Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.

com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/

An Outlook On Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India

The implementation of the TRIPS agreement resulted in signi�cant changes in how governments enforced intellectual property rights
owners and entrepreneurs began to place a premium on their brand names and trademarks. The increase in the number of applicatio
coincided with an increase in the number of infringement cases, in which tiny enterprises attempted to replicate and pro�t o� the go
previously existing trademarks.

This eventually led to higher courts taking infringement cases and setting precedent for future cases to follow. This article also provid
trademark infringement cases in India that have served as a model for similar lawsuits.

1 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM
Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/

Here are some examples of trademark infringement cases from India that illustrate the nuances of the relevant legislation.

This case is one of the most famous trademark infringement cases in India. In addition to trademark infringement, it is often asked th
Akash Arora belongs to which dispute outside trademark infringement? The correct response is ‘Cybersquatting’; this is one of the ea
cybersquatting.

Yahoo INC., the plainti�, was the owner of the trademark “Yahoo” and the domain name “yahoo.com,” both of which were widely recog
of consumers around the world providing internet services. In addition Yahoo was a registered company since 1995, having registered
countries except India.

Akash Arora, the defendant in the particular case simultaneously started using the domain name ‘yahooindia.com’ for the similar kind
sought an interim injunction to prevent from using the domain name ‘yahooindia.com’ or any name similar to its own.

The court determined that Akash Arora was liable for infringing the “Yahoo” trademark and restricted him on the basis that he was us
domain name and delivering services similar to those of Yahoo Inc., which constituted cybersquatting. This ruling was based on the p
goodwill resides primarily in its name and trademark, and especially so in the instance of Yahoo Inc. Yahoo Inc. was awarded the pass

2 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM
Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/

Shisham Hinduja founded in 2008, a women-owned business that sells baked items like cakes, brownies, cookies
trademark for the name ‘Happy Belly’ since 2016, (before it was known as Regalar and it switched to Happy Belly Bakes in 2010).

Happy Belly Bakes used the trademark since its inception in 2008. It sued Amazon for selling bakery items, snacks, and dairy under th

In 2016, the bakery began receiving calls asking if their products were available on Amazon. However, the website of the e-commerce
Belly was Amazon’s own brand for selling bakery products. Tootsie LLC �led the trademark application on behalf of the e-commerce �
Happy Belly Bakes only operated in Bengaluru, Amazon sold the products worldwide.

The court held that Amazon had infringed the trademark of Happy Belly Bakes. The court gave verdict in favour of Happy Belly Bakes
years for Happy Belly to get justice but at the end they were able to protect their trademark against the tech giant – Amazon. While th
to get justice against giant enterprises, this case of Happy Belly Bakes showed that the infringement laws are for all and are common

3 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM
Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/
Coca-Cola v. Bisleri case study is amongst the major trademark infringement cases in India. The plainti� is the largest soft drink bran
presence in 200 countries, whereas the defendant is a very well-known Indian brand recognized for its bottled water. In September 1
plainti� the rights to the soft drink MAAZA. In March 2008, the plainti� submitted a trademark application for the name “MAAZA” in Tu
the defendant sent the plainti� a legal notice revoking the licensing agreement and announcing its desire to begin using the tradema
indirectly, the defendant was involved in the manufacture, sale, and exportation of MAAZA-branded items.

A temporary injunction was issued against the defendant. The Honorable Court decided that the plainti� had both a prima facie case
conveniences. The rejection of the trademark was deemed invalid, and the plainti� was given complete trademark rights for the soft
determined that the defendants were responsible for trademark infringement.

In this case, an undergarments shop used the term ‘Benz’ in the title of the brand, as well as a logo that looked suspiciously similar to
by the car company. The famous three-star ring of Mercedes Benz which is very popular across the globe was used by the defendan
The defendant was using a three-pointed human being in a ring as his logo. The plainti� got to know this and �led the case against th

It was held by the court that this is a clear infringement of the trademark as the three-star ring of the Mercedes is a well-known mark
the world for the cars. Therefore, the defendant was refrained from using this mark by an injunction. The court in this case had ackno
international reputation, remarking that almost no one would ever fail to associate the word “Benz” with the car. As a result, no one ca
unaware of the use of the mark “Benz” which is popularly known to have in relation to automobiles.

4 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM
Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/

In this speci�c case, the meaning and fundamental nature of a trademark were rea�rmed; namely, that a trademark is a one-of-a-kin
distinguishing feature for both the customer and the company in question.

Starbucks registered their word mark ‘STARBUCKS’ and corresponding logo as a trademark in India in 2001. The Defendants establish
under the name ‘Sardarbuksh Co�ee & Co.’ Sardarbuksh’s logo was a turban commander’s face with wavy lines on the sides surround
Through a letter of demand, the Plainti� requested that the Defendants change the logo in 2017. In response, the Defendant simply c
to black and yellow and resumed operations. The Defendant began operations under the same name in May 2018. The Defendant and
comparable goods and services. The plainti� �led a suit against Sardarbuksh in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as a result of the prec
sued the defendants for trademark infringement by using a deceptively similar mark.

