Case Name: M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs Karim’s Food
Court: Tis Hazari Commercial Court
Bench: District Judge Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra
The Court granted permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “KARIM’S FOOD,” finding it deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s historic trademarks “KARIM,” “KARIM’S,” and “KAREEM.” M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a century-old Mughlai restaurant chain, established prior use, extensive registrations, and strong goodwill. The defendant, who continued using the infringing mark despite notice and failed to appear in court, had its defence struck off.
The Court held that the visual and phonetic resemblance created clear likelihood of consumer confusion and noted the dishonest adoption of the mark. On unrebutted evidence of infringement and passing off, the Court issued a decree restraining further use, awarded Rs. 2 lakhs as punitive damages, and imposed costs on the defendant to protect brand integrity and deter future misuse.
Case Name: Lotus Herbals Private Limited vs Lotus Beauty Salon Private Limited
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendant salon from using the mark “Lotus Salon” or any deceptively similar name for beauty services. The Court held this to be a classic case of “triple identity”: identical mark, identical category of services, and overlapping consumer base, creating a strong presumption of confusion and passing off.
The plaintiff’s status as a prior user and registered proprietor, coupled with its recognised reputation in the beauty and personal care segment, entitled it to heightened protection. The Court noted the defendant’s continued use despite notice and its own trademark applications as indicative of dishonest adoption, and therefore found that balance of convenience and irreparable harm lay firmly in favour of Lotus Herbals.
Case Name: Mr Pavan Jambagi v. Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt Ltd
Court: Saket District Court, Delhi
Bench: District Judge Neelam Singh
The Court permanently restrained the Bengaluru-based defendants from using the mark “CARNATIC” for restaurant services and directed transfer of their domain name to the plaintiff. Relying on the plaintiff’s prior adoption, multiple registrations in Class 43, and extensive use since 2012, the Court held that “Carnatic Café” had acquired distinctiveness and substantial goodwill in relation to South Indian cuisine in Delhi-NCR.
The defendants had ignored an earlier ex parte injunction and failed to file a timely written statement, leading to their defence being struck off. On the merits, the Court found infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act and passing off, and awarded damages and costs.
Case Name: Glorious Investment Ltd. v. Dunlop International Ltd.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Om Narayan Rai
In an appeal arising from registration of the mark “DUNLOP”, the Division Bench held that a further intra-court appeal does not lie from a Single Judge’s order passed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act. The dispute began when the Deputy Registrar allowed Glorious Investment’s application for “DUNLOP” despite Dunlop International’s opposition; a Single Judge, on Section 91 appeal, set aside that order and remanded the matter.
The Division Bench ruled that a second appeal was barred by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, read with the scheme of the 1999 Act, reflects a legislative intent to confine trademark appeals from Registrar’s decisions to a single judicial tier. By recognising that the Registrar has “trappings of a court” yet still attracting Section 100A, the Court closed the door on Letters Patent Appeals in such matters.
Case Name: Mankind Pharma v. De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining De Harbien from using “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND” for pharmaceutical products, holding them deceptively similar to Mankind’s “MANKIND” / “KIND” family of registered marks. Relying on extensive sales, advertising figures, and long prior use, the Court accepted that “KIND” had acquired distinctiveness as a source-identifying suffix for Mankind’s range of medicines.
It found that the defendants operated in the same trade channel and targeted similar consumers, making confusion highly probable in a health-sensitive sector where prescriptions and substitution practices heighten the risk of association. The Court also noted that De Harbien’s earlier trademark applications had been refused, yet it continued use, indicating dishonest intent. On this basis, balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured Mankind.
Case Name: ITC Ltd. & Anr. v. Bukhara Inn
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using “HOTEL BUKHARA INN”, “BUKHARA INN”, “HOTEL BUKHARA” or any deceptively similar mark in relation to hotel and allied services. Recognising that “BUKHARA” had previously been declared a well-known trademark, the Court held that ITC’s long and iconic use for its Bukhara restaurant at ITC Maurya, supported by registrations since 1985 and significant revenues, entitled it to expanded protection, including against dilution.
The defendant admitted subsequent adoption but sought to justify use by reference to the proprietor’s surname and small scale. The Court rejected this defence, emphasising that well-known status under Section 2(1)(zg) and the anti-dilution framework under Section 29(4) bar any unfair advantage or tarnishment, regardless of the defendant’s size, and found a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in ITC’s favour.
Case Name: Allied Blenders & Distillers v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
The Division Bench ordered removal of John Distillers’ “Original Choice” mark from the Trade Marks Register, holding it deceptively similar to ABD’s prior mark “Officer’s Choice” for whisky. Overturning the earlier IPAB rejection of ABD’s rectification plea, the Court emphasised phonetic and visual similarity, overlapping consumer base, and identical goods in a mass-market segment where purchases are often made by impression rather than close scrutiny.
