registered 14.2.1957; defendants adopted ~1980; injunction 9.11.1994; decision 6.1.1999. | -Ad interim injunction (9.11.1994) made absolute; defendants restrained from using "DIMMER DOT"/similar; IA 8609/1994 allowed, IA 10285/1994 dismissed. | -"DIMMERSTAT" registered without disclaimer (s.28 TM Act exclusive rights); "DIMMER" not generic/descriptive for auto transformers (distinct from dimmers); common prefix + similar suffix deceptively similar (phonetic/overall impression); no delay/acquiescence defeats statutory rights; honest concurrent user plea rejected. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1806604/ | ||||||||||||||
23 | 21 | Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd. vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Ors 2011 (48) PTC 564 (Mad) | Appellant/1st defendant: Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd., Bengaluru (bus operator using mark LUXURIA). | 1st respondent/plaintiff: Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai (bus manufacturer, mark LUXURA). 2nd respondent/2nd defendant: Dilip Chhabria Design Private Limited, Mumbai (designer of LUXURIA bus body) | Plaintiff: LUXURA, Trade Mark No. 1552326, dated 20.04.2007, Class 12 (motor vehicle chassis, motors for land vehicles, commercial vehicles, couplings, motor parts and fittings). Defendant: LUXURIA – applications filed by Blue Hill entities under Classes 39, 35 (services) and initially Class 12 (later undertook to withdraw Class 12 application) | Madras High Court | Automobile/commercial vehicle sector: luxury intercity buses and related transport services (manufacture of luxury coaches vs operation of luxury bus services) | -Statutory infringement and passing off: Ashok Leyland’s registered LUXURA for luxury buses allegedly infringed by Blue Hill’s use of LUXURIA for luxury bus services, using the mark on buses bought from competitors (e.g., Volvo). -Plaintiff invoked Section 29(2) and 29(4) Trade Marks Act (similar/identical marks for similar goods/services; dilution/unfair advantage of reputed mark). | - 2006: Ashok Leyland coins/adopts LUXURA, launches Intercity LUXURA bus at Auto Expo, New Delhi; publicity in The Hindu and internal “Ashley News.” - 20.04.2007: Registration of LUXURA (TM No. 1552326, Class 12). - 13.08.2010: Cease-and-desist notice to DC Design (2nd defendant) over LUXURIA design. - 21.08.2010 & 05.09.2010: DC Design replies, citing client confidentiality, forwards notices to client. - 20.09.2010: Notice to Blue Hill Foods & Retail Pvt. Ltd. (Blue Hill Group) about LUXURIA. - 29.09.2010: Blue Hill Foods reply denying role in vehicles. - 03.08.2010: Blue Hill entities file TM applications for LUXURIA in Classes 39, 35 and 12. - 03.11.2010: Cease-and-desist notice to Blue Hill Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (1st defendant). -12.11.2010: Blue Hill launches bus services under LUXURIA. -15.11.2010: Blue Hill’s reply refusing to comply. -21.12.2010: Single judge grants temporary injunction restraining use of LUXURIA. - 05.05.2011: Division Bench dismisses OSAs, upholds injunction. | -Single judge: Temporary injunction restraining Blue Hill from infringing LUXURA by using LUXURIA on buses; found prima facie infringement under Section 29(4) (reputation/dilution) and deceptive similarity. -Division Bench (appeal): -Holds no infringement under Section 29(2) as between goods (Class 12) and services (Classes 39, 35) because buses and intercity transport services are not “similar goods/services” on the statutory test. - Finds Section 29(4) conditions satisfied: LUXURA has reputation in India; LUXURIA is similar/near-identical; use is without due cause; use takes unfair advantage of and is detrimental to distinctiveness/repute of LUXURA (risk of dilution and competitors riding on LUXURA via defendant’s services). -Confirms that even if LUXURA/LUXURIA derive from descriptive “luxury”, Blue Hill cannot both seek registration and simultaneously claim genericness; generic/descriptive objections must be pursued via rectification, not by infringing. -Upholds temporary injunction; both OSAs dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1283458/ | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655935/ | ||||||||||||||
24 | 22 | Bourjois limited vsNaunihal Singh and ors. 2013(53)PTC632(Del). | Bourjois Ltd. | Naunihal Singh & Ors | BOURJOIS TM No. 85461 (valid since 31.08.1943, Class 03: perfumery, soaps, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices). BOURJOIS TM No. 1252141 (25.11.2003, Class 03: preparations for skin/scalp/hair/nails, soaps, perfumes, essential oils, cosmetics, non-medicated toiletries, impregnated tissues, cotton wool/sticks for cosmetics). | Delhi High Court | Personal care/cosmetics (Class 03 goods: cosmetics, perfumes, soaps, hair/skin care vs. salon/spa services using such products). | -Passing off (defendants' use of identical "BOURJOIS" as trade name for spa/salon services and domain bourjois.co.in deceives public into believing association/franchise with plaintiff's established cosmetics brand; no infringement claim pressed as defendants use services, not goods). | -Pre-1943: Plaintiff coins/adopts BOURJOIS globally (presence in India since 1927 per 16.01.1927 Times of India ad). - 31.08.1943: Registration TM 85461. -25.11.2003: Registration TM 1252141. -Dec 2009 & Feb 2010: Plaintiff's cease-and-desist notices to defendants. -15.02.2012: Defendants proceeded ex parte. -03.12.2012: Final judgment/decree. | -Perpetual injunction granted against defendant No.3 (company) restraining use of "BOURJOIS" or deceptively similar for spa/hair salon services, advertising/offering; proportionate costs. -Suit against defendant No.1 (CEO/Director) and No.2 (in-house spa) dismissed (no cause of action; company separate entity). -No damages/accounts pressed; decree drawn accordingly. | -Passing off established: identical mark on complementary activities (cosmetics essential "raw material" for spas/salons; same customers; risk of source confusion/association/franchise belief); domain bourjois.co.in mimics plaintiff's bourjois.com/.co.uk, deceiving internet users. - Strong mark (coined, arbitrary, no dictionary meaning; 100+ years global reputation, India since 1927; massive turnover/ad-spend); defendants' non-appearance implies mala fides. -Goods-services nexus: cosmetics and salon/spa services "closely related" (e.g., like food/catering, mobiles/telephony); no need for identical class/registration for passing off. No statutory infringement suit (services vs registered goods), but common law passing off suffices; Delhi jurisdiction via services in Delhi. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198253371/ | ||||||||||||||
25 | 23 | Cipla Limited v. M/s CiplaIndsutries Pvt. Ltd. 2016(67)PTC509(Bom). | Cipla Limited | Cipla Industries Private Limited; (2) Vishal S. | Plaintiff: 'CIPLA' registered in Class 05 (pharmaceutical, veterinary, sanitary preparations, dietetic substances for medical use, baby food, plasters, dressings, dental materials, disinfectants, vermin/fungicide/herbicides). Defendant: 'CIPLA PLAST' registered in Class 21 (household/kitchen utensils/containers, combs/sponges, brushes, cleaning articles, steel wool, glassware, porcelain/earthenware). | Bombay High Court | Pharmaceuticals/medicines (Class 05) vs household/plastic goods (Class 21: soap dishes, photo frames, ladders). | -Trade mark infringement (under Sections 29(1)–(5), 1999 Act) + passing off: Defendants' use of 'CIPLA' (as corporate name and 'CIPLA PLAST' mark, allegedly with 'PLAST' on separate line) infringes plaintiff's well-known registered 'CIPLA' mark; dilution/reputation harm claimed. | -Suit filed: Suit No. 1906/2012. -Notice of Motion (interim injunction): No. 2463/2012. -Order date: 26.04.2016 (reserved earlier). | -Motion/interim relief not decided on merits. -Single judge expresses doubts on binding Division Bench precedent in Raymond Ltd. v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (44) PTC 25 Bom DB), holding Sections 29(4) and 29(5) mutually exclusive (corporate name use for dissimilar goods not infringement). -Refers 4 questions to Chief Justice for larger Bench consideration (no opinion on merits; matter placed administratively per O.S. Rules r.28). | -Core issue: Scope of s.29(5) (TM as trade/corporate name for registered goods/services) vs s.29(4) (reputed mark dilution for dissimilar goods); judge doubts exclusivity, cites s.2(1)(m) 'mark' definition (includes name), s.29(8) advertising infringement, well-known marks s.2(1)(zg); Raymond ratio seen as rendering s.29(8) otiose. -Facts: Plaintiff uses CIPLA (corporate name + mark) solely Class 05 pharma; defendant uses CIPLA/CIPLA PLAST (corporate name + mark) Class 21 household plastics. -Procedure: Follows Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh (Bom FB), Supreme Court precedents; administrative reference to CJ under O.S. R.28 for larger Bench decision. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146177993/ | ||||||||||||||
26 | 24 | Mankind Pharma Ltd vs Chandra Mani Tiwari&Anron 6 July, 2018 2018(75)PTC8(Del) | Mankind Pharma Ltd | (1) Chandra Mani Tiwari (2) Mercykind Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. | Registered proprietor of "MANKIND" (42 classes) + family of ~150 marks with KIND prefix/suffix (e.g., ATORVAKIND, STARKIND) | Delhi High Court | Pharmaceuticals/medicinal preparations (Class 05). | -TM infringement (s.29 esp. s.29(5): use of deceptively similar "MERCYKIND" corporate name = use of plaintiff's "MANKIND"/KIND family marks) + passing off (defendants' pharma business misrepresents association with plaintiff's "umbrella" KIND family) | ~1988: Plaintiff commences business. -2007–2014: Defendant No.1 employed by plaintiff. - Nov 2015: Plaintiff aware of defendants (per defence). -05.11.2016: Plaintiff "discovers" Mercykind via TM Registry search; cease-and-desist notice. -08.02.2017: Suit filed CS(COMM) 100/2017; no ex parte relief. -06.07.2018: IA for injunction decided | -IA 1684/2017 (interim injunction) dismissed; no prima facie case | -No infringement under s.29(1)–(4): "MERCYKIND" is corporate name only (not affixed to goods/packaging/advertising as TM per s.29(6)); pharma products sold under distinct MERCY-prefix marks (MERCYMOX etc.), not MERCYKIND; OTC/scheduled drugs prescribed/sold by mark/generic name, not manufacturer name. -No s.29(5) infringement: Requires exact use of plaintiff's registered TM (MANKIND/KIND variants) as defendant's trade name; "MERCYKIND" merely deceptively similar (not identical), so excluded (contra plaintiff's family marks/essential features argument); follows Bombay DB in Raymond Ltd. v. Raymond Pharma (s.29(5) special provision for exact TM use as name, goods identical). -No passing off: No use of KIND as TM (s.134(1)(c)); corporate name on labels mandatory (not source-indicating); concealment of prior replies to TM Registry (admitting ATORVAKIND ≠ ATORKIND; STARKIND ≠ cited KIND marks) disentitles equitable relief. -KIND publici juris (120+ third-party registrations/applications); prior injunctions distinguished (TM vs TM, not name); jurisdiction issue noted for passing off (no Delhi cause pleaded, defendants in Maharashtra). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149398882/ | ||||||||||||||
27 | 25 | Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. vs Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (36) PTC 269 Del (Atlas Case) | Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd. | Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. | "ATLAS" registered since 1952 (bicycles/cycle parts). | Delhi High Court | Bicycles and bicycle parts/accessories. | -TM infringement/passing off: Defendants' use of "House of Atlas" TM + "Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd." corporate/trade name for bicycles deceives public (one mark/one source confusion); family MoU/partition dispute. | -1952: Plaintiff registers "ATLAS." -21.08.1995: Defendant No.1 incorporated as Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. (initially non-cycle business). -08.01.1999: Family MoU partitions assets (3 equal shares among Kapoor family branches). -30.08.2000: Plaintiff board minutes note MoU/arbitration. -Feb 2002: Defendants commence bicycle manufacture ("House of Atlas"). -Apr 2002: Suit No. 882/2002 filed. -27.09.2002: Single judge interim injunction (no corporate name restraint). -30.05.2003: Single judge clarifies (public notices OK). -08.08.2007: DB judgment. | -FAO(OS) 395/2002 allowed: Modified single judge order; full injunction on "ATLAS" in corporate/trade name for bicycles/parts (no acquiescence/delay from Feb 2002 trigger; consumer confusion paramount). -FAO(OS) 280/2003 dismissed: Public notices (disclaiming TM use, stating "Premier Gold" by Atlas Products) not violative. -Defendants must change corporate name via Companies Act s.21 (with Central Govt approval). | -No acquiescence: Knowledge of 1995 incorporation OK for non-cycle business; objection timely post-Feb 2002 cycle entry (positive inaction insufficient; Midas Hygiene). -Corporate name = passing off risk: Even non-TM corporate name on labels/packaging (mandatory under Weights & Measures Act) confuses if identical/similar in same field ("one mark, one source, one proprietor" – Ramdev Food). -Companies Act s.22 irrelevant: Statutory limit (5 yrs post-notice) for name objection doesn't bar common law passing off/infringement (Trade Marks Act 1999 s.29 no limitation); suit pre-amendments. -Interim discretion: Appellate interference justified (single judge perversely prioritized delay over consumer protection); Ramdev cited (mandatory disclaimer if needed). -Family MoU partition failed; no contractual right to "ATLAS" for cycles | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82620/ | ||||||||||||||
28 | 26 | Raymond Ltd v Raymond Pharmaceuticals 2010 (44) PTC (Bom) | Raymond Limited | Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd | High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. Notice of Motion No. 230 of 2015 in Suit (L) No. 957 of 2014. Single Judge: A. K. Menon J.; Reserved 02‑04‑2016, Pronounced 20‑07‑2016. | Plaintiff: textiles, readymade garments, personal care, etc. Defendant: pharmaceuticals/health‑care products (Class 5 domain context). Dispute focuses on internet/website identifiers (domain name, email) as use of a trade mark in pharma field. | Infringement and dilution of registered mark RAYMOND by: -Use of domain name www.raymondpharma.com and email info@raymondpharma.com. -Reliance on Section 29(4) Trade Marks Act, 1999 (dis‑similar goods but well‑known mark; unfair advantage/detriment) and passing off. -Earlier 2006 suit had been under Section 29(5) (use of mark in corporate name); present suit treats domain use as a new, distinct cause of action. | -1913: Plaintiff incorporated as Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (now Raymond Ltd.). -1930s: “Raymond” mark adopted as logo; well‑known status claimed (80+ years of use). -20‑12‑1993: Copyright registration of stylised “Raymond” logo. -31‑03‑1983: Defendant incorporated as Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. -26‑12‑2005: Plaintiff files Suit No. 437 of 2006 (corporate‑name use). -15‑02‑2007: Single‑judge order in 2006 suit refuses injunction under s.29(5); later upheld on appeal; SLP dismissed. -17‑07‑2012: Registrar of Companies orders defendant to change corporate name (later stayed by Madras High Court). -August 2009: Defendant registers/starts using www.raymondpharma.com domain and corresponding email. -23‑06‑2011: Plaintiff obtains Class 5 registration for “Raymond”. -17‑09‑2014: Leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent granted for this suit. -2014: Present Suit (L) 957/2014 filed seeking injunction re domain and email. -02‑04‑2016: Motion heard and reserved. -20‑07‑2016: Judgment on Notice of Motion delivered. | -Notice of Motion No. 230 of 2015 dismissed; no interim injunction against use of www.raymondpharma.com or info@raymondpharma.com. -Court accepts that “Raymond” is a well‑known mark, but holds: -Plaintiff did not prima facie satisfy cumulative requirements of s.29(4) (reputation + use without due cause + unfair advantage or detriment). -No sufficient evidence of misrepresentation, confusion, or damage to sustain a passing‑off claim at the interim stage. -Balance of convenience found to favour the defendant; plaintiff relegated to trial | Court distinguishes between: -Use of corporate name (addressed earlier under s.29(5) in 2006 suit) and -Use of domain name as a “shorter form” of the corporate name; domain treated as contractual identifier rather than standalone IP right, though capable of functioning like a mark. -Defendant has continuous use of “Raymond” in corporate name since 1983; domain adopted in 2009; plaintiff’s Class 5 registration is from 2011, so defendant invokes s.34 prior continuous use. Court: -Accepts well‑known status of “Raymond” (citing prior Raymond v. Ashirbad Electricals and Raymond v. Sai Balaji Suitings), but emphasises absence of overlap in goods (textiles vs pharma) and no evidence that defendant targets plaintiff’s customer base. -Treats this mainly as a dilution claim; finds no proof of “blurring” or “tarnishment” yet; stresses that dilution needs something more than de minimis association. -Notes five‑year delay (domain from 2009; suit filed 2014) as relevant against interim relief. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101010088/ | |||||||||||||||