The Delhi High Court relied on the National Sewing Thread Co. decision. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros Ltd, which stated that in orde
trademark was deceptively similar, the court had to put itself in the shoes of the customers.

The Delhi High Court concluded, using the aforementioned case that a man of ordinary intelligence might be confused, and thus it is

5 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM
Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/

The plainti�, Cadbury India Limited, �led a lawsuit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant’s deceptively
products. The plainti� alleged that the defendant sold chocolate with the trademark that was deceptively similar to th
GEMS’ with similar packaging and was inspired by Cadbury’s famous �ctional character & registered copyright from the
campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The plainti� also alleged that the defendant is trying to create confusion in the mind of c
on the goodwill of the former.

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision in the favour of the plainti�. In addition to the relief of a permanent and mandatory injunctio
the court awarded the Plainti� damages in the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.

The appellant (Cadila Healthcare) and the defendant (Cadila Pharmaceuticals) were two pharmaceutical companies that introduced m
cerebral malaria. The appellant launched the medicine in style and name of ‘ and the respondent launched it in the name ‘
the lawsuit after discovering that Cadila Pharmaceutical is using the mark “ ” which is similar to their mark and t
registered the mark for a similar medicine. In this lawsuit, Cadila Healthcare sought an injunction prohibiting Cadila Pharmaceutical fr
deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion amongst the consumers.

The Hon. Supreme Court held that even though the drug is to be prescribed by the medical practitioners and sold directly to hospitals
confusion between the two cannot be disregarded.

The Supreme Court also held that there are certain principles that need to be followed in the case of deciding the mark as a deceptiv
follows:

• To check the nature of the marks which includes word marks composite marks etc.
• To check ideological and phonetic similarity
• To check the similarity of nature, performance, and character of applicants

6 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM
Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/
• To identify the class of consumers etc.

The plainti�, Toyota alleged that the defendants, Prius Car Industries, a supplier of auto parts and accessories, infringed upon its regis
Innova,’ ‘Toyota Device,’ and ‘Prius’ Trade Marks. The plainti� petitioned the Trade Mark Registry for cancellation of the defendants’ reg
on the grounds that the defendant was using their “well-known mark” without their permission, resulting in an unfair bene�t to the p
goodwill. On the other hand, The Plainti� did not register the “Prius” trademark in India, and its Prius automobile was not introduced in
after the Defendant registered the “PRIUS” trademark in India in 2002.

The Supreme Court determined that “likelihood of confusion” and the di�erentiating powers of a man of average intelligence would b
standard for proving a passing-o� activity, which can only be proven by evidence, which the Appellants failed to o�er. Toyota Jidosh
petition was dismissed after the Supreme Court ruled that trademark rights are territorial and not universal and that actual proof is re
company’s reputation and goodwill in a territory.

The respondents, Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers, had been using the mark for milk and related products registered under cla
Nandhini Deluxe is a restaurant chain in Karnataka that used the mark in 1989. The Appellant has applied for registration of the said m
�sh, poultry, meat extracts, preserves, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, eggs, milk and milk products, edible oils an
so on. The registrar approved the registration of the mark ‘Nandhini’ as distinct from the existing mark. The IPAB and the High Court o
marks ‘Nandini’ and ‘Nandhini’ to be deceptively similar, with the only di�erence being the letter ‘H’ between the two marks.

The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, which determined that the marks are not deceptively similar after a thorough e
court noted that there is only a phonetic similarity between the two marks Nandini/Nandhini. Aside from that, the logos for both mark
‘Deluxe’ was used by the restaurant and is followed by the words ‘the real spice of life,’ whereas the mark Nandini has no su�xes or p

7 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM
Famous Trademark Infringement Cases In India | Intellect Vidhya https://intellectvidhya.com/famous-trademark-infringement-cases-in-india/

Finally, the appellant ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ was granted permission to use the mark after removing milk and m
description.

The respondent, Satya Deo Gupta, submitted an application to register the name “Lakshmandhara”, which has been in the business o
medicinal items since 1923. “Amritdhara” the appellant company Amritdhara Pharmacy, objected the registration of the term Laksham
that it is likely to mislead and confuse clients due to the appellant’s trademark Amritdhara, which has been in the same line of busine
the defendant �led a counter-a�davit claiming concurrent usage on the basis that they had been using the mark since 1923.

The Registrar of Trademarks determined that Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara are su�ciently similar to cause confusion. The Allahaba
granted the respondent’s appeal, allowing registration of the mark “Lakshmandhara” while denying the appellant’s appeal and stating
dissimilar. The court also ruled that the words “Amrit” and “Dhara” cannot be monopolized because they are part of the common lang
discovered insu�cient grounds to deny the Lakshmandhara trademark registration. The case was then brought before the Supreme C

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision that Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara are comparable marks. The court relied o
test and stated that the question of comparing two marks should be viewed from the perspective of a man with average intelligence

8 of 8 12/3/2024, 3:42 PM