The Bench found ABD’s 1990 registration validly obtained and supported by continuous and substantial use, whereas “Original Choice” created a likelihood of association and rode on the goodwill of “Officer’s Choice”. It concluded that coexistence had led to a “continuous disturbance” of ABD’s rights and that permitting the impugned registration to stand would sanction confusion and dilute the senior mark’s distinctiveness, warranting rectification
Case Name: Dazn Limited and Anr. vs 9Goals.io and Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court granted a dynamic injunction restraining unknown defendants from unauthorised streaming, transmission, or dissemination of DAZN’s exclusive Serie A football match rights in India. Recognising the evolving nature of digital piracy, the Court authorised DAZN to identify rogue websites and ISPs through forensic investigation and directed blocking via government mechanisms.
The Court reinforced the principle that injunctions in copyright piracy cases must be effective and dynamic, addressing the sophisticated modus operandi of pirate websites. The order permits plaintiffs to seek further impleadments of newly identified infringing websites. It also balances rights by allowing mistakenly blocked parties to seek modification upon undertaking no illegal dissemination intention.
Case Name: Castrol Limited and Ors. vs Mr. Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar and Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
The Court issued a permanent injunction against counterfeiters using Castrol’s registered trademarks for automotive lubricants, along with grant of exemplary damages. Castrol established prior adoption since 1910, extensive goodwill through advertising and sales leadership, and evidence of market flooding by fake products bearing identical packaging and holograms.
The Court applied the test of deceptive similarity, finding visual, phonetic, and conceptual overlap creating inevitable confusion among users who rely on brand reputation for product quality. The Court highlighted the defendants’ email as an admission and further evidence of no triable issue.
Case Name: Metro Brands Ltd. v. Metro Footwear and Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
The Court granted an interim injunction restraining Metro Footwear from using “METRO” or similar marks for footwear sales, holding prima facie infringement of Metro Brands’ prior registrations and transborder reputation. Metro Brands demonstrated extensive retail presence across 700+ stores, significant turnover, and consumer association through long use since 1984.
The Court rejected the defendant’s ‘honest concurrent use’ defence, noting identical goods, overlapping trade channels via multi-brand outlets, and the defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s reputation. Balance of convenience favoured Metro Brands as continued use would erode goodwill and cause irreparable harm through dilution.
Case Name: Jiostar India Private Limited vs Cricfy TV and Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
The Delhi High Court allowed Jiostar’s suit and granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants and associated entities from unauthorized streaming, broadcasting, or communication of the cricket events “South Africa Tour of India 2025” and “New Zealand Tour of India 2026.” Online platforms, domains, and websites associated with infringing apps were ordered to be blocked within 72 hours by Domain Registrars and ISPs.
The Court also issued directions for disclosure of registrant details in sealed affidavits for further proceedings. Owing to the dynamic nature of the injunction, the plaintiff was granted liberty to notify additional infringing apps/websites and have them blocked on a real-time basis during the events.
Case Name: ITC Limited vs Abbas Mohammad Shaikh
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
The Court granted an ad-interim injunction against organised counterfeiters manufacturing and distributing fake Gold Flake cigarettes using identical packaging, holograms, and trade dress. ITC proved its iconic status through registrations since 1903, market dominance, and seizures revealing sophisticated replication down to batch codes and warnings.
The Court underscored the strong reputation and goodwill attached to the Gold Flake mark, and agreed that allowing counterfeit products in the market would seriously damage consumer trust as well as public health. The defendants were also ordered to disclose all involved persons, dealers, stockists, and inventory locations connected to the counterfeit operations to facilitate further investigation and relief.
Case Name: Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd v. Adwin Pharma
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
The Court upheld interim relief in favour of Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., restraining Adwin Pharma from using the marks ELGIMET and ELGIMET-SR variants, finding them deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered marks GLIMET and GLIMET DS. The Court held that the defendants’ minor alterations of interchanging letters and inserting a vowel did not dispel structural and phonetic similarity, especially for diabetes medicines where heightened scrutiny applies.
The Court rejected arguments that GLIMET was descriptive, noting it is a distinctive coined mark with long-standing use, and highlighted the defendants’ failure to show bona fide adoption. While the plaintiffs proved goodwill, the Court found no prima facie misrepresentation for passing off. Nevertheless, a strong case of infringement was established, warranting continuation of the injunction.
Case Name: Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. vs LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
The Delhi High Court dismissed Quantum Hi-Tech’s appeal and refused interim injunction against LG Electronics, affirming the Commercial Court’s findings of invalid registration and concealment of material facts. Quantum claimed exclusive rights over the mark “QUANTUM” for electronic goods and alleged that LG’s use of marks such as QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY caused confusion.
However, the Court found that Quantum’s purported word mark registration was invalid, as its application was for a device mark, and Quantum had suppressed documents revealing this. The Bench held that Quantum failed to show distinctiveness, exclusivity, or bona fide conduct, and approached the Court with unclean hands. With no evidence of misrepresentation, commercial use, or consumer confusion by LG, the Court found no case for infringement or passing off and upheld the denial of interim relief.
15. ‘No Exclusive Rights Over the Mark ‘HAVELI’ as the Same is Generic in Nature’: Delhi High Court
Case Name: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court held that the term “HAVELI” is generic and descriptive in the hospitality and restaurant sector and cannot be monopolised by any single proprietor. The Court reviewed various trademark applications and held that “HAVELI” commonly denotes a traditional mansion or heritage building contextually used in branding hotels and eateries, lacking distinctiveness without additional qualifying elements. Accordingly, exclusive rights over “HAVELI” alone were denied.