29 | 27 | Shyam Investments v. Masti Health and Beauty Pvt. Ltd. 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 5466 : (2013) 54 PTC 406 (Mad) : O.A. Nos. 446 & 447 of 2011 in C.S. No. 345 of 2011, decided 10 July 2012 (V. Periya Karuppiah, J.). | Shyam Investments | Masti Health and Beauty Pvt. Ltd. | Registered mark: O2, Reg. No. 1574694, in Classes 5, 28, 42 (health foods, supplements, fitness equipment; and services of providing food and drink, restaurant/hotel, coffee shop, snack bar, canteen etc.). Pending application: O2 Health Studio, Application No. 1268043, Class 41 (gymnastics, fitness centre/health studio–type services; sporting/cultural activities). | Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras, Original Side (interim applications O.A. 446 & 447 of 2011 in C.S. 345/2011). | Plaintiff: fitness centres/gyms under “O2 Health Studio”, plus registered “O2” for health foods, supplements, fitness equipment and F&B/hospitality services. Defendant: spa and salon services under “O2 Spa” / “O2 Health Club/Spa” (airport lounge and city outlets) | -Alleged infringement of registered trade mark O2 (No. 1574694 in Classes 5, 28, 42) by use of “O2 Spa”, including as trade name/corporate name/domain name www.o2spa.org and signage etc., under Sections 29(1), 29(2), 29(4) Trade Marks Act, 1999. | -2001: Plaintiff adopts and begins use of “O2” as trade mark for its fitness/health‑related business. -By 2004: Documentary use of “O2” in plaintiff’s business (as found from I‑T returns, invoices etc.). -2006: Use of “O2 Health Studio” by plaintiff established (returns, agreements, advertising from 2006–2011). -02‑07‑2007: Application filed for registration of O2; -28‑03‑2009: Registration granted for O2, No. 1574694, Classes 5, 28, 42. -24‑09‑2009: First cease‑and‑desist notice from plaintiff to defendant regarding use of “O2”. -18‑12‑2009: Second cease‑and‑desist notice. -09‑01‑2010: Defendant’s reply denying plaintiff’s claims. -2010: Defendant starts “O2 Health Club/Spa” at Kamaraj Domestic Airport, Chennai (and city outlets). -2011: C.S. No. 345 of 2011 and O.A. Nos. 446 & 447/2011 filed. -10‑07‑2012: Madras High Court order on interim applications. | -Defendant restrained from using “O2” for spa/health club/salon services as a passing‑off injunction, but no statutory infringement injunction based on existing registrations. | -Goods vs services dichotomy: Court relies heavily on statutory separation of goods (Classes 1–34) and services (Classes 35–42) and on Blue Hill Logistics (2011 4 CTC 417) to deny 29(4) relief where plaintiff’s registration is for goods (and hospitality services) but defendant’s use is in spa/salon services not covered or “associated” under Section 2(3). -Prior user vs registry clutter: Defendant argued “O2” is generic (chemical symbol for oxygen) and widely registered to others; court notes numerous O2 marks exist but emphasises that prior user rights and evidence of actual use (tax returns, ads, agreements) trump bare register entries at the interim stage. -Balance of convenience: Court finds irreparable injury to plaintiff’s goodwill and brand identity if defendant continues using “O2 Spa,” whereas defendant can continue its spa business under some other name; this tips balance towards granting passing‑off injunction. | http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/6sWfXr5Y | ||||||||||||||
30 | 28 | UltraTech Cement Limited & Anr. v. Ultratech Solar Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 8644 | UltraTech Cement Limited | Ultratech Solar Technologies Pvt. Ltd. | ULTRATECH (multiple registrations, all valid/subsisting; certified copies proved): 1244745, 1326528, 1575299 1544648, 1544649 1340606 1525671, 1525672 1908355, 1908356 2080447, 2080448 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay, | Cement/construction (plaintiffs) v. solar energy/renewable energy equipment (defendants' solar water heaters) | -Trade mark infringement: Use of identical "ULTRATECH" mark (stylised, Exhibit H-H4) for solar water heaters + corporate/trade name, violating Section 29(4) Trade Marks Act, 1999 (well-known mark; dissimilar goods; without due cause; detrimental to character/repute). -Passing off: Defendants' "ULTRATECH" misrepresents affiliation with plaintiffs; copies essential features/get-up; trades on goodwill/reputation. Unfair trading: Opportunistic/bad faith adoption (no defence pleaded; defendants absent). | -2003-04: Plaintiffs' UltraTech turnover: ₹2,251 crores (establishes early extensive use). -2014-15: Turnover rises to ₹22,656 crores; consolidated ₹28,513.51 crores (FY2016). -Pre-2015: Defendants commence use of "ULTRATECH" for solar heaters + corporate name. -2015: Comip Suit No. 260/2015 filed. -19 July 2016: Suit transferred to undefended board (defendants absent). -12 Dec 2011 & 30 Jan 2012: Prior UltraTech v. Dinesh Kothari (UltraTech declared well-known mark). -18 July 2018: Ex-parte decree. | -Restrains passing off/enabling others to pass off as plaintiffs' goods/business. | -Well-known mark protection paramount: Section 29(4) applies despite dissimilar goods (cement vs solar heaters); prior UltraTech v. Dinesh Kothari + Registry notification + massive turnover (₹2,251 Cr to ₹28,513 Cr) + uncontroverted evidence proves secondary meaning/reputation. -Corporate name liability: Injunction covers corporate/trade name use; identical mark copying "essential/prominent features" + no honest adoption defence (defendants absent). -Ex-parte evidence standard: Plaintiffs' witness (Rajesh Lunawat) + document compilation (Exhibit 'P') fully proves: registrations, turnover, advertising spends, well-known status, visual identity theft. Unchallenged = admitted. -Punitive rationale: "Imperative to dissuade others"; reflects judicial policy against blatant copying of well-known marks. Visual/get-up infringement: Court personally compares products; finds "no doubt" on identity/confusion/deception. | http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/wn3Y0PBa | ||||||||||||||
31 | 29 | Vivo Mobile Communications Co. Ltd. v. Kanchan Shaw & Anr. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12494; CS(COMM) 131/2019 & I.A. 3565/2019 | Vivo Mobile Communications Co. Ltd | Kanchan Shaw & Anr | High Court of Delhi | Mobile communications/smartphones v. defendants' infringing business activities. | -Trademark infringement and passing off by defendants' use of VIVO marks/logos/domain names/trade names identical/deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered VIVO marks. | -Nov 2018: Defendants cease business operations (per court statement). -12 Mar 2019: Ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining VIVO mark use. -2018: Defendants file TS No. 1/2018 (s.142 Trade Marks Act) before Howrah District Court. -2 May 2019: Consent decree. | -Suit decreed per Prayer Clauses 82(a), (b), (c) + defendants' undertakings: permanent injunction restraining VIVO mark use; defendants to withdraw Howrah suit (TS No. 1/2018) within 1 week and pending VIVO trademark application within 4 weeks; refund of plaintiff's court fees; interim order (12 Mar 2019) modified. | -Consent decree after defendants' bankruptcy/business closure admission; reflects defendants' capitulation (no contest after ex-parte injunction); standard IP relief package (injunction + withdrawal of counter-litigation + application abandonment); court accepts counsels' undertakings as binding; demonstrates efficiency of early ex-parte relief forcing settlement in trademark disputes. | http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/4lK9zVJ0 | |||||||||||||||
32 | 30 | Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta 1963 AIR 449 (SC) | Amritdhara Pharmacy | Satyadeo | Respondent’s applied mark: “LAKSHMANDHARA” in Class 5; Appellant’s earlier registered mark: “AMRITDHARA” (Class 5 medicinal preparation), registered prior to 1950 | Supreme Court of India | Ayurvedic/biochemical medicinal preparations in Class 5 (over‑the‑counter remedy for headaches, diarrhoea, constipation and related ailments) | -Opposition by Amritdhara Pharmacy to registration of “LAKSHMANDHARA” under the Trade Marks Act 1940, on grounds that: -It so nearly resembles earlier registered “AMRITDHARA” that it is “likely to deceive or cause confusion” under Sections 8 and 10(1). -Respondent relied on honest concurrent use and acquiescence as “special circumstances” under Section 10(2) to sustain registration alongside “AMRITDHARA. | -1901–1903: Amritdhara medicinal preparation launched; name changed to “AMRITDHARA” in 1903; business grows, later incorporated as a company in 1942; annual sales reach about ₹4 lakhs pre‑Partition. -1923: Respondent begins using “LAKSHMANDHARA” in a small way in Uttar Pradesh. -1938–1950: Both medicines advertised in common directories, pamphlets, newspapers; respondent’s turnover reaches about ₹43,000 (1949). -19 July 1950: Application filed to register “LAKSHMANDHARA”, Class 5. -10 Sept 1953: Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay: Holds marks deceptively similar (would refuse under ss. 8, 10(1)), But finds acquiescence as “special circumstances” under s.10(2) and allows registration of “LAKSHMANDHARA” limited to U.P. -19 Mar 1958: Allahabad High Court F.A. 62/1954:Holds no likelihood of confusion, words are common Hindi; finds honest concurrent use; rejects acquiescence; allows national registration. -8 Dec 1958: Supreme Court grants special leave. -27 Apr 1962: Supreme Court judgment allowing appeal. | -The Supreme Court held that the composite marks “AMRITDHARA” and “LAKSHMANDHARA” are deceptively similar for the same Class 5 medicinal goods when assessed from the perspective of a “man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection”, so registration generally attracts the prohibition in Sections 8 and 10(1); however, it upheld the Registrar’s finding of acquiescence as “other special circumstances” under Section 10(2) and consequently restored the Registrar’s order permitting limited registration of “LAKSHMANDHARA” confined to sales in Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s nationwide registration, with no order as to cost | -The decision is a landmark on likelihood of confusion and imperfect recollection, emphasising that composite marks must be compared as wholes (not dissected into “Amrit”/“dhara” vs “Lakshman”/“dhara”), especially in the context of OTC medicines bought by semi‑literate consumers, and that even where deceptive similarity exists, equitable factors like long, good‑faith concurrent use and the senior user’s acquiescence can justify co‑existence via territorially limited registration under Section 10(2); the Court also clarified that asserting exclusive rights in a registered composite mark does not amount to monopolising common language elements per s | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/368264/ | ||||||||||||||
33 | 31 | Sky Enterprise Private Ltd. v. Abaad Masala and Co | Sky Enterprise Private Ltd | Abaad Masala Co | Bombay High Court | Food processing (masala powders, spices, condiments, seasonings in Class 30). | -Plaintiff, registered proprietor of "Star Zing" composite marks and separate word marks "White Chinese Pepper Masala"/"Black Chinese Pepper Masala" (acquired secondary meaning via sales/advertising since 2012), sued for infringement under Sections 29/30/35 Trademarks Act 1999 and passing off, alleging defendant dishonestly copied exact phrases post prior "Star King" undertaking, causing confusion/dilution despite defendant's claim of descriptive/generic use. | -2012: Initial "Star Zing" label registrations; claimed user start for phrases. -Mar 2016: Plaintiff notices defendant's "Star King White/Black Chinese Pepper Masala"; cease & desist issued. -2016-2017: Separate word mark registrations. -Post-2016: Defendant shifts to "White/Black Chinese Pepper Masala" under "AMC Frize". -08 Jan 2020: IA decided. | -Leave under Clause XIV Letters Patent granted; interim injunction restraining defendant from using "White Chinese Pepper Masala"/"Black Chinese Pepper Masala" or deceptively similar in goods/passing off; no stay to defendant. IA allowed. | -Reaffirms Lupin Ltd v J&J FB: registration presumption rebuttable only on ex facie illegality/fraud; descriptive combos acquire secondary meaning protectable if distinctive (Godfrey Philips); defendant's prior "Star King" use shows dishonest adoption, not bona fide description (ss 30(2)/35) | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ebe6d079fca193e8291426a | |||||||||||||||
34 | 32 | Tata Sons (P) Ltd. v. John Doe, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5733 | Tata Sons Private Limited and Tata Payments Limited | John Doe, Cloudflare Inc. ,Telegram FZ‑LLC. and Union of India | TM No. 6089 (Class 9; 02.10.1942 – device mark with TATA). TM No. 92645 – TATA (Class 9; applied 16.02.1944). TM No. 109358 (Class 9; 12.04.1945). TM No. 5418014 (Class 9; 21.04.2022). TM No. 5418523 (Class 16; 21.04.2022). TM No. 5418542 (Class 25; 21.04.2022). TM No. 4347420 – TATA PAYMENTS (Classes 35, 36, 42; 14.11.2019). TM No. 5418539 (Class 35; 21.04.2022). TM No. 5418857 (Class 36; 21.04.2022). TM No. 5418859 (Class 38; 21.04.2022). TM No. 5418860 (Class 39; 21.04.2022). TM No. 1765705 – TATA (Class 41; 18.12.2008). TM No. 1236896 – TATA (Class 41; 16.09.2003). TM No. 5418862 (Class 41; 21.04.2022). TM No. 1236897 – TATA (Class 42; 16.09.2003). TM No. 5418863 (Class 42; 21.04.2022). TM No. 1994178 (Classes 42, 43, 44, 45; 15.07.2010). TM No. 1994180 – TATA (Classes 42, 43, 44, 45; 15.07.2010). TM No. 5418865 (Class 44; 21.04.2022). TM No. 5418866 (Class 45; 21.04.2022). TM No. 5276444 – TATA PAY (Classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45; 07.01.2022). TM No. 5786788 – TATA (Classes 9, 35, 36, 41, 42; 31.01.2023). | High Court of Delhi | Fintech / digital payments: online payment aggregation, prepaid payment instruments, merchant payment services, and digital payment gateway infrastructure. Online platforms: fraudulent payment website and Telegram‑based payment “system for ren | -Statutory infringement of registered TATA and TATA PAYMENTS marks by use of “tatapayment” in domain and Telegram identifiers. -Passing off and dilution by misrepresentation of affiliation with Tata’s payment business to offer digital payment services and overseas payment systems. -Ancillary relief against intermediaries (Cloudflare, Telegram) for disabling access and furnishing KYC/IP information. | -01.01.2024: Plaintiff No. 2 secures RBI Payment Aggregator licence. -14.05.2019: domain tatapayments.com registered by Plaintiff No. 2. -11.08.2025: present order (registration of plaint, exemption orders, and ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction). -15.10.2025: listing before Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings. -24.11.2025: next date of hearing before Court in main suit. | -The Delhi High Court granted Tata Sons Pvt Ltd & Anr an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendant No. 1 (John Doe) for infringing TATA and TATA PAYMENTS marks, restraining use in any business/domain/social media capacity, and directed Cloudflare and Telegram to block the impugned website (tatapayment.net) and specified Telegram accounts/groups/channels, while furnishing KYC/IP details in sealed cover. | -The order establishes prima facie infringement/passing off via fraudulent fintech impersonation using Tata marks on a payment website and Telegram ecosystem, leveraging urgency under Section 12A CC Act and intermediary duties for swift takedowns. It exemplifies dynamic injunctions in Delhi HC IP jurisprudence for anonymous online fraud, aiding research on platform remedies in trade mark dilution cases. | http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/gH3liInp | ||||||||||||||
35 | 33 | Khoday Distilleries Ltd (now Khoday India Ltd) v Scotch Whisky Association & Ors, (2008) 10 SCC 723 : AIR 2008 SC 2737 : 2008 (37) PTC 413 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 4179/2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21367/2007) | Khoday Distilleries Ltd (now Khoday India Ltd) | Scotch Whisky Association; (2) Golden Bottling Ltd; (3) Registrar of Trade Marks. | PETER SCOT (Reg. No. 249226-B) | Supreme Court | Alcoholic beverages (whisky production and labelling, with focus on malt whisky blending and origin descriptors). | -Respondents filed rectification under Section 56 Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, alleging "PETER SCOT" (Indian whisky with "Scot" element, Rampant Lion device, and slogans like "Distilled from the Finest Malt and Blended with the Choicest Whiskies by Scotch Experts under Government Supervision") contravenes Section 11 as deceptively similar to "SCOTCH WHISKY", likely to deceive public into believing it is Scotch-origin product, harming purity of register and public interest despite appellant's registration | -May 1968: Appellant starts "PETER SCOT" manufacture. -1971: Application filed for registration. -20 Sep 1974: Respondents aware via Trade Mark Journal report. -12 May 1979: Registrar allows rectification (initial order). -21 Apr 1986: Rectification application filed. -25 Sep 1998: Madras HC Single Judge dismisses appeal. -12 Oct 2007: Madras HC Division Bench affirms. -27 May 2008: SC allows appeal, sets aside rectification. | -SC set aside rectification order, holding 12-year delay (1974 awareness to 1986 filing) amounts to acquiescence/waiver barring relief despite deceptive potential; "PETER SCOT" label as a whole (with "PRIDE OF INDIA", Bangalore manufacture) unlikely to confuse discerning whisky buyers. No costs. | -Applies anti-dissection rule, overall impression test for deceptive similarity (Pianotist Co, Cooper Engineering); distinguishes buyer classes (discerning/rich for expensive whiskies vs. impulse); delay/acquiescence defeats discretionary rectification even for public interest/purity of register. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/507033/ | ||||||||||||||
