C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023
12 Mar 2025The plaintiff, VGN Projects Estates Private Limited, filed commercial suit no.205 of 2023 against the defendants, M/s. VGK Builders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s....
Search Results for "Trade Marks Registry"
141 result(s) found
Found 141 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit — Plaintiff's Registered Mark 'STREAX' Protected Against Deceptively Similar Mark 'STREAK Street' Used for Hair Products. The court found the defendants' adoption dishonest and the marks phonetically similar, warranting restraint pending trial.
5 Mar 2025The plaintiff, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, Chandan an...
- 665
High Court
Madras High Court Dismisses Transfer of Rectification Petitions Under Trade Marks Act; Statutory Rectification Jurisdiction Confined to High Court Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction over Appropriate Registry. Interpretation of Sections 47 and 57 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Rule 4 of Trade Mark Rules, 2017, Precludes Exercise of Jurisdiction by High Court Over Entries Made by Another Registry.
20 Feb 2025The petitioner, a company engaged in trade mark disputes, had filed a civil suit before the Madras High Court (Commercial Division) for infringement a...
- 20
High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds Temporary Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Case. Trial Court's Discretion Not Found Arbitrary or Perverse in Restraining Use of Deceptively Similar Mark 'Shriphal'.
9 Oct 2020The appeal arises from an order of the trial court granting a temporary injunction in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, M/s Mysore Deep Perfumery Hou...
- 19
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Temporary Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit — 'LIVE IN' Mark Found Deceptively Similar to 'LIVE-IN'. Phonetic and visual similarity between marks leads to injunction under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2 Mar 2016The Plaintiff, Federal Brands Ltd., filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. seeking a temporary injun...
- 87
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Suit Over 'Café Madras' Restaurant Name. The mark 'Café Madras' held to be inherently distinctive and entitled to protection against use by a subsequent restaurant of the same name.
11 Mar 2015The plaintiffs, the Kamath family, have been running a restaurant named 'Café Madras' in Matunga, Mumbai since 1938. The restaurant has acquired a re...
- 118
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against Defendant in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Case. Plaintiff's Registered Mark 'RISO' for Rice Bran Oil Protected Against Deceptively Similar Mark 'RISOLITE' Under Trade Marks Act, 1999.
9 May 2014The Plaintiff, Kamani Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Bhuwaneshwar Refineries Pvt. Ltd. seeking a perpetual injunction for trademark in...
- 95
High Court
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Trademark Infringement and Passing Off in 'MARINE' Mark Dispute. Plaintiff's registered trademarks for adhesives and sealants protected against defendant's use of identical mark for similar goods.
13 Jan 2014The plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, filed a suit against Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Limited alleging infringement of its registered tra...
- 119
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Trademark Infringement Case — Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad. The court found that the marks 'MERELANE' and 'MARICELL' are deceptively similar and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark 'MARICELL'.
21 Mar 2012The appellant, Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for infringement of its registered trademark 'MERELANE' and for passing off against the res...
- 80
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Refusal to Accept Opposition to Trademark Registration Due to Delay. Section 21 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 Prescribes Mandatory Limitation Period of Three Months Plus One Month Extension, and Registrar Has No Power to Entertain Opposition Filed Beyond That Period.
27 Apr 2006The petitioner, Sardar Gurudas Singh Bedi, trading as Volga Confectionary Works, sought to oppose the registration of the trademark 'Volga Ice Cream' ...
- 107
