Trade Marks Act, 1999

Mis RE manufactured electronic fan regulators under the brand "REIZ" since 1988, while its sister company Mis REPL, formed in 1993, manufactured electronic transformers using the same brand. Under Notification No. 1/93, a manufacturer using another's brand name is ineligible for small‑scale exemption. The Commissioner …

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…

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…

The appellant sought registration of the word "RAMAYAN" with a crown device for incense sticks, which the respondent opposed on the ground that the term is the title of a Hindu holy book. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the opposition, but the Intellectual Property Appellate Board set aside that order, prompting the …

The Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (respondent) had been using the mark ‘NANDINI’ for milk and milk products since 1985, while the restaurant chain M/s. Nandhini Deluxe (appellant) began using the mark ‘NANDHINI’ for its restaurants in 1989 and later applied for registration of the mark for various foo…

The plaintiff, M.S.S. Food Products, sued the appellants for passing off, seeking a declaration and injunction over the use of the mark "Manikchand". The trial court granted an interim ex parte injunction, later proceeded ex parte after the defendants failed to appear, closed their right to cross‑examine, heard only th…

The DAV College Managing Committee, holder of a registered trademark for "DAV" and "Dayanand Anglo Vedic", filed four suits in the Delhi District Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against several schools in Chennai that were using the same mark. The Chennai schools filed transfer petitions under Sect…

J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. applied for a patent which was opposed by Span Diagnostics Ltd. (respondent No.3). The opposition was initially a pre‑grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller rejected the pre‑grant opposition on 23‑Aug‑2006 and the respondent filed appeals (FAO Nos. 292/06 …

Canara Bank granted a loan to N.G. Subbaraya Setty, who signed an unregistered assignment deed transferring the trademark "Eenadu" to the bank as security. The bank later cancelled the deed, invoking the Banking Regulation Act, and both parties litigated in 2004 – the bank seeking to declare the deed void and the respo…

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. applied for registration of the mark “Blenders Pride” in India. Respondent No.4, a US‑based liquor company, opposed the application, claiming prior rights and seeking an extension of time to file its opposition. The Registrar issued a show‑cause notice under s.57(4) to delete the mark, but late…

Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc., a US company, holds a registered trademark "RENAISSANCE" for hotel‑related services and goods in Classes 16 and 42. The respondents operated hotels under the name "SAI RENAISSANCE" in Bangalore and Puttaparthi, prompting the plaintiff to seek a permanent injunction. The trial court gran…

Dabur India Ltd., the maker of "Dabur Red Tooth Powder", sued K.R. Industries for copyright infringement of its packaging and for passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the passing‑off claim, relying on the Dhodha House decision. Dabur appealed, a…

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese automobile manufacturer, sued M/s Prius Auto Industries and partners in Delhi High Court for infringement of its registered marks (Toyota, Toyota Innova, Toyota Device) and for passing off of the unregistered mark 'Prius'. The trial judge granted a permanent injunction agains…

Pernod Ricard India Private Ltd. and a related entity own the registered trademarks BLENDERS PRIDE, IMPERIAL BLUE and SEAGRAM'S for premium whiskies. They sought an interim injunction to stop Karanveer Singh Chhabra from using the mark LONDON PRIDE, alleging infringement and passing off. The Commercial Court and the Ma…

Asian Paints Ltd., a paint manufacturer, discovered that counterfeit paints bearing its brand were being sold by Ram Babu. The company, through a power of attorney, engaged an IPR consultancy to investigate and the investigation led to an FIR under the IPC and Copyright Act. The trial court convicted Ram Babu, but the …

Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. manufactured biscuits and sold them under the brand name “Meghraj” from 1991. The brand name was a registered trademark of Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd., which also used it for biscuits. The Central Excise Department held that the appellant was not eligible for the Small Scale Industry (SSI…

Parakh Vanijya Private Ltd, the registered owner of the label mark “MALABAR” for Biryani Rice in Class‑30, sued Baroma Agro Product for infringement and passing off, alleging that the respondent’s use of “BAROMA MALABAR GOLD” was identical or deceptively similar. The High Court, noting that the registration of “MALABAR…

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…

The petitioners filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement of the trademark ‘SRI ANGANNAN BIRIYANI HOTEL’. The respondents filed a Section 8 application invoking arbitration clauses in two assignment deeds of the trademark, alleging that the deeds were fraudulently executed. The Co…

The respondents, Nirma Chemicals Works Ltd., owned the registered trademarks "NIRMA" and "NIMA" for soaps, detergents and other consumer items. The appellants, Bhavnesh Mohanlal Amin and others, began using the mark "NIMA" for electric flour mills (Class 7) and were served notice to cease. The respondents filed a suit …

The appellant, Satyam Infoway Ltd., had registered several domain names containing the word ‘Sify’ in 1999 and built a substantial reputation as an internet services provider. The respondent, SiffyNet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., began using similar domain names with ‘Siffy’ in 2001‑2002 and the appellant sued for passing off,…

Neon Laboratories Ltd (appellant) sought to enforce its trademark ROFOL, for which it had applied in 1992 and obtained registration in 2001, but only began using the mark in 2004. Medical Technologies Ltd and its associate (respondents) had been using the similar mark PROFOL since 1998, having acquired goodwill in the …

The plaintiff, who had been operating a colour lab and studio under the trade name "Muktajivan Colour Lab and Studio" since at least 1995, sued the defendants for passing off after they intended to use the same name for a similar business. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and an ad‑interim injunction; the tr…

The appellant, Suresh Dhanuka, and respondent, Sunita Mahapatra, entered into a joint‑venture and a deed of assignment whereby the respondent assigned 50% of her rights in the trademark "Naturoma Herbal" to the appellant, with a covenant that the mark be marketed solely by the appellant and that neither party could use…

Dr. Aloys Wobben, holder of several wind‑turbine patents, sued Yogesh Mehra and others for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court. The respondents filed revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board under s.64(1) of the Patents Act and also raised counter‑claims in the infringement suits se…

The Supreme Court examined whether sections 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 allow a plaintiff to sue in a district court where it resides or carries on business even when the cause of action has also arisen at its principal place of business. The Court held that these provisions creat…