36 | 34 | Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Om Balajee Automobile (India) Pvt Ltd, CS(COMM) 292/2017, IA No. 4800/2017, | Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | Om Balajee Automobile (India) Pvt Ltd | Plaintiff's "BMW" marks (earliest Indian registration 1956 in Class 12; numerous in Classes 7,9,12,25,28,36,37,39); defendant's "DMW"/"DESHWAR Motor Works DMW" (application filed 04.03.2017 in Class 12) | Delhi High Court | Automotive/electric vehicles (motorcycles, cars, E-rickshaws, E-carts, electric cargo loaders in Class 12). | -Plaintiff, proprietor of globally renowned "BMW" well-known marks (used since 1923 for motorcycles/1928 cars, with Indian presence since 1987, massive sales/ad-spend), sued for infringement u/s 29(2)/(4) Trademarks Act and passing off, alleging defendant's "DMW" (phonetically/visually similar, mere B→D swap) on E-rickshaws dilutes reputation/takes unfair advantage despite goods proximity/different price points, post failed 12.07.2016 cease & desist. | -1916/1923/1928: BMW founded/use for motorcycles/cars. -1956: Earliest Indian BMW registration (Class 12). -28.12.1987: First BMW sales in India. -2013: Defendant claims DMW E-rickshaw manufacture start. 01.07.2016: Plaintiff notices DMW use. -12.07.2016: Cease & desist notice. -04.03.2017: Defendant's DMW application. -23.03.2020: IA order. | -Ad-interim injunction granted restraining defendant from using "DMW" or similar to "BMW" on E-rickshaws/goods; IA disposed of. Prima facie dishonest adoption/copying essential features causing confusion/dilution. | -Applies anti-dissection rule, overall impression (Corn Products, Amritdhara, Durga Dutt); s.29(4) dilution for well-known marks irrespective of dissimilar goods/confusion (ITC v Philip Morris, Tata v Manoj Dodia); delay no bar to injunction for dishonest adoption (Midas Hygiene). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105950199/ | ||||||||||||||
37 | 35 | Britannia Industries Ltd v ITC Ltd & Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1489 | Britannia Industries Ltd | ITC Ltd & Ors | Delhi High Court | Food processing (biscuits, digestive variants with grains/seeds/herbs in Class 30). | -Britannia sued ITC for infringement u/s 29 Trademarks Act (esp. 29(2)(b)) and passing off alleging ITC's Sunfeast Farmlite 5-Seed Digestive / Veda Digestive biscuit packs (launched post-Britannia's 2020 registration) deceptively copy essential features of Britannia's NutriChoice Digestive pack (red-yellow scheme, biscuit image, Hi-Fibre, wheat motifs) causing confusion despite ITC's prominent brand/seeds depiction. | -2014: Britannia claims use of digestive pack. -11 Sep 2020: Britannia pack registered (Class 30). -28 Sep 2020: ITC launches Farmlite 5-Seed Digestive. -16 Dec 2020: Court status quo on ITC pack; IAs heard. -24 Mar 2021: Arguments conclude; reserved. -05 Apr 2021: IAs dismissed. | -IAs dismissed; no prima facie deceptive similarity/confusion despite pack similarities (yellow-red, Hi-Fibre, biscuit image); ITC's prominent FARMLITE/5-SEED/VEDA/ingredients/sunfeast distinguish packs. No injunction; prior status quo vacated implicitly. | -Emphasises overall impression/average consumer test (Pianotist, Durga Dutt, Cadila); dissimilarities (brands, unique seeds/herbs, layout) outweigh similarities; no dilution despite registration (s.29(2)(b)); niche products (5-seed/Ayurvedic digestive) reduce confusion risk. | http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/L9rOLhS3 | |||||||||||||||
38 | 36 | Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd v A Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr, CS(OS) No. 894/2008, | Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd | A Murali Krishna Reddy, Mak Projects Pvt Ltd | Delhi High Court | Hospitality/services (resorts, spas, retreats via websites). | -Singapore plaintiff sued Hyderabad defendants for passing off alleging dishonest adoption of deceptively similar "Banyan Tree Retreat" mark/device (on website makprojects.com/banyantree) for resort project, to encash global goodwill/reputation of plaintiff's unregistered "Banyan Tree" (pending registration; used in India via Oberoi spas since 2002), causing confusion; jurisdiction invoked u/s 20(c) CPC via website accessibility/interactivity in Delhi. | -1994: Plaintiff adopts "Banyan Tree". -1996: Plaintiff domains registered. -2002: Plaintiff spas in India (Oberoi collab). -Oct 2007: Plaintiff learns of defendants' project/website. -11.08.2008: Single Judge refers jurisdiction questions. -23.11.2009: Division Bench answers; remands. | -Answered referred questions: forum jurisdiction requires purposeful availment/targeting via interactive website + commercial transaction/harm in forum (trap orders permissible if fair/real); mere accessibility insufficient. Remanded to Single Judge for prima facie jurisdiction finding. | -Overrules Casio (mere accessibility insufficient); adopts Zippo interactivity + effects/targeting tests (US/UK/Canada/Aus precedents); s.20(c) CPC needs pleading/material of specific forum-state commercial txns/injury; trap txns ok if fair/non-engineered (Showerings, California Fig). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151685239/ | |||||||||||||||
39 | 37 | P.M. Diesels Ltd v M/s Patel Field Marshal Agencies, AIR 1998 Delhi 225 | P.M. Diesels Ltd | M/s Patel Field Marshal Agencies & Ors | "Field Marshal" (plaintiff's registered trade mark; threatened registration by defendants); "PFMA"/"PFMI" logos (defendant applications in TMJ 823/16.09.1983, 876/01.12.1985, 933/16.04.1988); Copyright No. A-42691/1983 (plaintiff's label). | Delhi High Court | Industrial machinery (diesel engines, generators) | -Rajkot plaintiff sued Rajkot defendants for trade mark infringement/passing off (defendants' "MARSHAL"/PFMA logos deceptively similar to "FIELD MARSHAL") and copyright violation of label (A-42691/1983), plus rendition of accounts; jurisdiction u/s 20(c) CPC/s.62(2) Copyright Act via Delhi sales/threatened sales (TMJ publications, para 30 plaint averment), continuous cause from 1982 notice to 1989 company formation threat. | -1982: Defendants apply "MARSHAL"; 23.07.1982 plaintiff notice. -16.09.1983: TMJ 823 (defendant PFMA appl). -01.12.1985/16.04.1988: Further TMJ publ (defendant apps). -30.04.1988: Registrar refuses defendant apps. -Jun 1989: Plaintiff learns of defendant company formation. -30.06.1989: Interim injunction granted. -10.03.1998: Division Bench reverses Single Judge. | -Division Bench sets aside Single Judge's vacatur of 30.06.1989 injunction; prima facie upholds Delhi territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction (Tata Oil Mills ratio for TM/copyright overlap; commercial Delhi sales threat); remands IA merits, interim order continues. | -Jurisdiction from Delhi sales/threat (Jawahar Engg) + s.62(2) Copyright (Tata Oil Mills overlap); pecuniary via plaintiff valuation (Fenners ratio, fixed fee for accounts); no evidence needed at IA for commercial scale (contra HP Marketing). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1274722/ | ||||||||||||||
40 | 38 | Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v Deepak Mangal & Ors, CS(OS) No. 249/2009 (IA 14981/2014) | Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha | (1) Deepak Mangal; (2) Sandeep Verma; (3) M/s Prius Auto Industries (partnership); (4) M/s Prius Auto Accessories Pvt Ltd | Plaintiff: PRIUS (intl regs e.g. 2711749 Japan/1990; appl 1891316 India); Defendants: PRIUS 1086682 (13.03.2002), 1163594 (02.01.2003) | Delhi High Court | Automobiles (vehicles, parts/accessories; hybrid cars; Class 12) | -Japan plaintiff sued Delhi/Hyderabad defendants for infringement (identical TOYOTA/TOYOTA device/INNOVA on accessories) u/s 29 TM Act and passing off PRIUS (prior global use since 1990/1997 launch as world's first hybrid; transborder reputation spilling to India pre-2001 despite no prior local sales), alleging dishonest adoption/registration by defendants (user since 2001) causing confusion/dilution/deceit as OEM-compatible TOYOTA parts. | -19.06.1990: PRIUS first Japan appl (2711749). -1995: PRIUS concept Tokyo Motor Show. -1997: Global PRIUS launch (Japan/US). -Apr 2001: Defendants commence PRIUS use. -13.03.2002/02.01.2003: Defendants PRIUS regs. -Oct 2009: Plaintiff learns via registry search; files rectifications/suit. -2010: PRIUS India launch. -08.07.2016: Decree. | -Permanent injunction on all marks; Rs.10L nominal damages (PRIUS passing off despite def regs; infringement TOYOTA/INNOVA); accounts/delivery-up; costs Rs.5L; rectifications noted pending. | -PRIUS well-known (s.11(6) factors; transborder via media/books/exhibits pre-2001); passing off beats def regs (s.27(2); Syed Mohideen); no delay (fresh tort/2009 knowledge); punitives considered but nominal awarded. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109727818/ | ||||||||||||||
41 | 39 | Paramount Surgimed Ltd v Paramount Bed India Pvt Ltd & Ors, CS(COMM) 222/2017 | Paramount Surgimed Ltd | 1) Paramount Bed India Pvt Ltd (2012-incorporated); (2) Paramount Bed Co Ltd (Japan, since 1987) | PARAMOUNT label (15 regs Class 10 surgical/medical; Class 20 furniture; first 14.01.2000); Defendant appl 25.04.2007 (opposed 01.04.2009 by plaintiff). | Delhi High Court | Medical equipment (hospital beds, surgical blades/scalpels; Class 10/20). | -Delhi plaintiff (PARAMOUNT corporate name since 1993; regs since 2000) sued Japan/Indian defendants for infringement/passing off alleging dishonest recent adoption of identical PARAMOUNT tradename/mark for hospital beds (riding goodwill; inquired Feb 2017 via distributor), claiming prior user despite minimal sales, seeking injunction despite knowing defendants' 2007 TM appl (opposed 2009) and 2012 negotiations. | - 1993: Plaintiff adopts PARAMOUNT. - 14.01.2000: Plaintiff first reg. - 1987: D2 Japan incorporation/use. - 25.04.2007: D appl; 01.04.2009 plaintiff opposes. - 2010: D sales India (e.g. 50 beds Lazarus Hosp). - 20.03.2012/20.10.2012: Negotiations. - 2012: D1 incorporation. - Feb 2017: Plaintiff "learns"; suit filed. - 23.03.2017: Ex-parte injunction (vacated 25.05.2017) | -Ex-parte injunction vacated; IAs dismissed (no prima facie case; balance convenience with D; unclean hands - suppressed 2009 knowledge/website manipulation); suit to continue on merits. | -Unclean hands fatal despite reg (suppression/misstatement; Warner Bros ratio); D transborder reputation (2007 ads/sales) + superior market (Rs.3.5Cr turnover vs P miniscule); reg validity examinable interlocutory (s.124(5); Marico). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67828358/ | ||||||||||||||
42 | 40 | Rajeev Saumitra v Neetu Singh & Ors, CS(OS) No. 252/2015 | Rajeev Saumitra | Neetu Singh, K.D. Campus Pvt Ltd Paramount Coaching Centre Pvt Ltd | Delhi High Court | Education services (coaching for competitive exams; study materials/books). | -Husband-plaintiff sued wife-D1 (50:50 shareholders/directors D3 "Paramount Coaching Centre Pvt Ltd") for declaration/ injunction alleging breach of fiduciary duty (s.166 Companies Act 2013/s.88 Trusts Act/s.16 Partnership Act) via D1 incorporating competing D2 "K.D. Campus Pvt Ltd" (Feb 2015; identical courses/staff/students diversion), misleading public as "new venture by Neetu Singh, founder-director of Paramount" using PARAMOUNT goodwill/resources while remaining D3 director, amid marital deadlock (P annulment suit)/multiple litigations. | - Jan 2005: P starts PARAMOUNT proprietorship. - 12.03.2006: P-D1 marriage. - 08.12.2009: D3 incorporation (50:50 shares). - Feb 2015: D2 incorporation. - 26.05.2015: Prior suit CS(OS)1592/2015. - 10.04.2015: P annulment petition. -24.09.2015: CS(OS)1592 withdrawn (liberty fresh suit). - 27.01.2016: Interim injunction. | -Interim injunction: D1/D2 restrained from PARAMOUNT use/competitive acts (poaching students/staff/promos misleading association); D3 profits to non-lien account; status quo; liberty CA inquiry/buyout. | -s.166 CA 2013/s.88 Trusts Act prohibit director competition (no "ouster" defense; fiduciary breach despite deadlock); derivative action maintainable (50:50 deadlock); clean hands/prior disclosure ok for fresh suit (O23 R1). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88568544/ | |||||||||||||||
43 | 41 | M/s Bengal Waterproof Ltd v M/s Bombay Waterproof Mfg Co & Anr, (1997) 1 SCC 99 | M/s Bengal Waterproof Ltd | M/s Bombay Waterproof Mfg Co and ANR | DUCK BACK word mark Reg No. 4378 (OI 29.08.1942 Class 25); artistic design copyright A-4548/69 (19.07.1969). | Supreme Court of India | Apparel/textiles (waterproof rubberised raincoats, air pillows, shoes, hot water bags; Class 25). | -Calcutta plaintiff sued Hyderabad defendants in second suit (OS 123/1982) for TM infringement (s.21 TMM Act)/copyright infringement/passing off alleging defendants' "DACK BACK" (phonetic/visual imitation) on identical goods continued post first suit (OS 238/1980 dismissed 06.04.1982 for no infringement relief despite notices 30.04.1982/replies 25.05.1982), claiming fresh/continuing torts post-dismissal causing confusion/deceit. | - 29.08.1942: DUCK BACK Reg No.4378. - 19.07.1969: Copyright A-4548/69. - 1980: First suit OS 238/1980 filed. - 06.04.1982: First suit dismissed. - 30.04.1982: Plaintiff notices to Ds. - 25.05.1982: D replies (res judicata). - 1982: Second suit OS 123/1982 filed. - 18.11.1996: SC decree. | -Appeal allowed; first/second court dismissals reversed; second suit decreed fully (injunction infringement/passing off/copyright/delivery-up/damages enquiry/costs); no O2 R2(3) bar. | -Recurring TM infringement/passing off = fresh cause of action (s.22 Limitation Act continuous tort); O2 R2(3) requires prior suit plaint on record (Gurbux Singh CB ratio; no presumption/inference); merits: phonetic/visual similarity actionable. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134913/ | ||||||||||||||
44 | 42 | The Coca-Cola Company v Bisleri International Pvt Ltd & Ors, CS(OS) No. 2166/2008 | The Coca-Cola Company | (1) Bisleri Intl Pvt Ltd (ex-Parle/Agro; D2-3 impleaded Varma/Ramesh Chauhan); (2) Varma International (Chittor manufacturer); (3) Ramesh Chauhan; later R.B. Varma. | MAAZA Reg No. 309362 Class 32 (beverages); Australia reg assigned to D1 (06.11.2003 recorded 22.04.2009). | Delhi High Court | Beverages (fruit juices/non-alcoholic drinks/syrups; Class 32). | -US plaintiff sued Mumbai/Chittor defendants for TM infringement (s.29 TM Act)/passing off post-07.09.2008 notice repudiating 1993 assignments/license (MAAZA TM/know-how/goodwill US$4M+), alleging unauthorized India manufacture (Varma/Indian Canning embossed MAAZA bottles/bases for export Australia/USA using D1 secrets via employee R.B. Varma), threats/publicity causing confusion post-ex-parte injunction/local commissioner seizures. | - 18.09.1993: Master Agreement/assignments (TM/know-how US$4M+). - 12.11.1993/13.05.1994: Deed/License Golden Agro (amalgamated D1). - Mar 2008: D1 learns P Turkey appl. - 07.09.2008: D1 repudiates notice/threat. - 15.10.2008: Ex-parte injunction/local commissioners (Chittor seizures). - 13.01.2009: Implead Varma/Chauhan. -20.10.2009: Injunctions confirmed/amendments allowed. | -Ex-parte injunction (TM/use/disclosure) confirmed absolute vs all Ds (territorial jurisdiction u/s.134(2)/20(c) CPC via Delhi business/threats/exports); amendment/impleadments (R.B. Varma D4) allowed; O7 R11/O39 R4 dismissed. | - Jurisdiction via Delhi bottling/intent (notice/TOI ads/threats)/exports=infringement (Souza Cruz); amendment/impleadment (no new cause; Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal); "use" includes ads/intent (Nichols Vimto). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109517976/ | ||||||||||||||
45 | 43 | Hershey Company v Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading as Shree Ganesh Namkeen & Anr, C.O. COMM.IPD-TM No.179/2023 | The Hershey Company | Dilip Kumar Bacha | HARSHY (device), TM Appl No. 3897902 | Delhi High Court | Food/Namkeen (Class 30) | -US Hershey filed rectification u/s.57 TM Act 1999 seeking cancellation of Indian proprietor's HARSHY device mark (Mumbai Registry) as deceptively similar to HERSHEY, claiming person aggrieved status via pan-India dynamic effects/reputation/business in Delhi despite Appropriate Office outside jurisdiction post-TRA 2021 abolishing IPAB, raising if "the High Court" means any/all HCs (dynamic effect/CPC s.20 nexus/Delhi office) or only HC over Appropriate Office (territoriality per Rule 4 TM Rules/1958 Act legacy/Ayyangar Report). | - 25.07.2018: HARSHY appl filed (Mumbai). - 05.07.2023: Delhi HC notice/query jurisdiction. - 11.10.2023: Reserved (amicus submissions). - 09.02.2024: Ref to larger Bench. | -Petition maintainability ref to larger Bench on Delhi HC jurisdiction u/s.57 (Appropriate Office Mumbai); no merits decision; amici appointed; connected seed/footwear rectifications tagged. | - Debates casus omissus post-TRA (no "High Court" defn unlike Patents/Designs); Rule 4 binds Registrar territorially but not HC | https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS09022024COT1792023_192858.pdf | ||||||||||||||
