Trademark Cases

ELIZABETH ADRENA (Plaintiff) vs MR. JAYESH BHAI TRADING AS

M/S JAYESH FRAGRANCE (Defendant)

CASE NO.: CS (COMM.) NO. 213/2022

DECIDED ON: 14th May, 2025

The plaintiff, a partnership firm in the business of perfumery and cosmetic

goods since 1974, filed a suit against the defendant for infringement of its
registered trademark "PASSPORT", alleging passing off, damages, and
seeking a permanent injunction. The plaintiff has been using the mark
"PASSPORT" since 1962 and holds several trademark registrations under
Class 3. Plaintiff claimed the defendant adopted and sold products under
deceptively similar marks like PASSPORT, PASS SPORT, and BLACK
PASSPORT, intending to pass them off as plaintiff’s goods. Defendant did
not file any written statement, and the court struck off the defence for
failure to respond.

The Hon’ble District Court stated that the defendant’s mark was found to
be visually and phonetically similar, causing confusion among consumers.
Plaintiff’s evidence went unrebutted; the Hon’ble Court acknowledged the
mala fide intent of the defendant. The Hon’ble Court emphasized the need
to look at overall similarity in essential features between the products.
Defendant and its associates are permanently restrained from using the
mark "PASSPORT" or any deceptively similar mark.

RAINBOW CHILDREN’S MEDICARE LIMITED (Appellant) vs

RAINBOW HEALTH CARE (Respondents)

CASE NO.: CS (COMM.) NO. 213/2022

DECIDED ON: 23rd April, 2025

In the present suit the appellant, a leading chain of pediatric and women's
healthcare hospitals in India, claims trademark infringement by the
respondents using the name “Rainbow Healthcare” in Bengaluru. The
appellant, incorporated in 1998, has been using the trademark ‘Rainbow’
since then, with registered rights under the Trademarks Act. They argue
that the respondents’ use of a deceptively similar name for identical
services causes confusion and dilutes their brand. Legal action was
initiated after the appellant discovered the respondents’ listings and
issued a cease-and-desist notice.
The respondents counter that they have been using the name Rainbow
Healthcare since 2013 in a bona fide manner, with supporting
documents like medical registrations, licenses, and online presence since
2015. They argue the appellant was aware of their existence for years but
took no action until 2023. They also claim the suit is not maintainable due
to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court refused to grant an interim injunction

against the defendant using the ‘Rainbow Health Care’ mark. Despite
the appellant use of the trademark since 1998, the Hon’ble Court noted
the defendant’s documented use since 2013 and questioned the delay in
enforcement. This ruling emphasised that these delays weigh against
injunctive relief in trademark cases.

EUREKA FORBES LIMITED (FORMERLY FORBES ENVIRO SOLUTIONS

LIMITED (Plaintiff) vs NANDANSALESANDORS (Defendants)

CASE NO.: CS(COMM)566/2023 with I.A. 15571/2023 and I.A.

5300/2025

DECIDED ON: 08th May, 2025

In the present suit the plaintiff filed a commercial suit against the
defendants. The suit sought a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from infringing its registered trademarks ‘

, ‘AQUASFILTER’, and ‘ACTIVE

COPPER’, as well as related copyright-protected artworks. The plaintiff
asserted ownership of well-established trademarks dating back to 1982
and 1992, substantial market presence, and significant reputation.
Defendants failed to appear or file written statements despite service of
summons. Some opted for mediation and offered to settle, while others
remained ex-parte.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court accepted that the plaintiff is the rightful
owner of the trademarks and copyright-protected product artwork.
Defendants were found to have deliberately sold counterfeit products
using identical or deceptively similar marks to mislead consumers and
trade on the plaintiff’s goodwill. The absence of a written statement or
any form of contest by these defendants was taken as an admission of the
allegations. The Hon'ble Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff,
passing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
manufacturing or selling any goods bearing the infringing marks or similar
get-up.

SUN INDIA PHARMACY P LIMITED (Plaintiff) vs HYETO HERBALS

PRIVATE LIMITED (Defendant)

CASE NO.: CS(COMM) 381/2020

DECIDED ON: 7th May, 2025

In the present suit the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a

permanent injunction against the defendant for
infringement of its registered trademark and copyright,
as well as for passing off its products as those of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed long-standing use of the
mark “SWASTH VARDHAK” since 1986 and alleged
that the defendant had dishonestly adopted an identical
mark and deceptively similar packaging for identical products, thereby
infringing upon the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.

