PATEL FIELD MARSHAL AGENCIES AND ANR.versusP.M. DIESELS LTD. AND ANR.
2017 INSC 115729 November 2017Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the trademark "Field Marshal" where the plaintiff sought injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement. The defendants challenged the validity of the plaintiff's trademark and filed rectification applications under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The key…
M/S. PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIESversusM/S. PRAGATHI RUBBER MILLS & ORS.
2013 INSC 79829 November 2013Dismissed
The plaintiff, Paragon Rubber Industries, filed a suit in the District Court of Kottayam seeking relief under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The defendants challenged the suit's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the 1958 Act. The trial cou…
LAKHA RAM SHARMAversusBALAR MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
2013 INSC 78927 November 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, who had been using the trademark KUNDAN for his cable business since 1980, filed an injunction suit against the respondent for using the same mark. While the suit was pending, the respondent obtained registration of the mark in 1995. The appellant then filed a rectification application under Sections 45,…
SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD.versusSURENDRA OIL & DAL MILLS (REFINERIES) & ORS.
2010 INSC 55227 August 2010Appeal(s) allowed
Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., the owner of the registered trade mark "Shalimar", sued Sureendra Oil & Dal Mills for infringement and sought a permanent injunction. The trial court admitted only xerox copies of the trade mark registration certificates as exhibits, marked them subject to objection, and dismissed the suit…
SATNAM OVERSEASversusSANT RAM & CO. & ANR.
2013 INSC 77622 November 2013Dismissed
Satnam Overseas applied to the Registrar of Trademarks for rectification of the registration of the mark “KOHINOOR” (class 30, rice) on the ground that the respondent, Sant Ram & Co., had not used the mark for more than five years. The Registrar limited the respondent’s use to a few cities in Uttar Pradesh, which was l…
UNITED BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITEDversusORCHID CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED AND ORS.
2018 INSC 3117 January 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court, hearing United Biotech Private Ltd's application, modified its earlier judgment dated 29 November 2017 concerning the interpretation of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The order substituted specific wording in paragraphs 13, 14 and 37 to correctly refer to the parties and the civil appeals…
CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS
2025 INSC 48315 April 2025Dismissed
The dispute arose when Inox India Ltd filed a trademark suit alleging that Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express infringed its proprietary engineering drawings and related literary works used in cryogenic semi‑trailers. LNG Express moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the drawings w…
KALI AERATED WATER WORKS, SALEMversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI
2015 INSC 40513 May 2015Disposed off
Kali Aerated Water Works, a small‑scale unit manufacturing aerated water under the brand "Kalimark", applied for exemption from excise duty under Notification 1/93‑CE (as amended). The Central Excise Department denied the exemption, contending that the brand name belonged to a third party, K.P.R. Shakthivel, and that t…
INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.versusJUPITER INFOSYS LTD. AND ANR.
2010 INSC 7629 November 2010Case Partly allowed
Infosys Technologies Ltd. owned the trademark "Infosys" in classes 7, 9 and 16. Jupiter Infosys Ltd., later renamed Jupiter International Ltd., filed applications under Sections 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 seeking removal/rectification of those marks on the ground of non‑use and other defects…