46 | 44 | Daimler Benz AG v. Hybo Hindustan (1994) PTC 287 (Del) | Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft | Hybo Hindustan | Delhi High Court | Automobiles (Mercedes-Benz cars) vs garments (men's underwear). | -German Mercedes-Benz owners sued Indian underwear maker for injunction alleging passing off/infringement/dilution via use of "Benz" word & three-pointed man-in-ring device on men's underwear boxes evoking iconic Mercedes star-in-ring symbol, despite dissimilar goods; claimed worldwide repute/status symbol, post-legal notice defiance; defendant urged delay/honest concurrent use/non-confusion. | - 1951: Benz TM registered India. - 09.12.1989: Legal notice to defendant. - 10.11.1993: Injunction granted. | -Ex-parte injunction restraining defendants from using "Benz"/three-pointed man-in-ring on undergarments forthwith (no stock disposal). | - Famous marks like Mercedes-Benz enjoy protection beyond their goods classes due to dilution of reputation and worldwide status. - No delay or acquiescence bars injunction despite notice, unlike common terms like "Doctor" or "Matador". -Court rejects honest concurrent user defense (Amritdhara/Laxmandhara; Durex condoms), as "Benz" device blatantly imitates three-pointed star. -"Benz" lacks common Indian surname association; deliberate adoption for unrelated underwear demeans luxury car repute. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1460548/ | |||||||||||||||
47 | 45 | Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, (2024) 2 HCC (Del) 253] | Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff | The Peppy Store (D1, wall art); Frankly Retail (D2, merch); Ice Poster (D3, t-shirts); others (YouTubers/AI chatbot/Zedge/John Does/MeitY/DoT). | BHIDU No.3227968 (Cl.25 garments), 3227969 (Cl.41 entertainment); Bhidu ka Khopcha No.4362494 (Cl.41). | Delhi High Court | Entertainment/personality rights (film actor; AI chatbots/merch/GIFs/videos) | -Actor sued 18 Ds (e-com/YouTubers/AI firms/John Does/GoI) for infringing personality/publicity/moral rights (name "Jackie Shroff"/"Bhidu"/"Jaggu Dada", image/voice/likeness), TM (Bhidu), passing off via unauthorized merch (posters/t-shirts/wall art), derogatory edits ("Thug Life"/profanity), AI chatbot, porn links, ringtones; sought ex-parte block/takedown. | 15.05.2024: Ad-interim injunction order. | - Ex-parte injunction vs D3-4/6-7/13-14/John Does (merch/videos/AI/wallpapers/porn links). - D1-2 bound by takedown statements; D5 notice (Thug Life video: parody). - DoT/MeitY direct ISPs block Annex-A URLs; notice/reply fixed. | - Personality rights protect celeb name/image/voice vs commercial misuse (D.M. Entertainment); no injunction on potential parody (Thug Life meme culture). - Prima facie case/balance convenience/irreparable harm to dignity; TM personal name higher protection. - AI chatbot unlicensed = infringement; balances creator economy/free speech vs celeb rights. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165756699/ | ||||||||||||||
48 | 46 | Jindal Industries (P) Ltd. v. Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd., (2024) 3 HCC (Del) 742 | Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd | Jindal Sanitaryware Pvt Ltd | JINDAL: 384816 (1972, Cl.6 pipes), 673902 (1995, Cl.6), 1532084/85 (2007, Cl.6/17 PVC), 1522443-46 (2007, Cl.6/17), 1483834-35 (2006, Cl.17 PVC), 1787420 (2009, Cl.17), 2697386 (2014, Cl.17), 1843432 (2009, Cl.35). | Delhi High Court | Pipes/fittings (GI/CI/MS/PVC/steel tubes; sanitaryware). | -Pipes firm sued sanitaryware rival for TM infringement/passing off via recent use of "JINDAL" word/device on PVC pipes (despite D1's J PLEX Cl.17 reg/prior use thereon, and JINDAL device regs in Cl.11/20 non-pipes); P prior regs/user (2006+) for identical PVC pipes, Rs.2373Cr turnover; sought injunction/rectification; D urged device reg defense. | - 01.05.1972/01.04.1961: Earliest JINDAL apps (Cl.6 pipes). - 01.09.2006/08.01.2007: PVC pipes regs effective. - 09.05.2023: Ad-interim injunction. | - IA 8888/2023: Ex-parte injunction vs JINDAL/similar on PVC pipes till 01.08.2023. - Amended plaint/WS timeline; summons issued. - IAs allowed: exemption/addl docs/pre-institution mediation waiver. | - Prior reg/user (P's 2006 PVC pipes) trumps D1's non-pipes JINDAL devices/J PLEX; balance convenience favors P (D1 reverts to J PLEX). - No LCR needed (Ds appeared); turnover evidences goodwill. - s.57 rectification apps pending vs D1's Cl.11/20 regs. | http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/rsE4bJvL | ||||||||||||||
49 | 47 | Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International, (2024) 4 HCC (Del) 265] | Seagate Technology LLC | Daichi International | Delhi High Court | Computer hardware: internal hard‑disk drives (HDDs) for laptops/desktops/servers and CCTV surveillance systems; secondary market refurbishment/resale. | - Seagate and Western Digital sued multiple Indian importers/refurbishers for trade mark infringement, impairment and passing off under ss.29, 30(3)–(4), 103 TM Act, alleging that “end‑of‑life” HDDs originally sold to OEMs abroad were being imported into India, de‑branded (removal of SEAGATE/WD labels), refurbished, re‑packaged and sold under defendants’ own brands with fresh two‑year warranties, often marketed as “new” or “faster” drives for desktops and CCTV without disclosing used/refurbished status or original manufacturer, thereby impairing the condition of the goods, severing the “umbilical cord” with the brand owner, and causing reverse passing off and reputational harm; defendants argued lawful import, GST‑invoiced acquisition, no specific Indian prohibition on used‑HDD imports, full de‑branding and their own warranties/service networks, invoking international exhaustion under s.30(3) and absence of confusion as sales occurred entirely under defendants’ brands. | - 13.12.2018: Prior Seagate–Nickle Technologies settlement before ADJ Saket permitting import of second‑hand/refurbished HDDs under non‑Seagate brands with SEAGATE labels removed and disclaimers. -March 2023: Foreign Trade Policy 2023 notified (relied on but held not prohibiting such imports). - 24.01.2024 & 06.02.2024: Initial ex‑parte injunctions granted in some suits against sale of refurbished HDDs. - 04.03.2024 & 26.02.2024: In other suits, court allowed sales with “used/refurbished” disclaimers instead of full injunctions. - 02.05.2024: Matters reserved for judgment. - 21.05.2024: Common judgment delivered laying down disclosure‑based regime. | -International Exhaustion (s.30(3)): Permits import/resale of end-of-life HDDs if lawfully acquired; no absolute bar on downstream dealing. -Disclosure Mandate: De-branded refurbished drives allowed under refurbisher's mark only with prominent "used/refurbished, no OEM warranty" disclaimers on all packaging/listings. -No Absolute Injunction: Existing orders modified to "full truth" regime; ss.30(4)/304 apply only on proven impairment + misrepresentation. | - s.30(3)–(4)/s.304 Interpretation: Exhaustion defence requires goods first marketed under registered TM; mark removal constitutes "change/impairment" triggering brand opposition unless full disclosure decouples origin/quality expectations. - Global Precedents: Applies Kapil Wadhwa v Samsung (international exhaustion + disclaimers) and US/EU cases (Champion Spark, Nestlé, Portakabin) balancing TM source/quality with secondary markets/Right-to-Repair. - Circular Economy: Refurbishment is legitimate for affordability; OEM contracts/e-waste policy—not TM law—are proper controls for manufacturers. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25100511/ | |||||||||||||||
50 | 48 | Dabur India Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, (2024) 4 HCC (Del) 19 | Dabur India Lt | Ashok Kumar & Ors | Delhi High Court | FMCG (consumer goods branding; cyber fraud via fake domains/job scams). | - Dabur sued unknown fraudsters operating fake domains (yvmwle.vip etc.) impersonating DABUR TM/logo/tagline "Celebrate Life" via WhatsApp/Telegram/video tutorials/fake ID cards/UPI QR codes to offer sham work-from-home jobs, duping public into payments via bank/UPI accounts; sought injunction/takedown as infringement/passing off/copyright violation maligning goodwill. | -18.07.2024: Ex-parte injunction & directions | -Injunction: Restrains Ds/agents from fake sites/content using DABUR TM/logo. -Takdowns: D2/6/7 block domains; D3/4/5 block numbers/Telegram; D8/9/10 freeze accounts. -Summons: Issue to Ds; list 05.11.2024. | - Urgency Granted: Ex-parte injunction despite no advance notice; clear prima facie case with irreparable reputational harm. - Procedural Reliefs: Exemptions allowed (pre-institution mediation, clearer docs, court/process fees); plaint registered as suit. - Phishing Scam: Fraudsters impersonate Dabur via fake domains/IDs/videos/UPI QR codes offering sham work-from-home jobs. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27124668/ | |||||||||||||||
51 | 49 | Gujarat Coop. Milk Mktg. Federation Ltd. v. Terre Primitive, (2024) 5 HCC (Del) 132] | Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr | Terre Primitive | AMUL device TM No.185698 (Cl.29, app.01.07.1958; earliest reg.) | Delhi High Court | MCG (milk products vs confectionery; well-known TM infringement/passing off). | - AMUL owners sued Italian confectionery firm for injunction/passing off vs "AMULETI" mark/logo on products sold via terreprimitive.it/FB/IG in India, deceptively similar to well-known AMUL (IPAB recognised 29.05.2015; Rs.55k Cr turnover 2022-23), causing source confusion; D1 proceeded ex-parte after WS closure; P pressed decree on ad-interim injunction. | - 01.07.1958: Earliest AMUL app (TM 185698). -29.05.2015: IPAB well-known status. -09.09.2024: Ex-parte ad-interim injunction. -Aug 2024: P learns of infringement. -23.12.2025: Decree. | - Permanent Injunction Decreed: Court grants permanent injunction against Defendants 1 and 2 as per 09.09.2024 order, restraining use/sale of AMULETI/similar marks, mandating takedown of listings and surrender of infringing goods. - Defendant 3 Deleted: Meta Platforms (D3) deleted from array after compliance with social media blocks. - Suit Disposed Without Damages: Plaintiffs do not press damages claim; suit stands disposed post-decree. | - Ex-Parte Decree Under O VIII R10 CPC: Court decrees suit ex-parte as Defendants 1 and 2 failed to file WS despite service, deeming plaint averments and documents admitted. - Deceptive Similarity Established: AMULETI held phonetically/visually deceptively similar to well-known AMUL, creating reasonable consumer association risk. - Satya Infra Precedent Applied: No need for ex-parte evidence; verified plaint suffices for injunction decree per Satya Infrastructure precedent. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112042021/ | ||||||||||||||
52 | 50 | Sai Chemicals v. Jai Chemical Works, (2024) 1 HCC (All) 113 | M/s Jay Chemical Works | M/s Sai Chemicals | Allahabad High Court | Chemicals (industrial/consumer; TM infringement/passing off via identical label). | - Chemical firm filed CS(COMM) 31/2023 seeking injunction/accounts vs rival's use of identical/deceptive "HARA PATTA" TM/logo/label/packaging; respondent applied u/s.12A CCA for plaint return (no pre-institution mediation); commercial court returned plaint u/O VII R10 CPC despite urgent interim prayer & post-filing mediation failure; appellant appealed s.13(1A) CCA claiming exemption for urgent relief suits per Yamini Manohar SC. | - 01.05.2023: Suit filed with urgent injunction IA. -12.05.2023: Post-appearance mediation directed/failed (02.06.2023). -24.07.2024: Respondent's s.12A IA. -29.03.2025: Plaint returned u/O VII R10. -09.10.2025: Appeal allowed/remand. | - Appeal Allowed: Division Bench allows appeal, quashes commercial court's 29.03.2025 order returning plaint u/O VII R10 CPC. - Plaint Restored: Matter remitted to commercial court for proceedings from stage preceding plaint return order. - No Costs Awarded: Appeal disposed without costs; confirms maintainability u/s.13(1A) CCA as O VII R10 order appealable. | - s.12A Exemption Confirmed: Urgent interim relief prayer u/O XXXIX R1-2 CPC exempts suit from mandatory pre-institution mediation; post-filing mediation failure further validates. - Yamini Manohar Applied: Supreme Court mandates scrutiny of urgent relief prayer to prevent s.12A evasion; court notice/interim consideration indicates plaint entertainability. - No Technical Victory: Respondent cannot benefit from commercial court's mediation oversight error (ONGC v Modern Construction principle). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173586422/ | |||||||||||||||
53 | 51 | Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd, AIR 2002 SC 117, (2002) 2 SCC 147 | Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. | Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. | Registration No. 338997 for "Mahindra" in Class 12 | - Trial Court: Single Judge, Bombay High Court (Suit No. 4007 of 1998). - Appellate Court: Division Bench, Bombay High Court (Appeal No. 1058 of 1998). - Supreme Court of India (Appeal (civil) 7805 of 2001). | Automotive, tractors, chemicals, IT; defendant in paper mills/seeds). | - Passing-off and trademark infringement due to deceptively similar corporate name "Mahendra & Mahendra" (phonetically/visually akin to "Mahindra & Mahindra"), risking confusion with plaintiff's established group reputation. | - Plaintiff incorporation: October 1945 (as Mahendra and Mohammed Ltd.), renamed 13 January 1948. -Defendant incorporation: 1 January 1982 (seeds Pvt. Ltd.), paper mills 1994; public issue July-August 1996. -Plaintiff notice: 28 August 1996. -Suit filed: 1998. -Single Judge injunction: 1998 (confirmed by Division Bench, 2 December 1998). -Supreme Court judgment: 9 November 2001. | - Supreme Court upheld Bombay High Court interim injunction restraining defendant from using "Mahendra & Mahendra" or deceptively similar marks in corporate name, products, or to pass off as plaintiff's group. - Appeal dismissed with costs (Rs. 15,000 hearing fee); observations limited to interlocutory stage. | - Plaintiff established prima facie case via long user (5+ decades), secondary meaning, and reputation (Rs. 3,000 crore turnover, Rs. 9 crore ads). - Defendant's prior honest use since 1974 rejected at interim stage due to balance of convenience favoring plaintiff. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1555192/ | ||||||||||||||
54 | 52 | Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs The Zamindara Engineering Co, AIR 1970 SC 1649, 1970 SCR (2) 222, (1969) 2 SCC 727. | Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. | The Zamindara Engineering Co. | Registration No. 5120 in Class 7 for "RUSTON" in respect of internal combustion engines | - Trial Court: Additional District Judge, Meerut (suit dismissed 3 January 1958). -Appellate Court: Allahabad High Court (First Appeal No. 208 of 1958, judgment 23 November 1965). -Supreme Court of India (Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 1966). | Diesel internal combustion engines and parts/accessories. | - Infringement of registered trademark "RUSTON" by defendant's deceptively similar mark "RUSTAM" (or "RUSTAM INDIA"), likely to deceive or cause confusion under Section 21, Trade Marks Act, 1940. | - Appellant notice to respondent: 8 July 1955 (after learning of "RUSTAM" use in June 1955). - Suit filed: 17 February 1956. -Trial court dismissal: 3 January 1958. -High Court judgment: 23 November 1965. -Supreme Court judgment: 8 September 1969. | - Supreme Court allowed appeal, granted permanent injunction against use of "RUSTAM" or "RUSTAM INDIA" on engines/parts; nominal damages Rs. 100; delivery up of infringing materials. - Reversed High Court's partial relief permitting "RUSTAM INDIA". | - Test for infringement (similar marks): Same as passing-off—likelihood of confusion/deception; adding "INDIA" irrelevant if core mark deceptively similar. - High Court found deceptive resemblance in "RUSTON" vs. "RUSTAM" (unchallenged by respondent). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1300681/ | ||||||||||||||
55 | 53 | Tata Sons Limited v. Manu Kosuri, Suit No. 159/99 | Tata Sons Limited | Manu Kosuri (MD of Ramadasoft), Ramadasoft (domain registrar); Network Solutions Inc. (removed 30 April 1999). | "TATA" registered since 1917 in various classes in India and 9 other countries | Delhi High Court (Suit No. 159/99; ex-parte proceedings). | Internet domain names/cyberspace (domain registrations incorporating trademark). | - Passing off, trademark dilution, and unauthorized use of well-known "TATA" mark in domain names (e.g., jrdtata.com, ratantata.com), likely to confuse consumers and harm plaintiff's reputation/goodwill. | - Suit filed: 1999. -Defendant 3 removed: 30 April 1999. -Ex-parte order: 23 August 1999. -Judgment: 9 March 2001. | - Permanent injunction granted against using "TATA" or deceptively similar marks in domain names, business, or services; restrained dilution. - Suit decreed in plaintiff's favor; no costs awarded. | - Trademark law applies equally to Internet domain names as physical world (citing Yahoo! India, Rediff, British Telecom); domains are valuable assets protectable from passing off. - Ex-parte due to non-appearance; plaintiff proved via affidavits/documents (brochures, certificates, printouts). | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090b1be4b0149711173da6 | ||||||||||||||