Plaintiff’s claimed ownership and registration of the mark “SWASTH

VARDHAK” since 2004, with use dating back to 1986 and have been
using the unique packaging/trade dress since 2002, protected under
copyright law. The defendant had earlier acknowledged infringement and
undertook not to use the impugned mark in 2019. Despite the
undertaking, the defendant resumed use and also filed a trademark
application for the identical mark. Defendant’s claimed honest adoption of
the mark and alleged that their packaging was different. Argued that the
undertaking was given under pressure and denied plaintiff’s exclusive
rights on the mark

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court found that the defendant's mark and
packaging were identical/deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The
defendant’s dishonest intent was evident from the earlier undertaking and
subsequent resumption of use. The plaintiff had successfully established
trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The
Hon'ble Court emphasized that the defendant’s conduct warranted not
just injunctive relief but also aggravated damages and costs. The Hon'ble
Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant
was permanently restrained from using the impugned mark “SWASTH
VARDHAK” and the deceptively similar trade dress.

Copyright Case
TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD (Plaintiff) vs INDORBIT
PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD. & ANR. (Defendants)
CASE NO.: CS(COMM) 912/2024, I.A. 42669/2024-Stay

DECIDED ON: 14th May, 2025

The plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, filed a suit against two

defendants seeking a permanent injunction for alleged passing off and
copyright infringement of its newly adopted trade dress for SHELCAL-
500 label/ carton and strip packaging/ artistic work, a calcium and
Vitamin D3 supplement. The plaintiff claimed rights over the new
packaging design since September 2022, acquired through an Assignment
Deed dated 07.03.2024. Plaintiff argued that the defendants’ ORBITCAL-
500 packaging was deceptively similar to SHELCAL-500 and likely to
cause confusion in the market, particularly concerning public health.
Defendants did not appear or file written statements despite
service of notice; were proceeded ex parte.

Though the defendants remained ex parte, the The Hon'ble Delhi High
Court refused to pass a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
without trial, citing recent Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Asma Lateef v.
Shabbir Ahmad and Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan) that warn against
mechanical decrees in the absence of a written statement. The Hon'ble
Court found insufficient evidence on record to establish that the plaintiff
was the prior adopter or user of the new trade dress before the
defendant. Invoices and promotional materials lacked clear date
references, and the Assignment Deed was unregistered and executed
long after the claimed adoption date. The Hon'ble Court rejected the
plaintiff’s oral request for decree at this stage. The earlier ex parte
interim injunction remains, but no final relief granted yet.

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) vs M/S

DIGITAL CABLE NETWORK (Defendant)

CASE NO.: CS (Comm) No.1234/2023

DECIDED ON: 07th May, 2025

Plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Defendant, a cable operator in

Haridwar, Uttarakhand, alleging unauthorized broadcasting of its
copyrighted audio-visual content, including songs from films such as
Sadak, Baaghi-2, Boss, and Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. The plaintiff
claimed copyright infringement and sought permanent injunction and
damages of ₹25,00,000/-. Plaintiff owns the copyrights to the said songs
and Defendant broadcasted the songs via its cable channel “DCN”
without obtaining a license, violating plaintiff’s rights under Section 14 of
the Copyright Act, 1957. Evidence included investigator’s recordings, cue
sheets, screenshots, and affidavits. Notices were served but ignored or
refused by the defendant. Defendant remained ex-parte after service by
publication. Advocate appearing briefly claimed to represent “M/s Digital
Cable TV Network,” not the named defendant, creating confusion and
leading the Hon’ble Court to disregard the cross-examination as
misdirected.

The Hon’ble Court stated that the plaintiff successfully proved copyright
ownership and infringement through unrebutted evidence including
recordings and documents. The Hon’ble Court acknowledged that while
exact subscriber count (25,000) was not proven with documentary
precision, the unauthorized broadcast was established. Cross-examination
conducted by advocate on behalf of the unrelated entity was ruled
inadmissible. The Hon’ble Court applied the principle of Preponderance
of Probabilities and acknowledged clear copyright violations.
Permanent Injunction granted restraining the defendant from further
unauthorized use of plaintiff content. Damages of ₹5,00,000/- awarded to
the plaintiff as notional damages, considering absence of precise data to
quantify actual loss.