2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom) Brief Facts: The Plaintiff was a wholly owned subsidiary of Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG, headquartered in Germany. Plaintiff had acquired the registration of the shape of its bottle used for selling Vodka in a number of countries. In 2008, Plaintiff applied for the registration of the shape of its…
14th August, 2020 High Court of Delhi CS (Comm) No. 217 of 2020 Brief Facts: Plaintiff was engaged in the business of logistics, transportation and management under the Trademark “DELHIVERY” since 2011. Plaintiff had 27 registrations pertaining the mark ‘DELHIVERY’ under Classes 35, 39 and 42 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Defendant, on the…
2018 (74) PTC 229 (Del) Brief facts: Plaintiff, was a well-known designer, marketer, and seller of wide and varied fashionable clothing collection and ancillary product and services for women, men, teenagers, and children. To firmly and formally establish its presence in India, Plaintiff No. 1 claimed to have incorporated its subsidiary H & M Hennes…
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Insurance Ltd. & Ors. 2018 (73) PTC 1 (SC) (Image Credits: Kārlis Dambrāns from Latvia; Image and Creative Common License availalbe at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#/media/File:2016_Toyota_Prius_(ZVW50R)_Hybrid_liftback_(2016-04-02)_01.jpg) Brief Facts: Plaintiff, an automobile manufacturer was incorporated in Japan. Plaintiff had launched world’s first commercial hybrid car called ‘Prius’, in Japan, in the year…
Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors. 2018 (76) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Plaintiff/Respondent had trade marks ‘CHYMORAL’ and ‘CHYMORAL FORTE’, used for a drug administered post-surgically for swellings that may arise and/or wounds that may arise. Plaintiff claimed use of the mark from the year 1988 through its predecessor in interest from…
Sunil Mittal & Anr. v. Darzi on Call CS(Comm) No. 1381/2016 19th April, 2017 In October, 2016, Plaintiff, Mr Sunil Mittal and Darzi (India) LLP, registered proprietor of the trademark “THE DARZI, THE SUIT PEOPLE 1981” (Label Mark), instituted a suit against the Defendant, M/s Darzi on Call, for injunction restraining the Defendant from using…
Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. FAO(OS) (Comm) No. 77 of 2016 Division Bench (Delhi High Court) 2017 (70) PTC 66 (Del) Brief Facts: The Respondent, ITC Ltd. filed a civil suit against the Appellant, Britannia Industries Ltd. for passing off and infringement of Copyright of the trade dress of Respondent’s product ‘Sunfeast Farmlite All…
Pandit Kulfi and Cafe v. Pandit Kulfi 2016 (65) PTC 414 (Rajasthan) Brief Facts: Appellant was proprietor of the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi, Ice Creams and other milk products. Appellant came to know that the Respondent is also using the mark ‘PANDIT’ for Kulfi. Appellant filed a suit for Permanent injunction against the Respondent along…
Capital Plastic Industries v. Happy Plastic Industries 1988 PTC 182 Brief Facts: As per the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff started using the trademark RABBER from 1983 in respect of thermos jug. Plaintiff also obtained Copyright registration in the artistic label bearing the mark RABBER in 1984. After September, 1985, Plaintiff dropped the usage of the mark…
Living Media India Ltd. and Ors. v. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2016 (66) PTC 200 (Del) Brief Facts: Appellant claimed to be a major media corporation in India. As per the Appellants, Appellant No. 1 was owner and publisher news magazine “INDIA TODAY”, since 1975. Appellant No. 1 also published a business magazine under…
Toni & Guy Products Ltd. & Anr. v. Shyam Sunder Nagpal 2014 (57) PTC 159 (Del) Facts: Plaintiff No. 1, a company incorporated under the laws of England was engaged in manufacturing and marketing of hair care products under the mark TONI & GUY. The Plaintiff No. 2, also company incorporated under the laws of…
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. and Ors. 2015 (64) PTC 225 (SC) Brief Facts: Respondents through their predecessors in interest were using the mark ‘Profol’ in India since 1998 for pharmaceutical product. In 2005, Respondents came to know that the Defendant have launched a drug called ‘ROFOL’ for identical product. Respondents filed a suit for…