56 | 54 | Power Control Appliances vs Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448, 1994 SCR (1) 708. | Power Control Appliances | Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. | "Sumeet" No. 263836 (Part-A, Class 7 for electric kitchen machines) | - Trial Court: Single Judge, Madras High Court (C.S. Nos. 343, 431, 432 of 1992; Applications 226, 227, 271, 272 of 1992). - Division Bench, Madras High Court (OSA Nos. 144-46 of 1992; judgment 26 February 1993). - Supreme Court of India (Civil Appeals Nos. 2551-53 of 1993). | Domestic power-operated kitchen appliances (mixies/electric grinders, components like whipper blade). | - Infringement of registered trademark "Sumeet", copyright in packaging/literature (carton, manual, guarantee card), and design (e.g., whipper blade No. 148246); exact reproduction without assignment. | -Plaintiffs' manufacturing/marketing "Sumeet" mixies: Since 1963/1964. -Trademark registration effective: 18 April 1970; assigned 1 January 1981. -Defendant incorporation: 5 September 1984 (no-objection letters 7 May 1984). -Defendant mixies manufacturing: Sept-Oct 1991. -Suits/applications filed: 1992; appeals to SC 1993. -SC judgment: 8 February 1994. | - SC allowed appeals, granted interim injunction pending suits (restraining use of mark, copyright, design); reversed High Court denial. - Directed expeditious trial; no costs. | - Rejected acquiescence/honest concurrent user (no evidence of defendant's prior manufacturing, only marketing; family ties irrelevant for infringement). - Once infringement of registered TM/copyright/design established, injunction follows; no implied consent/assignment proven. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1965879/ | ||||||||||||||
57 | 55 | Infosys Technologies Ltd vs Jupiter Infosys Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5745 of 2005 (Supreme Court, 9 November 2010). | Infosys Technologies Ltd. | Jupiter Infosys Ltd. (now Jupiter International Ltd.); Anr. | "Infosys": 475269 (Class 16, 15.07.1987); 475267 (Class 9, 15.07.1987); 484837 (Class 7, 27.01.1988). | - Calcutta High Court (Suit 1996; WP 14214/2000). -Madras High Court (Suit 2001; O.P. Nos. 764-766/2001). -Delhi High Court (Suit 2115/2002). -Intellectual Property Appellate Board (TRA Nos. 25-27/2003; order 9 September 2004). -Supreme Court of India. | Computer software/services; hardware, stationery, manuals, machine tools (Classes 7,9,16). | - Rectification/removal of "Infosys" registrations under Sections 46/56 Trade Marks Act 1958 (non-use >5 years, no bona fide intent); respondent's use in company name led to infringement suits. | -Appellant incorporation: 2 July 1981; TMs registered 1987-88. -Respondent incorporation: Sept 1978 (name change to Jupiter Infosys Aug 1995, Jupiter International July 2003). -Suits filed: Calcutta Oct 1996, Madras Jan 2001, Delhi 2002. -Rectification OPs: 2001 (transferred to IPAB). - IPAB order: 9 Sept 2004; SC judgment: 9 Nov 2010. | -SC allowed appeals partly, set aside IPAB removal order; remitted for fresh hearing on locus standi/non-use/etc. -Respondent must show continued "person aggrieved" status (even after name change/affidavit). | -"Person aggrieved" under S.46 requires practical injury (stricter than S.56 public interest); must persist till decision. -Non-use determination needs evidence of goods use (software as service not goods); proviso allows "same description" goods | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/806212/ | ||||||||||||||
58 | 56 | Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. vs Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited, 2004 (29) PTC 435 (Del), 2004 (76) DRJ 616 | Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. | Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited | Delhi High Court | Pharmaceutical products (bulk drugs, finished formulations like OMEZ/Omeprazole, MUCOLITE). | -Passing off via defendant's use of "Reddy" on pharma products/packaging (similar to plaintiff's "Dr. Reddy's"), copying get-up (OMRE vs OMEZ, RECOLITE vs MUCOLITE), Hyderabad address, domain; prior agency role turned competitive | -Plaintiff use since ~1984; logo artistic work: April 2001; assigned: Dec 2002. -Defendant trading bulk drugs since 1996/97 (plaintiff's agent); Delcredere agent: 1 April 2003. -Defendant launches pharma products: Aug/Sept 2003. -Suit/applications: 2003-2004; order: 26 August 2004 | -Granted ad interim injunction: restrained defendant from using "Reddy" on pharma products, copying get-up/logo, similar domains. -Dismissed defendant's IA for vacation of injunction | -Rejected surname defense ("Reddy" acquired secondary meaning via plaintiff's reputation); no acquiescence as conflict arose only post-Aug 2003 pharma entry. -Vigilance needed in pharma passing off due to confusion risks even for prescription drugs | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/613181/ | |||||||||||||||
59 | 57 | Colgate-Palmolive India Limited vs Anchor Health Beauty Care Private Ltd., O.A. Nos. 493 & 494 of 2008 in C.S. No. 451 of 2008 | Colgate-Palmolive India Limited | Anchor Health Beauty Care Private Ltd. | "Colgate" (manufacturer's dental care products); "Anchor" (defendant's toothpaste) | Madras High Court | Dental care/oral hygiene (toothpastes with ingredients: Triclosan, Calcium, Fluoride). | - Disparagement/slander via defendant's TV ads claiming "Anchor" is ONLY toothpaste with 3 ingredients, FIRST for all-round protection, 30% more cavity protection, Triclosan 10x effective; misleading/unfair trade practice under Consumer Protection Act. | -Suits/OAs filed: 2008. -Defendant's TV ad launch: ~April 2008 (Tamil/Hindi versions). -Ex parte notice: 25 April 2008; undertaking (no "only"/"first"): 21 May 2008. -Hearing/disposal: 1 Aug & 4 Sept 2008. | - Granted limited interim injunction: restrained use of "ONLY" & "FIRST" in ads if implying exclusivity/historic first. - Prima facie unfair trade practice (misleading claims); no full disparagement; observations tentative. | -Permits puffery/comparisons but restrains false/misleading claims (public interest over free commercial speech limits). -Remedies via Consumer Forums/MRTP (now Competition Act); civil suits for manufacturers if unfair trade practice proven | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1500699/ | ||||||||||||||
60 | 58 | Microsoft Corporation vs Mr. Yogesh Papat & Anr., 2005 (30) PTC 245 (Del), 118 (2005) DLT 580 | Microsoft Corporation | Mr. Yogesh Papat | "Microsoft" Reg. Nos. 430449-B (Class 9), 430450-B (Class 16) | Delhi High Court | Computer software (MS Windows 98, MS Office 2000, MS Visual Basic/C++) | - Copyright infringement (pirating/loading unlicensed software on computers sold); TM infringement & passing off (using "Microsoft" without license) | -Software registrations: Pre-suit (evidenced Ex.P6-7). -Raid/purchase evidence: 3 Sept 2002 (bill). -Suit filed: Post-2002; ex parte: 20 Feb 2004; decree: 22 Feb 2005 | - Decree: Permanent injunctions (A-D); damages Rs.19.75 lakhs + 9% interest; delivery-up; costs. -Defendants ex parte; loss based on ~100 computers/year assumption | - Established via affidavits: unlicensed pre-loading = infringement; general threat proven. -Assumptive damages upheld (defendants absent); wide injunctions for renowned TM holder | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/545767/ | ||||||||||||||
61 | 59 | Rolex SA vs Alex Jewellery Pvt Ltd & Ors, IA No.279/2008 in CS(OS) 41/2008 | Rolex SA | Alex Jewellery Pvt Ltd (manufacturer), Rolex Jewellery House, Anr (retailers) | Delhi High Court | Luxury watches, horological instruments, jewellery/artificial jewellery. | - Defendants infringed plaintiff's registered ROLEX trademark and passed off artificial jewellery as connected to plaintiff by using identical mark on allied goods, diluting distinctive reputation. | - Plaintiff TM India: 1949 (watches), 24 Apr 2001 (jewellery). - Defendants claimed adoption: 1993/1995; suit awareness: Nov 2007; suit: 2008. | - Granted interim injunction restraining ROLEX use on artificial jewellery effective 30 days post-order. - Balance of convenience favoured plaintiff; defendant's use not bona fide. | - S.29(4) TM Act 1999 applied: well-known mark reputation extends to dissimilar goods causing dilution. - Watches/jewellery cognate as adornments; S.34 prior use defense failed lacking pre-2001 proof | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162093858/ | |||||||||||||||
62 | 60 | Yahoo, Inc. v. Akash Arora, I.A. No. 10115 of 1998 in Suit No. 2469 of 1998 (Delhi High Court, 19 February 1999) | Yahoo, Inc. | Akash Arora and Anr. (Netlink Internet Solutions). | Delhi High Court | Internet services (domain names, web directories, online information/search services). | - Defendants passed off their internet services as those of plaintiff by using deceptively similar domain name "Yahooindia.com" which appropriated plaintiff's global reputation and goodwill in "Yahoo!" mark | - Plaintiff domain "Yahoo.com": 18 Jan 1995. - Trademark applications global: pre-1999; India pending. - Suit filed: 1998. | - Granted ad interim injunction restraining use of "Yahooindia.com" or similar marks and copying of plaintiff's content pending suit. - Defendants' disclaimers and "India" suffix held insufficient against deception | - Passing off applies to internet services despite Trade Marks Act focus on goods; domain names entitled to trademark-like protection. - "Yahoo!" dictionary word acquired distinctiveness; internet users likely confused despite technical | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090ad1e4b0149711173119 | |||||||||||||||
63 | 61 | Rediff Communication Limited v. Cyberbooth, Suit No. 1881 of 1999 | Rediff Communication Limited | Cyberbooth | Bombay High Court | Internet services (domain names, web pages, online advertising, e-commerce) | -Defendants passed off their internet services as those of plaintiff by deliberately adopting deceptively similar domain name "RADIFF.COM" to trade upon plaintiff's established "REDIFF" reputation and goodwill. | -Plaintiff "REDIFF.COM" registration: 8 Feb 1997. -Defendants "RADIFF.COM" registration: 31 Jan 1999. -Plaintiffs learned of infringement: March 1999. -Suit filed: 1999. | -Granted interlocutory injunction restraining "RADIFF" use; operation stayed 3 weeks for compliance. -Defendants' coined term explanation rejected as dishonest | Domain names qualify as corporate assets entitled to trademark-like passing off protection. | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4938c607dba348f0075de | |||||||||||||||
64 | 62 | M/S DRS Logistics (P) Ltd & Another v. Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr., CS(COMM) 1/2017 | M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. (trademark owner) and its group entity/licensee Agarwal Packers & Movers | Google India Pvt. Ltd., Just Dial Ltd., and Google LLC | Delhi High Court | Search engine advertising and internet intermediary services, specifically Google Ads/AdWords keyword advertising, search results, and online directory/listing services. | - The plaintiffs alleged that Google and Just Dial infringed their registered trademarks and enabled passing off by permitting third parties to use “Agarwal/Aggarwal Packers & Movers” and “DRS Logistics” as keywords, meta-tags, ad titles, URLs and listings in Google Ads and Just Dial, thereby diverting users searching for the plaintiffs to competitors and imposters. | -Filing of earlier interim application I.A. 21153/2011 against Google/Just Dial (pre‑2014). -Filing of second interim application I.A. 4474/2014 specifically against Google LLC. -Trademark user/licence arrangement between plaintiff companies recorded via agreement dated 22 July 2009. -Court’s framing of the core injunction issue (keyword use as infringement) in order dated 22 January 2020. -Final interim‑relief judgment in CS(COMM) 1/2017 delivered on 30 October 2021. | - The Court held that use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks as Google Ads keywords constitutes “use in advertising” and can amount to infringement under sections 29(6)–(8) of the Trade Marks Act when it diverts traffic from the trademark owner. - Google and Just Dial were restrained at the interim stage from allowing infringing use of the plaintiffs’ marks as keywords or in misleading ads, with the Court rejecting Google’s defence that keyword use is merely invisible, non‑trademark use. | - The judgment treats keyword bidding on another’s registered mark as equivalent to invisible meta‑tag use and follows Indian precedents (Amway, People Interactive, Mattel) to hold that such invisible technical use is still trademark “use” capable of infringement and passing off. -Foreign cases (Consim, Google France, L’Oréal, Veda, Nebo, Jive Commerce, etc.) are analysed but the Court ultimately grounds its reasoning in the broader Indian statutory definition of use and the average Indian consumer standard. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39453430/ | |||||||||||||||
65 | 63 | Pepsi Co., Inc. and Ors v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. and Anr., 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del) | epsi Co., Inc., Pepsico (India) Holdings Ltd., and Pepsi Foods Ltd. | Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. and Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. | Delhi High Court | Television and electronic media advertising of carbonated soft drinks, including audiovisual commercials and cinematographic advertising films. | - The plaintiffs alleged that Coca Cola’s “Thums Up” and “Sprite” TV commercials infringed their PEPSI trademarks and copyright in the slogan “Yeh Dil Maange More” and the roller‑coaster commercial, and disparaged PEPSI by depicting it as a childish, inferior “sweet” drink through comparative advertisements using a look‑alike “PAPPI” bottle and mocked catch‑phrases. | -1 September 2003: Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment delivered allowing the appeal in part. -July 1999: Pepsi registered copyright in the slogan “Yeh Dil Maange More”. -10 September 1984: EU Directive 84/450 on misleading/comparative advertising (cited for principles of comparative ads). -Prior single‑judge order (date not given in extract) refused interim injunction and required Coke to give an undertaking as to damages. | -The Division Bench granted interim injunction restraining telecast of the impugned “PAPPI” disparaging commercials and the roller‑coaster commercial in their present form, holding them to amount to actionable disparagement and prima facie copyright infringement. -The Court refused to treat mere comparative reference or use of the PEPSI Globe Device and parody of “Yeh Dil Maange More” as trademark infringement per se, but found the manner and messaging went beyond permissible puffery. | -The Court reaffirmed that comparative advertising is allowed if confined to puffing one’s own product, but becomes unlawful when it ridicules, denigrates, or portrays a rival’s product as inferior, applying a test focused on intent, manner, storyline, and message. -Copyright in a short advertising slogan and in a cinematographic commercial was recognised in principle; on facts, the “roller coaster” commercial was treated as a substantial imitation, triggering injunctive relief. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/924003/ | |||||||||||||||
66 | 64 | Christian Louboutin v Abubaker, AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 256 | Christian Louboutin SAS | Abubaker & Ors. | "RED SOLE" registrations Nos. 1922048, 2341890, 2341891 (red colour shade on soles of ladies footwear, Class unspecified but for footwear). | Delhi High Court | Luxury footwear design and manufacturing (ladies high‑end shoes with distinctive sole colouring). | -Defendants infringed plaintiff’s registered “RED SOLE” trademarks and passed off their ladies footwear by using identical red colour on shoe soles, causing confusion despite their wordmark “VERONICA”, thereby diluting plaintiff’s distinctive reputation. | -Suit CS(COMM) 890/2018 filed: pre‑18 May 2018 (admission hearing). -Judgment reserved: 18 May 2018; pronounced: 25 May 2018. -Trademark registrations granted: pre‑suit (Nos. 1922048 etc.). | -Court dismissed suit at admission stage under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without issuing summons, holding single red colour cannot qualify as a “mark” or “trademark” under Sections 2(m)/2(zb) TM Act as it requires “combination of colours”. -Section 30(2)(a) TM Act permitted colour use as a functional characteristic of footwear soles (aesthetic appeal), not trademark use; passing off also rejected due to distinct wordmarks and no deception. | -Single colour red sole lacks graphical representation and distinctiveness as standalone mark; prior Delhi HC judgments (Deere, Louboutin 2017) distinguished as ignoring statutory definitions/Section 30(2)(a). -US Qualitex judgment inapplicable as US TM law lacks India’s “combination of colours” mandate; registration prima facie valid (S.31) but overridable if illegal/non‑registrable ab initio. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175186752/ | ||||||||||||||
