Case laws & Appeals of Decisions of the IP Office

Trademarks Patents ▪ Designs ▪ Plant Varieties Personality Rights Right to Information (RTI)

Amrish Aggarwal vs. Venus Home Appliances
17 May 2024, Delhi High Court

Amrish Aggarwal, trading as Mahalaxmi Product, contested Venus Home Appliances' trademark, arguing that his pending rectification petition should result in a stay of the trademark infringement suit under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court held:

  • Trademark infringement suits must be stayed if a rectification petition is pending, following Supreme Court precedents.
  • The court rejected the "Sana Herbals" ruling, which had held that infringement suits need not be stayed post-IPAB abolition.
  • Rectification must be determined first, ensuring that trademark validity is settled before infringement claims proceed.

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Berachah Sales Corporation & Ors.
2 April 2024, Delhi High Court

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Berachah Sales Corporation & others for trademark infringement and passing off, seeking to protect its "HALDIRAM" brand and variations like "HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA" as well-known trademarks under Indian law.

The Court’s Findings:

  • Haldiram has been using its trademark since 1941, holding multiple national and international registrations for food products.
  • The V-shaped and Oval-shaped logos are key identifiers of the brand.
  • The defendants incorporated "Haldiram Restro Pvt. Ltd.", applied for similar trademarks in Class 43 (restaurant services), and used "HALDIRAM" branding for food products.
  • A court-ordered raid found counterfeit products, including mustard oil, ghee, and bottled water, bearing the "HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA" mark.

The Court’s Decision:

  • A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from using "HALDIRAM" or similar marks in any form.
  • All infringing products and materials were ordered to be destroyed.
  • The Court awarded INR 50 lakhs (approx. US$60,000) in damages to Haldiram for brand misuse and ordered reimbursement of legal costs.
  • The Court recognized "HALDIRAM" and its Oval-shaped mark as well-known trademarks in India, including West Bengal, despite historical restrictions.
  • The Trademark Registrar was directed to reject all pending trademark applications filed by the defendants.

Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors.
30 May 2024, Delhi High Court

Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., the owner of the "INDIA TV" brand and the well-known show "AAP KI ADALAT" (translation: Your Court), filed a lawsuit against Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of "BAAP KI ADALAT" (translation: Father’s Court) on social media was deceptively similar to its brand, violating its trademark and personality rights.

The Court’s Observations:

  • AAP KI ADALAT" has been a popular show for decades.
  • The plaintiff holds multiple trademark registrations for "AAP KI ADALAT" and "INDIA TV".
  • Defendant No.1, a social media content creator, used "BAAP KI ADALAT" in a way that mimicked the plaintiff’s brand.
  • The logo, style, and theme closely resembled the original, causing confusion.
  • Social media platforms (Defendants No. 2 to 4) hosted and circulated the infringing content.

The Court’s Interim Order and Ruling:

  • Interim injunction was issued barring Defendant No.1 from using "BAAP KI ADALAT" or any similar mark.
  • Social media platforms of Defendants No. 2 to 4 were directed to remove infringing content.
  • The plaintiff had a strong prima facie case and would suffer irreparable harm without relief.

Lacoste vs. Crocodile International
14 August 2024, Delhi High Court

Lacoste sued Crocodile International for trademark and copyright infringement, alleging its Crocodile logo was deceptively similar and caused consumer confusion.

The Court held:

  • Lacoste’s Crocodile logo, in use since 1933, was upheld as its exclusive mark in India.
  • As the Co-Existence Agreements of 1983 and 1985 between the parties did not cover India, Crocodile International’s claim of shared rights was rejected.
  • Crocodile International’s logo use without its brand name and the unauthorized ® symbol were misleading.
  • Crocodile International was barred from using the Crocodile logo in India.

Seagate Technology LLC & Ors. v. Daichi International & Ors.
21 May 2024, High Court of Delhi

Seagate and Western Digital (WD) sued refurbishers (Daichi, Consistent, Geonix) alleging that refurbishing and reselling their hard disk drives (HDDs) without branding misled consumers and violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court held:

  • Under Section 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, lawful acquisition and market entry (no import ban shown) exhausted plaintiffs’ rights after initial sale to OEMs.
  • India’s “Right to Repair” policy supports refurbishment and evidence submitted has not proved illegal importation of end-of-life HDDs.
  • Section 30(4) allows opposition if goods are impaired, but clear labeling mitigates infringement by identifying the original manufacturer and refurbisher.
  • Defendants can sell refurbished HDDs with packaging specifying: (i) manufactured by Seagate/WD (word mark only), (ii) no original warranty, (iii) “Used and Refurbished” by the defendant, (iv) refurbisher’s warranty details, and (v) accurate features—all reflected in promotional materials.

Under Armour Inc. vs. Anish Agarwal & Anr.
29 May 2024, Delhi High Court

Under Armour sued Anish Agarwal and his company for trademark infringement, claiming that their brand "AERO ARMOUR" was deceptively similar to their "UNDER ARMOUR" trademark, thereby leading to consumer confusion.


The Court held:

  • The plaintiff’s attempt to monopolise the apparel market by excluding
  • all possible brands which have “ARMOUR” in it, is not acceptable, particularly when the Registrar even for other “ARMOUR” marks has provided a disclaimer.
  • "AERO ARMOUR" was found distinct in design, pronunciation, and market positioning. The brands operate in different segments, and one must advert to this aspect in relation to the sophisticated consumer as also a different consumer.
  • There is complete lack of evidence of actual confusion by consumers and no document was filed by the plaintiff in this regard. The assertion that there is confusion is merely theoretical or speculative in nature.
  • Balance of conveniences also in favour of the defendant having commenced their business since 2021 and having achieved a reasonable turnover as well as a reasonable presence considering that they are suppliers to reputed institutions.
  • Injunction was not granted and the Court allowed Anish Agarwal to continue using "AERO ARMOUR".