Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Facts The plaintiff, M/s KRBL Limited, is one of India’s leading companies engaged in the business of processing, marketing, and exporting rice, including basmati rice. In 1993, the plaintiff adopted the trademark “INDIA GATE” along with the artistic device of the India Gate monument for its rice products. Over time, the plaintiff’s brand attained enormous reputation and goodwill across India and internationally, with trademark registrations not only in India but also in several foreign jurisdictions including Canada and Australia. The plaintiff also secured a copyright registration for the artistic label depicting the India Gate. Subsequently, in 2019, while the present…

Introduction This research paper analyses in detail the Bombay High Court’s order concerning a long-standing trademark and contractual dispute between two prominent media houses arising out of the use of the marks “Indian Express” and “The New Indian Express”. The judgment deals with complex issues of ownership, territorial restriction, permissive use, trademark infringement, passing off, contractual interpretation, and enforcement of consent decrees. The court examines the circumstances under which a party permitted to use a derivative trademark within a limited territory may or may not extend that use beyond agreed boundaries. The Court ultimately grants an injunction in favour of…

Factual Background: B.C. Hasaram & Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal – Case Note Factual Background: The case revolved around a dispute between two manufacturers of Ayurvedic eye drops. The respondent, Smt. Nirmala Agarwal, was the proprietor of M/s Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni, who claimed ownership of the registered trademark “Nayan Jyoti,” used for Ayurvedic eye drops since 1990. The appellant, B.C. Hasaram & Sons, operated under the management of Radha Krishna Chandnani and his sons, and was engaged in a similar business of manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had adopted and used a deceptively similar mark “Amrit…

Facts Dabur India Limited, a household name in the field of Ayurveda since 1884, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against what it termed as a false, malicious, and disparaging advertising campaign launched by Patanjali Ayurved Limited and its associate company, Patanjali Foods Limited. Dabur contended that Patanjali had issued an advertisement for its product “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash” that described other Chyawanprash available in the market—including Dabur’s—as “Dhoka” (deception). The advertisement showed a mother feeding her child Chyawanprash, followed by the voice-over “Chalo Dhoka Khao,” and featured Baba Ramdev, who declared that “most consumers are being deceived in the…

Facts Of The Case – Vinay Aggarwal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. This case arises out of a long-standing family and business dispute between the petitioner, Shri Vinay Aggarwal, and his own family members—his father, Shri Jai Gopal, and his younger brother, Shri Ajay Aggarwal. The petitioner claimed to have been engaged in the business of chemicals and chemical compounds used in manufacturing Holi colours and gulal since 1989, under the trademark “Gopal.” To expand the business, he incorporated a private limited company named M/s. Laxmi Narain Jai Gopal Products Pvt. Ltd. in 1994, with its…

Facts Glorious Investment Limited had filed an application before the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks for registration of the trademark “DUNLOP” under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Dunlop International Limited opposed this application, claiming prior rights and goodwill in the mark. Despite the objection, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated July 4, 2024, allowed Glorious Investment Limited’s application and permitted registration of the mark “DUNLOP.” Dunlop International Limited, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Single Judge of the Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPD) of the Calcutta High Court.…

Factual Background The case arises out of a legal challenge filed by Ms. Siddiqua Begum Khan, the daughter and surviving legal heir of the late Smt. Shah Bano Begum. The petitioner sought to restrain the release, promotion, and exhibition of a Hindi feature film titled “Haq”, which was scheduled for release on 7th November 2025. The film claimed to be inspired by the historical Shah Bano case — Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 — a landmark Supreme Court decision that became a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional and personal law discourse. According to the…

Facts of the Case The matter arose out of an FIR No. 460/2024 dated 21st October 2024, registered under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The FIR was based on a complaint filed by BrandMonitor, acting on behalf of M/s. Gianni Versace S.R.L., a globally recognized luxury fashion brand having its registered office in Milan, Italy. The complaint alleged that certain entities operating within the North Delhi district were involved in the sale, storage, and advertisement of counterfeit goods bearing the trademarks of “Versace”. According to the complainant, these…

Factual Background And Dispute The dispute originated when Nilesh Girkar, the appellant, filed a suit against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and others, raising grievances that invoked a commercial dispute. The suit’s exact subject matter led to a disagreement over whether the court where the suit was filed had proper jurisdiction. The initial dismissal of the suit brought to fore questions about how and why a court may decline to hear a matter at the preliminary stage, particularly under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which allows a court to reject a plaint for several…

Facts Of The Case: Delhi High Court Trademark Case: B.L. Agro Industries Vs Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods | Bail Kolhu Trademark Dispute This case arises from a trademark dispute in the edible oil market between B. L. Agro Industries Limited, proprietor of the registered mark “BAIL KOLHU” (word and device), and Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods Private Limited, which began using the mark “AROHUL KOHLU” with a device featuring an ox tethered to a grinder, for similar goods including edible oils, ghee, fats, and allied products, as alleged by the respondent B. L. Agro in the suit below. Trademark…