67 | 65 | Adidas AG vs Jai Prakash, TM No. 1282/2022 | Adidas AG | Mr. Jai Prakash | laintiff’s registered “adidas” marks include Nos. 352655, 511874, 538067, 826207, 2634480, 932043, 2983183, 932041, 1800353, 2958438 (devices, wordmarks, three stripes, trefoil, performance logo for sportswear/footwear | Delhi District Court | Sportswear manufacturing, marketing, and retail (athletic footwear, apparel, jackets, accessories). | -Defendant manufactured, stored, distributed, and sold counterfeit/infringing sportswear and accessories bearing identical/deceptively similar “adidas”, “three stripes”, “trefoil”, and “performance logo” marks/logos of inferior quality, infringing plaintiff’s registered trademarks/copyrights, passing off as genuine Adidas goods, and causing dilution of goodwill/reputatio | -Investigation revealing infringement: Second week of April 2022. -Suit TM No. 1282/2022 instituted: 20 May 2022. -Ex parte ad interim injunction/Local Commissioner appointed: 16 August 2022. -Local Commissioner raid/report: 24 August 2022 (report filed 23 September 2022). -Defendant impleaded/proceeded ex parte: 10 February 2023/25 July 2023. -Issues framed: 12 April 2024; ex parte final judgment: 7 September 2024. | -Plaintiff decreed permanent injunction restraining defendant from using infringing “adidas” marks on sportswear/accessories; punitive damages Rs. 5 lakhs and costs Rs. 1.25 lakhs awarded; plaintiff to destroy seized goods (1736 items). -No rendition of accounts decreed due to non-production of defendant’s seized books; defendant proceeded ex parte after WS. | -Local Commissioner report (1736 counterfeit items seized) treated as unimpeachable evidence under Order XXVI R.10(2) CPC; defendant’s bare denials in WS rebutted by plaintiff’s documents/AR evidence. -Punitive damages justified to deter counterfeiting’s cascading economic harm, citing precedents like Louis Vuitton, Christian Louboutin, Levi Strauss (evasion worsens liability). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181778300/ | ||||||||||||||
68 | 66 | Levi Strauss & Co vs Mohd Rafique Alam & Ors, CS(COMM) 326/2019 | Levi Strauss & Co | Mohd Rafique Alam, Shahvej, Chandan Kumar Singh, Aashish Gupta | "LEVI'S" and "House Mark LEVI'S" | Delhi District Court | Clothing manufacturing/marketing (readymade garments, jeans, leisurewear, accessories). | -Defendants manufactured, marketed, and sold counterfeit jeans/garments bearing plaintiff's registered "LEVI'S"/House Mark trademarks/logos, infringing statutory rights, passing off inferior goods as genuine Levi's, diluting reputation/goodwill, and causing public deception/confusion. | -Products launched in India: 1994. -Defendants' infringing adoption: September 2018. -Suit CS(COMM) 326/2019 instituted: 13 July 2018. -Local Commissioner appointed/report: 16 July 2018/27 July 2018. -Ex parte interim injunction: 11 September 2018. -Issues framed/defendants ex parte: Post-2019 hearings; final judgment: 29 April 2023. | -Suit decreed with permanent injunction restraining defendants from using "LEVI'S"/House Mark on garments/accessories; nominal damages Rs.25,000 compensatory + Rs.25,000 punitive + Rs.10,000 costs awarded. -Defendants proceeded ex parte; no rendition of accounts due to evasion; Local Commissioner report treated as evidence. | -Plaintiff proved well-known mark status u/s 2(1)(zg) TM Act via registrations, global reputation since 1873, India sales since 1994; defendants' evasion worsened liability. -Unrebutted PW-1 evidence/certificates established infringement/passing off; punitive damages deter counterfeiting's public harm | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139645687/ | ||||||||||||||
69 | 67 | Bata India Limited vs Pyare Lal & Co., Meerut City and Ors., AIR 1985 All 242 | Bata India Limited | Pyare Lal & Co and Others | "Bata" Reg. No. 6574 (28 Oct 1942, Cl. 55: canvas/rubber/leather shoes, soles, heels, hosiery etc., renewed); "BSC" (Bata Shoe Company) Reg. No. 270102. | Allahabad High Court | Footwear and rubber goods manufacturing/marketing (shoes, rubber soles/heels vs foam mattresses/cushions/seats). | -Defendants passed off inferior foam products (mattresses, cushions) as Bata goods by using "Batafoam" mark/name (with similar spelling/style to plaintiff's "Bata"), deceiving public, diluting goodwill/reputation despite dissimilar goods. | -Bata declaration registered (pre-1940 Act): Prior to Trade Marks Act 1940. -"Bata" TM registered: 28 Oct 1942 (No. 6574). -Advertisement "Batafoam" dealership: 28 Feb 1983 (Dainik Jagran). -Plaintiff notice to defendants: ~June 1983/20 July 1983. -Suit No. 56/1983 filed: 1983; trial injunction refused: 24 Dec 1983. -HC appeal judgment: 23 Jan 1985. | -Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted restraining defendants from using "Bata" (including "Batafoam") on products/packaging/advertisements pending suit; costs to plaintiff. -HC held prima facie misrepresentation/deception despite dissimilar goods; "Bata" fancy name entitled to protection against passing off. | -Passing off actionable via common law (s.27(2) TM Act 1958) even for unregistered/similar goods if misrepresentation likely injures goodwill; phonetic/visual similarity ("Bata"/"Batafoam") suffices for unwary purchaser deception. -Fancy name "Bata" (foreign surname, no Indian link) acquires monopoly via long use/reputation; foam similarity to rubber justifies interim protection against dilution. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150587/ | ||||||||||||||
70 | 68 | Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited vs Cipla Limited, IA No. 6872/2008 in CS(OS) 1073/2008 | Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited | Cipla Limited | "THEOBID" Reg. No. 440830 (26 July 1985, valid till 26 July 2016; originally Natco Fine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, assigned to plaintiff) | Delhi High Court | Pharmaceuticals/medicinal preparations. | -Defendant infringed plaintiff’s registered "THEOBID" trademark by using deceptively similar "THEOBID-D" for identical medicinal preparations, despite plaintiff’s pending TM-24 application for recording assignment since 2000. | -THEOBID registered: 26 July 1985 (No. 440830). -Assignment to Sun Pharma: 31 October 1998. -TM-24 application filed: 25 July 2000. -Sun Pharma use commenced: January 2008. -Suit CS(OS) 1073/2008/IA 6872/2008 decided: 3 October 2008 | - Interim injunction granted restraining Cipla from using THEOBID-D (effective after 1 month); assignee entitled to enforce rights despite pending registration under s.45 TM Act. -Court admitted unregistered assignment deed; held title vests on execution, registration merely records title. | -s.45(2) TM Act permits courts to admit unregistered assignments; non-use no bar to infringement action (s.28/31 prima facie validity). - Unclean hands/use claims rejected; defendant’s equities weak as assignee aware of registration; trafficking concerns distinguished. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152682715/ | ||||||||||||||
71 | 69 | Hardie Trading Ltd. and Anr. vs. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd., (2003) 11 SCC 92 | Hardie Trading Ltd. and Anr. | Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd. | "Spartan" and "Spartan Velox" with device of helmeted warrior (rear view); registered in Hardie's name in India circa 1940 | Supreme Court of India | Paints, lacquers, varnishes, and surface coatings (Class 2). | - Addisons applied under Section 46(1)(b) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, for rectification and removal of Hardie's registered trademarks "Spartan" and "Spartan Velox" from the Register on the ground that there had been no bona fide use by the proprietor for a continuous period of five years or longer up to one month before the date of application. | -1940: Hardie trademarks registered in India. -6 Nov 1946: Collaboration agreement between Hardie and Addisons. -11 Jul 1963: Registered user agreement executed. -31 Aug 1968: Registered user agreement cancelled. -1 Dec 1971: Addisons discontinues use of Hardie marks. -30 May 1977: Addisons files rectification application. -12 Sep 1985: Joint Registrar allows rectification, expunges marks. -12 Sep 2003: Supreme Court judgment. | - Supreme Court set aside lower court and Registrar orders, restored Hardie's trademarks on Register, rejected Addisons' registration applications for identical marks and device. | No intention to abandon by Hardie proven; permitted use by registered users deemed proprietor's use; import restrictions constituted special circumstances under Section 46(3). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1874558/ | ||||||||||||||
72 | 70 | Corn Products Refining Co. vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142 | Corn Products Refining Co. | Shangrila Food Products Ltd. | Glucovita' (appellant's registered mark); 'Gluvita' (respondent's proposed mark) | Supreme Court of India, Bombay High Court , Trade Marks Registry | Food products: glucose powder with vitamins (Class 30 & 5); biscuits (Class 30). | -Appellant opposed respondent's application for registration of 'Gluvita' mark for biscuits under Section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, contending the mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion with appellant's registered 'Glucovita' mark which had acquired reputation among public, despite goods not being identical. | -31 Aug 1942: Appellant registers 'Glucovita'. -5 Nov 1949: Respondent applies for 'Gluvita'. -8 Oct 1959: Supreme Court judgment delivered. | - Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside High Court Division Bench order, restored single judge order refusing registration of 'Gluvita'. Appellant awarded costs. | -Similarity in structure, phonetics and idea (glucose + vita) likely to confuse average buyer despite goods' trade connection (glucose in biscuits). No reliance on 'series' marks without proof of use. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1883538/ | ||||||||||||||
73 | 71 | Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980. | Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma | Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories | Navaratna' and 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories' (respondent's registered marks) | Supreme Court of India, Kerala High Court, District Court Anjikaimal (Travancore-Cochin), Trade Marks Registry (Bombay, Cochin). | Ayurvedic medicinal preparations and pharmaceutical products. | - Respondent sued for permanent injunction claiming infringement of registered trademarks 'Navaratna' and 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories' by appellant's use of 'Navaratna Kalpa Pharmacy' and 'Navaratna Kalpa', alleging deceptive similarity causing confusion; appellant sought rectification removing marks from register under Trade Marks Act, 1940. | -1926: Respondent starts business using 'Navaratna'. -31 Jan 1947: 'Navaratna' registered in Cochin. -17 Feb 1948: 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories' registered in Cochin. -Oct 1946: Appellant applies for 'Navaratna Kalpa'. -1951: Respondent files suit (O.S. 233/1951). -20 Oct 1964: Supreme Court judgment | - Supreme Court dismissed appeals, upheld validity of respondent's registrations and decree for injunction against infringement of 'Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories'. No relief for passing off. | - Old marks (pre-1937 use) registerable via proviso to s.6(3) on acquired distinctiveness despite descriptiveness. Infringement assessed by deceptive similarity of marks alone, distinct from passing off (get-up/packing). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/529384/ | ||||||||||||||
74 | 72 | Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. vs. India Stationery Products Co., AIR 1990 Delhi 19 | Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. | India Stationery Products Co. and Anr | Nataraj' with device (No. 260466 dated 6.11.1969, user since 22.2.1961; No. 283730 dated 27.10.1972), both in Class 16 for pencils, sharpeners, pens, erasers, pins, clips, staples. | Delhi High Court | Stationery products (pencils, refills, sharpeners, pens, erasers, pins, clips, staples; Class 16). | - Plaintiffs sued for permanent injunction and accounts alleging defendants infringed registered trademarks 'Nataraj' with dancing Nataraj device by using identical mark and device on stationery pins and clips, causing damage to goodwill; sought interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. | -22 Feb 1961: Plaintiffs claim user of 'Nataraj'. -6 Nov 1969: TM 260466 registered. -27 Oct 1972: TM 283730 registered. -Mid 1985: Plaintiffs learn of infringement. -Jun 1985: Plaintiffs apply for copyright rectification. -23 Jan 1989: Interim injunction order. | - Court granted interim injunction restraining defendants from using 'Nataraj' mark/device on pins/stationery till suit disposal. Costs on parties. | - Fraudulent adoption negates delay/laches/acquiescence defenses; protects public from confusion despite plaintiffs' 3-year delay post-notice. Infringement via statutory rights under s.28 TMM Act 1958 | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1752560/ | ||||||||||||||
75 | 73 | S.M. Dyechem Ltd. vs. Cadbury India Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 573. | S.M. Dyechem Ltd. | Cadbury India Ltd. | PIKNIK label (App. No. 505532 in Class 30, registered 29.7.1994, user since Jan 1989); PICNIC by defendant for chocolates. | Supreme Court of India, Gujarat High Court, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (trial) | Food products: preserved fruits/vegetables, potato chips/wafers, confectionery, chocolates (Classes 29 & 30). | - Plaintiff sued for permanent injunction alleging defendant's use of 'PICNIC' on chocolates infringed its registered 'PIKNIK' trademark (Class 30) and amounted to passing off, seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC. | -Jan 1989: Plaintiff adopts/uses PIKNIK. -17 Feb 1989: Plaintiff applies for registration (505532). -29 Jul 1994: Registration granted. -16 Mar 1998: Plaintiff cease-and-desist notice. -18 Feb 1999: Suit filed. -19 Mar 1999: Defendant files rectification. -9 May 2000: Supreme Court judgment. | - Supreme Court dismissed appeal, upheld High Court vacating trial court's temporary injunction; directed defendant to maintain accounts and give damages undertaking if suit succeeds. | - Dissimilarities in essential features (script, curve, boy caricature absent in defendant's mark; Cadbury name present) outweigh phonetic similarity; no deception/confusion on first impression. Validity issues deferred to rectification; relative strength favors defendant. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1132403/ | ||||||||||||||
76 | 74 | T.V. Venugopal vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 85. | .V. Venugopal (Ashika Incense Incorporated) | Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and Anr. (Eenadu group) | Eenadu' (artistic label; App. No. 619177 dated 10.02.1994) | Supreme Court of India, Andhra Pradesh High Court, City Civil Court Hyderabad | Incense Sticks/ Agarbathi | - Respondent sued for injunction alleging appellant's use of 'Eenadu' mark/label on agarbathis infringed its copyright and constituted passing off by trading on its newspaper/TV reputation/goodwill, despite dissimilar businesses; sought permanent injunction. | -1988: Appellant starts business. -1993: Appellant adopts 'Ashika's Eenadu'. -10 Feb 1994: TM application 619177. -8 Mar 1995: Cease-desist notice/reply. -1999: Suit filed (OS 555/1999). -24 Nov 1999: Ex-parte injunction. -3 Mar 2011: Supreme Court judgment. | -Supreme Court upheld injunction barring appellant from using 'Eenadu' in Andhra Pradesh; appellant permitted modified carton with 'Ashika Eenadu Agarbathi' distinguishing script. | -'Eenadu' (descriptive/generic: "today"/"this land") acquired secondary meaning/reputation in AP for respondent's media; appellant's use passes off via source confusion despite unrelated goods. Dishonest adoption/script similarity; protects goodwill/public | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/858492/ | ||||||||||||||
77 | 75 | Montari Overseas Ltd. vs. Montari Industries Ltd., ILR (1997) Delhi 64. | Montari Overseas Ltd. | Montari Industries Ltd. | Delhi High Court | Chemicals, agro-chemicals, paints, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, leather, tea, coffee, clothing, carpets, inks, food articles (plaintiff); worsted yarn, blends, acrylic, hosiery (defendant). | - Plaintiff sued for permanent injunction alleging defendant's corporate name 'Montari Overseas Ltd.' passed off its business as connected to plaintiff's established 'Montari' group, causing confusion/deception despite different goods. | -27 Jan 1983: Plaintiff incorporated. -21 Apr 1993: Defendant incorporated. -10 Jan 1995: Defendant public issue opens. -4 Jan 1995: Suit filed (Suit 43/95). -1 Mar 1995: Single Judge injunction. -7 Dec 1995: Division Bench order. | -Division Bench dismissed appeal, upheld injunction restraining defendant from using 'MONTARI' or similar in corporate name. | -Coined word 'MONTARI' (from founders' names) acquired reputation/goodwill; defendant's similar name misleads public on association despite different fields. Common law passing off applies alongside Companies Act ss.20/2 | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/870048/ | |||||||||||||||
78 | 76 | Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates, 2003 (26) PTC 214 (Bom) | Pidilite Industries Ltd. | S.M. Associates | M-SEAL (Reg. No. 282168, Class 1, since 16.08.1972, disclaimer on "SEAL"). | Bombay High Court | Epoxy resin compositions/sealants/adhesives for cementing cracks/holes/leaks in metal. | -Plaintiff sued to restrain defendants from infringing copyright in artistic label work, registered TM M-SEAL, and passing off via deceptively similar S M-SEAL mark/packaging on inferior epoxy goods. | -1968: TM first use by predecessor. -16.08.1972: TM registration. -01.04.1998: Defendant No.1 incorporated. -17.11.1998: Cease-desist notice. -Oct 2001: Plaintiff learns of infringement. -05.11.2001: Suit filed. -10.02.2003: Order on NM 2830/2001 | -Notice of motion absolute; defendants restrained from using infringing mark/packaging (front/top faces); ad-interim order confirmed, costs Rs.10,000 to plaintiff. | - Substantial similarity in label (colors/layout) = copyright infringement; S M-SEAL deceptively similar to M-SEAL despite disclaimer (consider whole mark); no series/acquiescence (no extensive use proof). | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fb35e4b0149711149335 | ||||||||||||||
