Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India — Case Summary Factual Background Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff, is the company behind the Indian Cricket League (ICL). The defendants include the Union of India and, notably, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The plaintiff alleged that BCCI engaged in unfair practices, intimidating and threatening players associated with the ICL, thereby damaging the plaintiff’s business interests. During trial the plaintiff produced six witnesses, including famous cricketers Kapil Dev and Kiran More, who testified in support of the plaintiff. Their cross-examinations concluded in 2009 and 2010 respectively. The…

Hero Ecotech Limited and Another v/s Hero Cycles Limited and Others Case Number: Civil Mis No.1711 of 2019 Order Date: 03-09-2025 Name of Court: High Court of Patna Name of Hon’ble Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha Facts of the Case This legal dispute involves several companies and family members from the Munjal business family, centered on the use and ownership of the trademark “HERO” in the manufacturing and marketing of bicycles and related products. The Munjal family business was once unified but diversified over the years into different segments. To manage this complexity and avoid conflicts, the four…

Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Al Kareem Trademark Dispute Case Summary Facts Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a Delhi-based restaurant company, claimed to have used the trademark “Karim/Karim’s/Kareem” since 1913 for their non-vegetarian restaurant business, mainly in Delhi and the NCR, with plans to expand. Incorporated in 1987, they held multiple trademark registrations and provided media articles (Rediff.com 2005, New York Times 2012) and financial records (2003–2021) to prove their reputation. The first respondent, Al Kareem, a Hyderabad-based hotel, used the trademark “Al Kareem” (registered under No. 3385555 in Class 43 for restaurant services). They claimed use since 1965, supported by…

Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others A concise case summary and analysis of the Supreme Court of India decision dated January 19, 2022. Introduction In the realm of intellectual property, where brands battle for supremacy, Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others emerges as a landmark showdown before the Supreme Court of India. Decided on January 19, 2022, this case pits a global hospitality giant against a local hotel operator over the use of the trademark “Renaissance.” The dispute encapsulates the tension between statutory trademark rights and claims of honest use, weaving a…

Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd Commercial IP Suit No. 194 of 2025 — Order Date: September 3, 2025 Facts The case involves Mangalam Organics Ltd (the Plaintiff), a company dealing in camphor-based products, suing N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd (the Defendant), another company in the fragrance and sanitary products industry, for trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff claimed it created the trademark “CAMPURE” (and its stylized logo) around March 2017 for camphor-related items like deodorants, air fresheners, soaps, hair products, and sanitary toiletries where camphor is the key ingredient. The Plaintiff…

Background Amgen, a U.S.-based company that makes medicines from natural substances like proteins, created a medicine called romiplostim, sold as Nplate. This medicine mimics a natural body signal (a hormone called thrombopoietin, or TPO) that tells your body to produce platelets — tiny components in your blood that help stop bleeding by forming clots. It’s vital for people with a condition called immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), where the body mistakenly attacks its own platelets, causing low counts and bleeding risks. Medicines like romiplostim, made from living sources, are delicate. They can break down or clump together if not handled carefully,…

Anugraha Castings & Anr. Vs. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited Order Date: 22.08.2025 | Case Number: CRP.No.2480 of 2025 Court: The High Court of Judicature at Madras | Judge: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B. Balaji Introduction This case is a legal battle between two companies in Coimbatore, India, both using the word “Anugraha” in their business names. Anugraha Castings, a partnership firm, and Anugraha Valve Castings Limited, a company, clashed over who has the right to use “Anugraha” as a trademark. The dispute reached the Madras High Court when Anugraha Castings challenged the Commercial Court’s decision on which issues should be…

Introduction Equality, in its absolute sense, is an impossible target to achieve. By birth, everyone is unequal. What one can achieve in a society is relative equality, i.e., equal opportunity to grow. The state should also take care of free will and intention of individuals while enacting laws and punishment measures to achieve relative equality while regulating liberty and guaranteeing rights to every individual. Inequality is a product of nature, inherent and unavoidable, while equality is a human construct, an ideal forged through societal efforts and institutions. From the moment of birth, individuals are differentiated by genetics, environment, family background,…

Case Summary – Vaidya Rishi India Health Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Dutt Parashar & Ors. Facts The respondents (Suresh Dutt Parashar & Ors., originally the plaintiffs in the lower court) are the registered proprietors of several trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including the word mark “VAIDRISHI” in Classes 5, 35, and 42, as well as the device mark “ARSHKALP” (which incorporates “VAIDRISHI” as a prominent element) in Class 5. These registrations date back to December 31, 2018, with the respondents claiming prior user since January 1, 1972. The respondents operate in the health and wellness sector, particularly dealing…

Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar M/S Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals Introduction This case study analyses the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar M/S Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals. The petition was instituted under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification by way of cancellation of the trademark “UNKIND” registered in Class 35. The judgment, delivered on August 22, 2025, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, provides significant insight into the proprietary rights associated with the KIND Family of Marks in the pharmaceutical sector and sets considerable precedent in…