16. Calcutta HC Cancels Registration of ‘JAY’S’ Trademark for Confusing Similarity to the ‘LAY’S’ Mark
Case Name: PepsiCo, Inc. vs Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Bench: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
The Calcutta High Court cancelled the registered trademark “JAY’S” owned by Jagdamba Foods, holding it phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo’s long-established “LAY’S” trademark. PepsiCo, whose “LAY’S” mark has been used internationally since 1938 and in India since 1965, sought the cancellation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Court found that the similarity between “JAY’S” and “LAY’S” was so close that it created a clear likelihood of public deception, regardless of differences in packaging. It held that the registration violated Section 11 due to the mark’s deceptive similarity and noted the respondent’s inability to justify its adoption. Concluding that the mark was adopted in bad faith to exploit PepsiCo’s reputation, the Court ordered cancellation of the “JAY’S” registration.
Case Name: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v. Ms. Joy Crizildaa
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
The Madras High Court refused to grant an interim injunction in a trademark and defamation suit filed by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and its director, holding that the defendant’s use of the company’s brand name as hashtags in Instagram posts targeting the director did not amount to trademark infringement, disparagement, or defamation of the company.
The Court noted that the posts were directed solely at the director’s personal conduct, with no allegations regarding the company’s services, reputation, or commercial operations. Using hashtags like #MadhampattyPakashala merely identified the director’s association with the company and did not harm its goodwill. As the accusations related to private disputes and not commercial harm, the Court found no prima facie case for injunction but clarified that the individuals may seek separate remedies if the statements are defamatory personally.
Case Name: Mohamed Sadique Raisuddin Saifee vs Rizwan Yunus Shaikh
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “THE BODYCARE SHOP,” holding it deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark “THE BODY CARE.” The plaintiff, engaged in cosmetic and personal-care products since 1987 and owner of a 2009 device-mark registration, discovered the defendant’s infringing retail shop in 2025.
The Court noted that the defendant had adopted the mark in 2021 and even sought its registration for identical goods, reinforcing the inference of infringement. The Court held that adding the descriptive word “SHOP” did not reduce the overall similarity, and a side-by-side comparison showed the defendant had copied the essential features of the plaintiff’s mark. Finding clear proprietary rights, goodwill, and likelihood of deception, the Court restrained use of the impugned mark, ordered seizure of offending goods, and appointed a receiver.
19. Delhi HC Refers EBC Publishing–Rupa Publications Trademark Dispute to Mediation
Case Name: EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
The Delhi High Court referred the trademark dispute between EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd. to mediation after both parties consented to explore settlement. EBC had obtained an ex parte interim injunction on 25 September 2025, restraining Rupa from allegedly copying the colour scheme and trade dress of its red-and-black “Coat Pocket Edition” of the Constitution of India.
Rupa later sought vacation of the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. By agreement, Rupa’s vacation application was treated as its reply to EBC’s injunction plea, and EBC’s replication as the rejoinder. Acknowledging the parties’ willingness to mediate, the Court referred the dispute to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and directed appointment of a Senior Mediator, with mediation set for 20 November 2025.
Case Name: Hermès International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court declared the HERMÈS word mark, certain device marks, and the three-dimensional configuration of the Birkin bag as “well-known trademarks” in India while granting a permanent injunction against the defendants. In the underlying infringement action, Hermès showed long, continuous global and Indian use, extensive promotional activities, and widespread recognition of the Birkin shape as a source identifier. Applying statutory factors for well-known marks, the Court emphasised the iconic status, cross-border reputation, and distinctiveness of the Birkin trade dress.
Case Name: Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court granted interim relief to Tesla Inc., restraining Tesla Power India and related entities from using “TESLA”, “TESLA POWER USA” or any deceptively similar branding in relation to batteries, EV-related products, or advertisements. It held that the dominant and essential feature of the impugned marks was the word “TESLA”, identical to the plaintiff’s globally reputed trademark, thereby creating a case of “triple identity” in marks, goods and trade channels.
The Court noted prior worldwide use, registrations, and strong reputation of Tesla Inc., as well as evidence of actual confusion, including media misattribution. It rejected the need for proof of actual damage at the interim stage, finding high likelihood of confusion and grave prejudice if relief were denied, and criticised the defendants’ attempts to leverage US-origin impressions and the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Case Name: Trident Ltd. v. Controller of Patents
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court set aside the Patent Office’s refusal of Trident’s application for an “air rich yarn” and fabric technology and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of inventive step. Trident’s invention involved blending base fibres with water-soluble fibres that are later removed to create uniformly distributed pores, improving softness and breathability. The Patent Office had treated the claimed features as obvious combinations of known fibres and processes without engaging with the claimed homogeneous radial pore distribution or the specific manufacturing parameters disclosed in the specification.
The Court held that the assessment of inventive step was superficial and contrary to the structured obviousness test laid down in precedents, and directed that a different Controller reassess the application with a reasoned analysis of the distinguishing technical contribution and prior art.