79 | 77 | Suresh Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Anr., LPA 676/2010 | Suresh Kumar Jain | Union of India and M/s Jain Doors Private Ltd. (JDPL) | “Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)” in Class 19 (doors, windows, and frames). | Delhi High Court | Building materials industry; specifically wood-based engineered materials (Laminated Veneer Lumber used for doors and window frames). | - Appeal against the Single Judge’s order affirming the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision that canceled the trademark registration of “Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)” on grounds of false statement and lack of distinctiveness under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. | -Application for registration filed: 27 October 1997 -Registration certificate issued: 16 August 2004 -IPAB rectification order: 16 November 2006 -Writ Petition (No. 72/2007) dismissed: 5 March 2010 -Appeal decision: 2 January 2012 | - Appeal dismissed; IPAB and Single Judge’s orders upheld. Trademark registration declared to have been obtained by false statement and fraud due to lack of proof of use since 1995. | -Court reiterated limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 for factual reevaluation. -Trademark held descriptive and unfit for registration absent secondary meaning. | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090ebde4b014971117cf8e | ||||||||||||||
80 | 78 | Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani & Ors., CS (COMM) 919/2016 & CC (COMM) 122/2017 | Burger King Corporation | Techchand Shewakramani & other individual defendants Burger King Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Hungry Jacks Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. Ras Resorts and Apart Hotels Pvt. Ltd. | “BURGER KING” and “HUNGRY JACK’S” (word/mark and as part of corporate names) | Delhi High Court | Fast-food restaurant and hospitality services, including burger restaurants and related franchising operations. | -It is a quia timet trademark infringement and passing off suit, where Burger King Corporation seeks a permanent injunction and damages on the basis that the defendants’ use and promotion of the marks “Burger King” and “Hungry Jack’s” (including via the domain theburgerking.in and franchise solicitations) threaten imminent infringing use in Delhi, and the defendants in turn challenge the plaint on grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of territorial jurisdiction. | -30 July 2014: Article “BURGER KING RESTAURANTS PLANS EXPANSION IN INDIA” referencing expansion plans of Defendant 3. -9 July 2014 / 7 September 2014: Creation/registration of domain name “theburgerking.in” in name of Defendant 3. -2014 (CS(OS) 2429/2014): Earlier related suit referred to in pleadings and counter-claim. -22 September 2016: Suit treated as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act. -30 July 2018: Matter reserved for judgment. -27 August 2018: Judgment delivered in CS (COMM) 919/2016 & CC (COMM) 122/2017. | -The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC (in addition to the possible application of Section 134 TM Act) because the defendants’ promotional activities, franchise solicitations, and online presence amounted to “use” of the mark in relation to Delhi. -Applications for rejection/return of plaint (I.A. 17221/2015, I.A. 17220/2015, I.A. 23496/2014, I.A. 17721/2015) were dismissed, and the suit and counterclaim were directed to proceed to trial before the Delhi High Court. | -The judgment expansively interprets “use” of a trademark to include advertising, promotion, online franchising invitations, and other non-sale acts, and treats such use as sufficient to confer jurisdiction where the impact or targeting is in that forum. -The court also strongly criticises indiscriminate denial of documents in commercial suits, directing fair admission/denial under the Commercial Courts Act to avoid unnecessary delay in IP litigation. | https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2018/09/Burger-King-v.-Techchand-Shewakramani-TM.pdf | ||||||||||||||
81 | 79 | Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., 2025 DHC 4243-DB, FAO(OS) (COMM) 174/2024 | Under Armour Inc. | Anish Agarwal & Anr. | Appellant's registered word mark "UNDER ARMOUR" in Class 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear); respondents' impugned marks "AERO ARMOUR" and "AERO ARMR". | Delhi High Court | Apparel and footwear manufacturing (sportswear, casual clothing in Class 25) | -Intra-court appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against the Single Judge's refusal of interim injunction in a suit for trademark infringement under Section 29 TM Act, passing off, and copyright infringement, alleging the respondents' marks "AERO ARMOUR" and "AERO ARMR" are deceptively similar to appellant's "UNDER ARMOUR". | -Single Judge order (refusing injunction): 29 May 2024. -Appeal filed: FAO(OS) (COMM) 174/2024. -Division Bench judgment: 23 May 2025. | - Appeal allowed; Single Judge order set aside; respondents restrained from using "AERO ARMOUR", "AERO ARMR", or deceptively similar marks to "UNDER ARMOUR" till suit disposal. | -Court held momentary "initial interest confusion" suffices for infringement under Section 29 TM Act; rejected anti-dissection to isolate "ARMOUR" as dominant part. -Found prima facie dishonest adoption by respondents mimicking appellant's style and abbreviation "ARMR". | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68322448f0716d4b85f4d3bd | ||||||||||||||
82 | 80 | Shri Pankaj Goel v. M/s. Dabur India Ltd., FAO (OS) 82/2008 | Shri Pankaj Goel | M/s. Dabur India Ltd. | Respondent's mark: HAJMOLA (registered well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) TM Act, 1999; prior use since 1972). Appellant's mark: RASMOLA (registered vide certificate dated 3 July 1996; claimed use since 1989) | Delhi High Court | Pharmaceuticals - digestive tablets (ayurvedic/herbal confectionery for digestion). | - Appeal against ex-parte interim injunction order dated 20 December 2007 restraining appellant from using mark RASMOLA (particularly suffix MOLA) for digestive tablets, on grounds of deceptive similarity, confusion with respondent's well-known prior mark HAJMOLA, and passing off despite appellant's registration. | -Respondent's HAJMOLA use begins: 1972. -Appellant's claimed RASMOLA adoption: 1989. -RASMOLA registration certificate: 3 July 1996. -Ex-parte injunction order: 20 December 2007. -Appeal decision: 4 July 2008. | - Appeal dismissed; ex-parte injunction upheld; Single Judge directed to expeditiously dispose of suit within six months. | -Held registration no bar to passing off under Section 27(2) TM Act; suffix MOLA not proven common-to-trade with substantial use by others. -Delay/acquiescence rejected as appellant's sales insignificant till 2004; dishonest adoption prima facie found | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48216667/ | ||||||||||||||
83 | 81 | Micolube India Ltd. v. Maggon Auto Centre and Anr., 2008 (36) PTC 231 Del, MIPR 2008 (1) 294 | Micolube India Ltd. | Maggon Auto Centre (D-1, dealer) and Motor Industries Company Ltd. (D-2, MICO). | Plaintiff's: MICO (Reg. Nos. 433800 and 433801 in Class 4, as of 12 February 1985). Defendant No. 2's: MICO (Reg. No. 1259864 in Class 4, applied 6 January 2004, allowed 17 October 2005). | Delhi High Court | Petroleum products - lubricants, oils, greases for automotive vehicles (Class 4). | - Plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim injunction against defendants' use of mark MICO for lubricants (alleging infringement and passing off as prior user since 1960), opposed by D-2 via IA under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of ex-parte order dated 9 October 2007. | -Plaintiff's claimed MICO use: Since 1960; registrations: 12 February 1985. -D-2's MICO application: 6 January 2004; allowed: 17 October 2005. -Ex-parte injunction: 9 October 2007. -Judgment: 7 February 2008 | - Plaintiff's IA dismissed; D-2's IA allowed; ex-parte injunction vacated due to suppression of D-2's registration and failure to prove passing off elements (no misrepresentation or damage). | 0 Court held registration bars infringement claim between co-owners (Section 28(3) TM Act); passing off requires evidence of consumer deception/misrepresentation, absent here. -Plaintiff disentitled to equity for suppressing D-2's prior Class 4 registration and arraying dealer as D-1 to conceal main defendant. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/562453/ | ||||||||||||||
84 | 82 | Jolen Inc., Rep. by Its Constituted Attorney v. Mr. Shobanlal Jain, Hindustan Rimmer & Ors., 2005 (30) PTC 385 (Mad), (2004) 3 MLJ 176 | Jolen Inc. | Mr. Shobanlal Jain (trading as Hindustan Rimmer), Jolen International Private Limited (marketing arm). | Plaintiff's: JOLEN application No. 522509; Defendants': JOLEN Reg. No. 434499, No. 555920, Copyright in JOLEN carton (first publication 1987) | Madras High Court | Cosmetics - crme bleach for hair lightening/decolouring (Class 3). | - Appeal against Single Judge order vacating interim injunction and revoking leave in suit for copyright infringement (artistic work in JOLEN carton/script) and passing off via trans-border reputation, alleging defendants' slavish imitation of plaintiff's JOLEN mark/get-up since ~1985 deceives consumers into believing defendants' inferior bleach is plaintiff's product sold in India. | -Plaintiff's JOLEN use/advertising: Since 1955 (US), ads from 1967. -Defendants' claimed adoption: 1985; licence to Cosmo International: 15 May 1987; Reg. No. 434499: 15 November 1991. -Plaintiff's TM application: 9 January 1990 (refused 11 March 1999). -Interim injunction granted: 19 June 2000; vacated: 14 August 2000. -Appeal judgment: 30 April 2004. | - Appeals allowed; Single Judge order set aside; interim injunction restored with condition that plaintiff buy defendants' unsold JOLEN stock at cost post 10-week suspension; leave to sue upheld. | -Held trans-border reputation proved via international ads in India-circulated magazines, prior user (1967+), no need for official imports; slavish copy of get-up/mark causes consumer deception. -Delay/laches rejected (no acquiescence); registration no bar to passing off; unclean hands minor issue outweighed by prima facie case and public interest. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174619/ | ||||||||||||||
85 | 83 | Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Shailesh Gupta and Anr., 98 (2002) DLT 499 | Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (operators of job portal Naukri.com) | Shailesh Gupta and Anr. (operators of jobsourceindia.com using naukri.com hyperlink) | Delhi High Court | Internet services - online job search/employment portal (domain name as trademark equivalent). | - Suit for permanent injunction, accounts, and damages alleging passing off of defendants' job portal services as plaintiffs' via identical/deceptively similar domain name "NAUKRI.COM" (used as hyperlink diverting traffic to defendants' jobsourceindia.com), despite plaintiffs' prior adoption and established reputation since 1997. | -Plaintiffs' NAUKRI.COM adoption: 27 March 1997. -Defendants' domain registrations (jobsourceindia.com & naukri.com): 1999. -Suit and injunction application filed: Early 2002. -Judgment: 5 March 2002. | -Temporary injunction granted restraining defendants from using "NAUKRI.COM" or deceptively similar marks/hyperlinks to jobsourceindia.com till suit disposal; prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury found in plaintiffs' favour. | -Held domain names entitled to trademark protection akin to Yahoo!India case; descriptive/generic "NAUKRI" acquires secondary meaning via prior use/reputation; defendants' traffic diversion via misspelling/hyperlinking proves bad faith. -Rejected "discerning internet users" defence; strict vigil needed for global internet access causing inevitable confusion/deception between competing job portals. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1162252/ | |||||||||||||||
86 | 84 | Kamat Hotels India Limited v. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Anr., Notice of Motion No. 2552 of 2008 in Suit No. 2224 of 2008 | Hotels India Limited | Royal Orchid Hotels Limited | -Plaintiff's "THE ORCHID" (with flower device): Registered in Classes 16, 29-33 (30 May 1997); Class 42 (hotels/restaurants, applied 19 May 2004, granted 17 September 2007). -Defendants': "ROYAL ORCHID", "ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS" (Class 16 applied March 2004; Class 42 applied 22 June 2004, rejected 29 June 2009). | Bombay High Court | Hospitality services - hotels, restaurants, catering (Class 42) | - Notice of motion for interim injunction in suit for trademark infringement (under TM Act 1999) and passing off, alleging defendants' use of "ROYAL ORCHID" (with flower device) since ~1999/2001 infringes plaintiff's prior registered/used mark "THE ORCHID" (essential feature "ORCHID") for identical services, causing confusion/deception. | -Plaintiff's ORCHID adoption/use: January 1997 (pre-marketing); registrations: 30 May 1997 (Classes 16/29-33), 19 May 2004/17 Sep 2007 (Class 42). -Defendants' name change to Royal Orchid Hotels: 10 April 1997; claimed use: 3 November 1999 (Class 42 app.); hotel operations: 2001. -Suit filed: 2008; Motion: 2008. -Judgment: 5 April 2011. | - Motion made absolute in terms of prayer (a); injunction granted restraining new infringement (new hotels/business post-judgment); existing operations protected with accounts; no Section 34 prior use defence established (no continuous pre-1997 use proved). | -Held "ORCHID" essential/distinctive feature (anti-dissection test); defendants' prior use defence fails sans cogent proof of continuous hotel services pre-plaintiff's 1997 use/sales >Rs.544 Cr by 2008. -No acquiescence (prompt opposition post-knowledge 2004/2006); balance of convenience moulded for defendants' entrenched business vs. plaintiff's prima facie rights. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75066/ | ||||||||||||||
87 | 85 | Lupin Ltd vs Johnson And Johnson, AIR 2015 BOMBAY 50 | Lupin Ltd. | Johnson & Johnson | Lupin's LUCYNTA J&J's NUCYNTA | Bombay High Court | Pharmaceuticals - medicinal preparations (Class 5, e.g., TAPENTADOL drug). | -Reference on whether civil court can prima facie consider validity of plaintiff's registered trademark registration at interlocutory injunction stage in infringement suit when defendant pleads invalidity/fraud, or must presume validity till rectification by IPAB/Registrar under Sections 28/31/124 TM Act 1999. | -Lupin LUCYNTA application: 20 August 2010; registered: 9 March 2012. -J&J NUCYNTA India application: 2 September 2011. -J&J Delhi suit (passing off): 4 July 2012. -Lupin Bombay infringement suit/NM: 2012; reference ordered: 13 August 2012. -Judgment: 23 December 2014 | -Held that court can prima facie examine trademark registration validity at interlocutory stage (rebutting Sections 28/31 presumption) if ex facie fraudulent/illegal/shocking conscience, despite heavy burden on defendant; no bar under Sections 124/125 till IPAB rectification. | -Registration prima facie valid (rebuttable); court weighs equity/public interest (e.g., pharma deception); no automatic injunction despite registration if blatant invalidity shown (distinguishing prior Bombay/Delhi views). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19267666/ | ||||||||||||||
88 | 86 | Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Mr. Manoj Khurana & Ors., CS(OS) No. 1668/2013 | Louis Vuitton Malletier | Mr. Manoj Khurana & Ors. | "Louis Vuitton" word/LV logo/Toile Monogram/Damier pattern: Reg. Nos. 441451, 448229B, 441452B, 448230B, 448231, 441453B, 448233B, 448235, 448234, 861145 (Classes 3, 14, 18, 25). | Delhi High Court | Luxury goods - wallets, handbags, purses, belts (Classes 3, 14, 18, 25) | -Suit for permanent injunction against trademark infringement, copyright infringement (artistic works), passing off, dilution, damages, and delivery-up, alleging defendants manufactured/sold counterfeit products bearing plaintiff's registered "Louis Vuitton"/LV logo/Toile Monogram/Damier pattern (discovered April 2013 via investigator). | -Plaintiff's marks first use: 1854 ("Louis Vuitton"); 1890 (LV logo); 1896/1905 (Toile Monogram). -Ex-parte ad-interim injunction: 30 August 2013. -Defendants' WS: 13 May 2014; replication: 29 January 2015. -Local commission (165 counterfeits seized): 3 September 2013. -Decree: 20 August 2015. | - Permanent injunction decreed restraining defendants from manufacturing/selling/advertising counterfeit LV marks/products; costs Rs.50,000 awarded; damages/other reliefs foregone. | -Held LV marks well-known (declared prior orders); exclusive boutiques only authorized sellers; adverse inference from non-exclusive sales; reaffirmed prior injunction post-defendants' affirmation. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93245471/ | ||||||||||||||
89 | 87 | Bata India Limited vs. Vitaflex Mauch GmbH, CS(OS) No. 1112/2006 | Bata India Limited | Vitaflex Mauch GmbH | Delhi High Court | Footwear insoles with reflex/pressure points. | -Bata sued Vitaflex under ss.142 TM Act & 106 Patents Act for declaration/injunction/damages against groundless threats in legal notice dt.03.04.2006 alleging Bata's 6-point insole shoes infringe Vitaflex's pending TM/patent on 5-point insole design | -03 Apr 2006 – Defendant's threat notice. -18 Apr 2006 – Plaintiff's reply. -2006 – Suit filed. -27 Apr 2010 – Defendant ex parte. -24 Aug 2015 – Judgment. | -Suit decreed ex parte; threats declared groundless; defendant restrained from further threats re TM/patent on 5-points. | -No suit lies for unregistered TM infringement; patent threats invalid sans granted patent, only application. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67493713/ | |||||||||||||||
