Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Facts of the Case: Le Shark Trademark Dispute: Bombay High Court Judgment The case revolves around a dispute concerning the ownership and validity of the trademark “LE SHARK”, used for apparel and clothing items. The petitioner, Le Shark Apparel Limited, is a UK-based company that owns several trademarks registered across the United Kingdom and Europe since the 1980s. The company claims a long and well-established brand identity in clothing, footwear, and accessories under the “Le Shark” name and its distinctive shark device logo. The trademark “LE SHARK” was originally conceived and adopted in 1984 by the petitioner’s predecessor, Le Shark…

Facts: Rolls-Royce Trademark Case: Mandatory Timelines under Trade Marks Act, 1999 Imagine a world-famous brand like Rolls-Royce, known for luxury cars and aircraft engines, facing a copycat in India. The petitioners, Rolls-Royce PLC and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited, are giants in the global engineering scene, working in aerospace, defense, marine, and energy fields. Their iconic logo—the interlocking “double R” standing for founders Charles Rolls and Henry Royce—has been registered and used in over 80 countries for decades, symbolizing quality and prestige. This mark isn’t just a design; it’s a badge of trust in high-stakes industries. Trouble knocks when the third…

Facts of the Case: Atomberg Technologies vs Eureka Forbes: Supreme Court Transfers Patent Case to Bombay High Court Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, the petitioner, is a company engaged in manufacturing and selling home and kitchen appliances, including fans and water purifiers. In June 2025, it launched a new product — a water purifier under the name “Atomberg Intellon.” The product was designed with innovative technological features, including taste customization and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) adjustment functions. Soon after the launch, the petitioner discovered that Eureka Forbes Limited, its industry competitor and one of India’s leading home appliance manufacturers, had allegedly…

Facts: Maarg (India) Vs King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd. – Trademark Dispute Judgment 2025 Maarg (India), a registered partnership firm based in Chennai, claimed that it had coined and adopted the trademark “PTA” in 1997 for hardware items such as screws and fasteners and later designed a distinctive logo in 2001. Maarg alleged that it had built substantial goodwill in the market under the “PTA” mark and sought to protect it from unauthorized use. It discovered that King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd., a Taiwanese company, was using both “PATTA” and “PTA” marks on its hardware goods, particularly screws, which Maarg…

Fact: Trademark Infringement Case: Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd The plaintiff, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., is a pharmaceutical company incorporated in 1973, engaged in the development, manufacture, and sale of pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products. The plaintiff owns the registered trademark “ALKEM” and has been using it continuously since 1973. The defendant, Alchem International Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 1982, provides plant-derived active ingredients and Ayurvedic extracts, selling products under the mark “ALCHEM”. The defendant has been using this mark since 1985, primarily in export markets until it started retailing in India in 2006. The plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice…

Facts of the Case – Bima Sugam Trademark Case – Delhi High Court Judgment (2025) The case revolves around the ownership and use of the term “BIMA SUGAM”, a name associated with a government-backed digital insurance marketplace initiative. The plaintiff, Bima Sugam India Federation, is a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, and established under the direction of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) through the Bima Sugam (Insurance Electronic Marketplace) Regulations, 2024. The IRDAI envisioned Bima Sugam as a unified digital marketplace for insurance services—covering policy purchase, claim settlement, and grievance…

Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jubilant Generics Ltd. and Others Factual Background Jubilant Generics Ltd., a pharmaceutical company based in Noida, India, is engaged in developing and manufacturing drug formulations for global markets. It had created detailed Product Dossiers for drugs such as Losartan, Amlodipine, and Citalopram. These dossiers, developed through years of research, contain technical, clinical, and manufacturing data required for obtaining marketing authorizations from global regulatory bodies. Jubilant claimed copyright and confidentiality protection over these dossiers as “literary works” under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957. To market these drugs in Canada, Jubilant entered into a…

EMD Millipore Corporation Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs – Case Summary Fact The appellant, EMD Millipore Corporation, a U.S.-based corporation, filed a patent application bearing No. 1026/DEL/2012 in India on 3rd April 2012 titled “Devices and Methods for Infrared (IR) Based Quantitation of Biomolecules.” The invention concerns a method for the quantitative analysis of biomolecules in various types of samples, including human plasma, food, cosmetics, and environmental samples using infrared spectroscopy. The appellant claimed priority from a U.S. patent application and amended the claims multiple times during prosecution, finally seeking patent protection for a technical innovation. The key…

Fact of the Case This case arises from a dispute between Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils and Kriti Nutrients Ltd. involving trademark and copyright claims. The petitioner, Ms. Rajilaxmi Oils, filed a civil suit under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, in 2020 before the Commercial Court, Indore. Subsequently, the respondent filed another suit against the petitioner in 2021, also in the Commercial Court, Indore. During the pendency of these suits, the respondent obtained an ex-parte injunction from the Commercial Court, Delhi, which led to the seizure of the petitioner’s products. The…

Case Overview Facts: Lifestyle Equities C.V., headquartered in Amsterdam, along with its Indian licensee, owned the registered trademark “Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC)” used for apparel, shoes, accessories, furniture, and personal care products. Amazon Technologies Inc. was accused of facilitating sales of counterfeit goods bearing a mark identical or deceptively similar to the BHPC logo. The Suit In 2020, Lifestyle filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 443/2020) in the Delhi High Court, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The company sought: Permanent injunction Delivery-up of infringing goods Damages of Rs. 2.00 crore The suit named three defendants — Amazon Technologies Inc.…