90 | 88 | Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, Civil Appeal No. 1051 of 1967 | Parle Products (P) Ltd. | J.P. & Co., Mysore | "GLUCO" word mark + distinctive buff-coloured wrapper (farm-yard scene): Reg. No. 9184, registered 7 December 1942 (Trade Marks Act 1940). | Trial Court (dismissed suit). Mysore High Court (affirmed dismissal). Supreme Court of India (G.K. Mitter, C.A. Vaidialingam, I.D. Dua JJ). | Food products - biscuits/confectionery (half-pound packets). | -Suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of registered trademarks ("GLUCO" + wrapper No. 9184) under Trade Marks Act 1940/Sections 21/28-29 TM Act 1958, claiming defendant's wrapper deceptively similar in colour scheme/farm-yard design/"Glucose Biscuits" wording (discovered March 1961). | -Registration: 7 December 1942 (No. 9184). -Defendants' infringement discovered: March 1961. -Suit filed post-lawyer's notice. -SC appeal decision: 28 January 1972. | -Appeal allowed; suit decreed with permanent injunction restraining defendants from using similar wrappers; costs to plaintiffs throughout. | -Held defendant's wrapper deceptively similar (overall essential features: size/colour/girl-animals-farmhouse/"Gluco" wording; average buyer imperfect recollection test); statutory infringement ≠ passing off (no actual deception proof needed). Overturned concurrent findings for legal error. | https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab89e4b014971140caf9 | ||||||||||||||
91 | 89 | Hiralal Parbhudas v. Ganesh Trading Company & Ors., AIR 1984 Bombay 218. | Hiralal Parbhudas | Ganesh Trading Company & Ors. | Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks (rejected rectification). Bombay High Court Single Judge (dismissed petition). Bombay High Court Division Bench (Lentin J). | Tobacco products - bidis. | - Appeal against single Judge dismissal of petition to set aside Deputy Registrar's rejection of rectification application under Section 56 TM Act 1958, alleging respondents' label (bust + "HIMATLAL"/"Vallabhdas alias Himatlal" in Devnagri) deceptively similar to appellants' prior registered labels, likely to deceive/confuse (application filed 11 Jan 1973). | -Appellants' registrations: Apr 1943, May/Aug 1950, Sep 1956. -Respondents' application/registration: 7 Jan/29 Jan 1970 (Gujarat-restricted). -Amendment application: 7 Oct 1970. -Rectification application: 11 Jan 1973. -Division Bench judgment: 6 Dec 1983. | - Appeal allowed; rectification granted; respondents' registration ordered removed (labels deceptively similar); costs to appellants throughout. | -Held overall similarity in layout/bust/name phonetics ("HIRALAL"/"HIMATLAL") deceives average purchaser with imperfect recollection; actual confusion evidence + dishonest adoption bars Section 12(3) honest concurrent user; no Deputy Registrar discretion where marks deceptively similar. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/781364/ | |||||||||||||||
92 | 90 | Pioneer Nuts & Bolts Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Goodwill Enterprises, FAO(OS) No. 334/2008 | Pioneer Nuts & Bolts Pvt. Ltd. | M/s Goodwill Enterprises | Plaintiff's marks: "TUFF" Reg. No. 791109 (Class 6, effective 11 Feb 1998); "TUFF LABEL" Reg. No. 1073841 (Class 6, effective 15 Jan 2002); Copyright A-74315/2005. Defendant's applications: 1301515, 942787, 1302920, 1307257, 1365632 (pending, inconsistent user claims 1991-2005). | Delhi High Court | Fasteners - nuts, bolts, screws, studs, self-tapping screws (Class 6). | - Appeal against single Judge refusal of ad-interim injunction in suit for trademark infringement/passing off/copyright violation, alleging defendant's identical/deceptively similar "TUFF LABEL"/"TUFF & TUFF" marks (noticed via TM Journal ads) infringe plaintiff's prior registered/used marks since 1996. | -Plaintiff adoption/use: 1 Jun 1996; "TUFF" registration: 14 May 2004 (eff. 11 Feb 1998). -"TUFF LABEL" registration: 19 Sep 2005 (eff. 15 Jan 2002). -Defendant claimed use: 1991 (disputed); applications: 2000-2005. -Ex-parte injunction: 22 Jan 2007; single Judge vacates: 25 Apr 2008. -Division Bench: 11 Sep 2009. | -Appeal allowed; absolute injunction granted restraining defendant from using "TUFF"/"TUFF LABEL" pending suit; costs Rs.30,000 to plaintiff. | -Defendant failed to prove continuous prior use under Section 34 TM Act (mere ads/telegraphic address/trade enquiries 1993-95 insufficient; inconsistent claims); plaintiff's 1996 invoices establish prima facie prior use; balance of convenience favors registered proprietor. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57269371/ | ||||||||||||||
93 | 91 | MS Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd., CS(OS) No. 2589/2013 | MS Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. | Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. | Plaintiff's "OFFICERS CHOICE" ;Defendant's "COLLECTORS CHOICE" | Delhi High Court | Alcoholic beverages - IMFL whisky (Class 33). | -Suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement/passing off of plaintiff's registered/used "OFFICERS CHOICE" TM (since 1988), alleging defendant's "COLLECTORS CHOICE" (noticed Nov 2013) deceptively similar conceptually (Officer/Collector association), phonetically/visually, likely to confuse/deceive. | -Plaintiff adoption: 1988 (predecessor); proprietorship: 23 Feb 2007. -Defendant application: 23 Jun 2011 (proposed to be used). -Plaintiff awareness: Nov 2013. -Ex-parte injunction: 19 Dec 2013. -Judgment: 1 Jul 2014 | -IA allowed; ex-parte injunction made absolute pending suit, restraining defendant from using "COLLECTORS CHOICE" or similar marks/passing off. | -Held conceptual similarity (Officer/Collector as officials) + "CHOICE" suffix causes confusion in imperfect memory/recall (research on associative thinking); price/packaging differences irrelevant for tipplers; disclaimer doesn't bar composite mark protection. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4497594/ | ||||||||||||||
94 | 92 | ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries Ltd., CS(COMM) No. 1128/2016 | ITC Ltd. | Britannia Industries Ltd. | Delhi High Court | Food products - digestive biscuits (high-fibre, zero sugar/maida variants). | - Suit for injunction against passing off, trade dress imitation, copyright infringement, dilution of Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive-All Good packaging (launched Feb 2016), alleging defendant's Nutri Choice Digestive Zero (launched Jul 2016) uses deceptively similar yellow-blue scheme/layout causing confusion/deception. | -ITC launch: Feb 2016 (sales Rs.5 Cr till Jul, marketing Rs.14 Cr). -Britannia variants: Oct 2014 (Hi-Fibre/5 Grain); -ASCI complaint by Britannia: pre-Jul 2016 (rejected 12 Jul 2016). -Suit/IA filed: 2016; judgment: 6 Sep 2016. | -IA allowed; interim injunction restraining defendant from impugned packaging pending suit (4 weeks to phase out stock, maintain accounts); defendant permitted alternative international packaging or non-blue variant. | - Held trade dress (yellow-blue split, biscuit depiction, no sugar/maida claims) distinctive/reputable (growing sales); deceptively similar overall (initial interest confusion for health-conscious buyers); balance favors plaintiff (irreparable harm vs. minimal defendant loss). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13049170/ | |||||||||||||||
95 | 93 | Bajaj Electricals Limited v. Metals & Allied Products and Anr., AIR 1988 Bom 167 | Bajaj Electricals Limited | Metals & Allied Products | Plaintiff’s registered word and device mark “BAJAJ” with “eye” device in Classes 7, 9 and 11 | Bombay High Court | Consumer products – kitchen and domestic appliances and utensils: electrical appliances (stoves, heaters, mixers, grinders, pressure cookers, immersion heaters, geysers, etc.) and stainless steel kitchen/tableware. | - Appeal in a passing off action where the plaintiff, a well-known electrical and kitchen appliance manufacturer using the mark “Bajaj” since 1961, sought to restrain defendants from using the identical mark “Bajaj” on kitchen utensils and wares, alleging dishonest adoption to trade on plaintiff’s reputation, likelihood of deception/confusion due to identity of mark, overlapping goods, same shops, and same class of purchasers. | -1938: Plaintiff incorporated as Radio Lamp Works Ltd. -1960: Name changed to Bajaj Electricals Limited; turnover Rs. 23,257,000. -16 Apr 1964: First “Bajaj” (with eye device) registration in Class 11. -1973 & 1975: Further registrations in Classes 7 and 11. -1961–1965: Use of “Bajaj” and “Bajaj with eye” on products; extensive advertising thereafter. -1 Feb 1977: Defendants’ first application for “Bajaj” in Class 21 (claimed use since ~late 1976), later treated abandoned (29 May 1986). -7 Nov 1984: Defendants’ second application for “Bajaj” in Class 21 (user claimed since 1976). -Mid‑Jan 1987: Plaintiff first notices defendants’ “Bajaj” branded utensils and brochure. -6 Feb 1987: Plaintiff’s cease-and-desist notice; no reply. -19 Feb 1987: Suit filed; Notice of Motion; ad‑interim injunction granted 24 Feb 1987. -7 Apr 1987: Single Judge refuses interim injunction (with conditions re brochure/cartons). -4 Aug 1987: Division Bench allows appeal; grants injunction. - 13 Aug 1987: Court allows 6 months to dispose existing stock bearing “Bajaj”, with restrictions. | - Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order and granted an interim injunction restraining defendants from using “Bajaj” or any deceptively similar mark on domestic appliances, kitchen utensils and wares (especially brochure Ex. G products), as such use would amount to passing off on plaintiff’s reputation; six months allowed only to clear existing stock, without licence to produce new goods with the mark | -Court held defendants’ use of “Bajaj” was dishonest and intended to ride on the strong secondary meaning/reputation of plaintiff’s mark; defendants could not justify using their surname as a trade mark (as opposed to a trading style), especially where evidence (brochure claims, suspicious invoices, lack of credible prior-use proof) showed intent to deceive and likely confusion among ordinary kitchenware purchasers despite class (11 vs 21) differences | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1376761/ | ||||||||||||||
96 | 94 | Procter & Gamble Manufacturing v. Anchor Health | Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. | Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. | ALLROUND (regd. 26.08.2008 | Delhi High Court | FMCG (dental care: toothpaste). | - Anchor sued P&G entities for infringement of registered ALLROUND mark (used as ALLROUND PROTECTION since 2005) and passing off, alleging P&G's ORAL-B ALL-AROUND PROTECTION/ALLROUNDER (launched Jul 2013) imitated tagline/slogan, riding on goodwill. | -2004-2005: Anchor commences ALLROUND use. -02.09.2005: ALLROUND application. -26.08.2008: Registration granted. -Jul 2013: P&G launches impugned marks. -20.07.2013: Suit filed. -09.05.2014: Single Judge injunction. -30.05.2014: Division Bench upholds. | - Appeal dismissed; injunction affirmed restraining ALL-AROUND PROTECTION/ALLROUNDER use pending suit. Tagline use protected as TM. | - ALLROUND PROTECTION distinctive slogan/tagline (not generic/descriptive); P&G estopped (applied for similar marks). Prior use/reputation prima facie established | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14542478/ | ||||||||||||||
97 | 95 | The Gillette Company LLC v. Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 153/2017 | The Gillette Company LLC | Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd., Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. | WILKINSON SWORD LEMON SPLASH (Class 8 regd. 16.06.1962; Class 3: 11.07.1996; Class 21: 07.02.1997). | Delhi High Court | Consumer goods (safety razor blades). | - Gillette sued Tigaksha/Supermax for trademark infringement u/s 29 TM Act and passing off, alleging defendants' TALVAR with sword device (launched Jun 2016) deceptively similar to plaintiff's WILKINSON SWORD (tagline "TALVAR KI DHAAR"), causing confusion on identical goods. | -16.06.1962: First TM registration (Class 8). -Jun 2016: Defendants launch ZORRIK TALVAR. -16.06.2016: Defendants apply for TALVAR. -Dec 2016: Plaintiff discovers infringement. -27.02.2017: Ex-parte injunction. -09.07.2018: Injunction made absolute. | - Ex-parte injunction absolute; defendants restrained from using TALVAR/sword pending suit. Defendants to file damages affidavit; balance of convenience favors plaintiff. | - TALVAR (Hindi for SWORD) conceptually identical; consumer association via semantic similarity/idea conveyed overrides visual differences. No delay bar; prior use/reputation established | Gillette Company Llc v. Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd. | Delhi High Court | Judgment | Law | CaseMine | ||||||||||||||
98 | 96 | Raj Kumar Prasad & Anr. v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., FAO(OS) 281/2014 | Raj Kumar Prasad and Anr | Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. | ANAFORTAN: Serial No. 501608 (Class 5). AMAFORTEN: Registration No. 1830060 (Class 5). | Delhi High Court | Pharmaceuticals (Camylofin Dihydrochloride formulations) | - Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. sued Raj Kumar Prasad and Alicon Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' mark 'AMAFORTEN' and similar trade dress deceptively resembled Abbott's prior registered mark 'ANAFORTAN' used since 1988 for identical pharmaceutical products. | -1988: ANAFORTAN first used by Khandelwal Laboratories. -15 April 2008: Brand transfer to Nicholas Piramal. -17 June 2009: AMAFORTEN application filed. -12 July 2011: AMAFORTEN registered. -08 September 2010: Assigned to Abbott. -25 April 2014: Single Judge grants injunction. -10 September 2014: Division Bench dismisses appeal. | - Division Bench upheld interim injunction restraining defendants from using 'AMAFORTEN' or similar marks/packaging. Appeal dismissed with costs to Abbott. | - Court harmonized Sections 28(3) and 124 of Trademarks Act, 1999, allowing suits between registered proprietors with prima facie invalidity pleas and interlocutory relief. Relied on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India for balance of convenience favoring prior user Abbott. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48882388/ | ||||||||||||||
99 | 97 | Vardhman Buildtech Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Vardhman Properties Ltd., FAO(OS) 187/2016 & 188/2016 | Vardhman Buildtech Pvt Ltd & Ors., Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors. | Vardhman Properties Ltd. | VARDHMAN PLAZAS label mark (Class 37, building/construction services) | Delhi High Court | Real estate/construction (building, construction, repair services). | -Vardhman Properties sued Vardhman Buildtech/Realtech entities for infringement under Sections 17/28/29 Trademarks Act and passing off, alleging appellants' corporate names/logos with VARDHMAN (e.g., Vardhman Estates) violated respondent's registered VARDHMAN PLAZAS label mark since 1980. | -1980: Respondent commences business. -22.06.2006: VARDHMAN PLAZAS registered (Class 37). -2013-2014: Suits filed (CS(OS) 3378/2014, 1712/2013). -31.05.2016: Single Judge grants injunction. -10.06.2016: Vacation Bench stays order. -17.08.2016: Division Bench sets aside injunction. | - Division Bench set aside injunction; no exclusivity over VARDHMAN (non-distinctive, common per Section 17(2); part of label mark, unregistered separately). Prima facie observations only. | - Registration confers rights to whole mark (Section 17(1)); no part exclusivity without separate registration (VARDHMAN publici juris, Lord Mahavir name; 300+ companies use). Section 29(9) inapplicable absent distinctive elements. | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99657971/ | ||||||||||||||
100 | 98 | Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., Notice of Motion No. 2269 of 2012 in Suit No. 2012 of 2012 | Whirlpool of India Ltd. | Videocon Industries Ltd. | Design registrations: 223833 and 223835 | Bombay High Court | Home appliances (semi-automatic washing machines). | - Whirlpool sued Videocon for infringement of registered designs 223833/223835 and passing off, alleging Videocon's "Pebble" washing machine slavishly copied plaintiff's novel shape/configuration (circular wash area, rectangular dryer, right-aligned panel, two-tone color) introduced in 2010. | -30/31.12.2009: Designs registered (effective 15.07.2009). -Sep 2010: Plaintiff launches machines. -Jun 2012: Plaintiff discovers Videocon Pebble. -25.07.2012: Ad-interim injunction granted. -02.11.2012: Supreme Court defers SLP. -28.11.2013: Judgment reserved. -27.05.2014: Motion allowed. | -Court granted interim injunction restraining Videocon from manufacturing/selling infringing machines; prima facie infringement (obvious imitation) and passing off established. | - Suit maintainable vs. registered proprietor (Section 22 "any person" includes; prior registration defense under 22(3)/19). Designs novel (not functional/prior art); eye test shows slavish copy despite minor changes. Passing off via shape goodwill (Rs.550 Cr sales). | https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188051985/ |