{"id":68155,"date":"2020-03-23T19:41:13","date_gmt":"2020-03-23T14:11:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/one\/?p=68155"},"modified":"2025-06-27T17:23:33","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T11:53:33","slug":"indian-trademark-judgments-2020-court-decisions-infringement-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/indian-trademark-judgments-2020-court-decisions-infringement-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Indian Trademark Judgments – 2020"},"content":{"rendered":"

Marico Limited vs Abhijeet Bhansali (Notice of Motion No. 1094 of 2019 In COMIP No. 596 of 2019)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Decided On: 15.01.2020
\nCourt: Bombay High Court
\nMarico Ltd., one of India\u2019s leading FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) company, had recently filed an application at the Bombay High Court, seeking an interim injunction against Abhijeet Bhansali, a YouTuber\/V-Blogger who operates the YouTube channel \u201cBearded Chokra\u201d. It was alleged by Marico that Abhijeet Bhansali in his video, made comments disparaging or denigrating Marico\u2019s Parachute Coconut Oil, thus infringing its trademark \u201cParachute\u201d. The Bombay High Court while passing an injunction against Abhijeet held that there was unauthorized use of the trademark \u201cParachute\u201d and under the garb of educating the public one cannot provide misleading information to disparage any product. The court also ordered to take down the YouTube video uploaded by Abhijeet and emphasised the need for higher responsibility on the part of a social media influencer.<\/p>\n

Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/79649288\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Exotic Mile (CS (COMM) 519\/2019)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Decided On: 21.01.2020<\/span><\/h3>\n

Court: Delhi High Court<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

Delhi High Court has passed an interim injunction against Exotic Mile, an audio-gadgets business firm, for violating the registered trademark \u201cboAt\u201d of Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Imagine Marketing is the proprietor of boAt, a well know electronic products supplier in India. It contended that Exotic Mile had dishonestly adopted the trademark \u201cBOULT\u201d, which is phonetically and deceptively similar to \u201cboAt\u201d. Further, it alleged that the usage of the tagline \u2018UNPLUG YOURSELF\u2019 by Exotic Mile was confusingly similar to its tagline \u2018PLUG INTO NIRVANA\u2019. The Court passed an interim injunction restraining Exotic Mile from using the trademark \u201cBOULT\u201d as well as the tagline \u2018UNPLUG YOURSELF\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/168923956\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Nike Innovate C.V vs. G.B. Shoe (CS (Comm) No.542\/19)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Decided On: 22.01.2020
\nCourt: Patiala House Court, New Delhi District
\nDelhi District Court has passed a permanent injunction against three footwear companies, G.B. Shoe, Vishal Footwear and New Hira Shoes, located in Agra, the Defendants, for violating the trademark(s) of Nike, the celebrated sports shoes manufacturer. Since its adoption in 1971, Nike has been using its brand name continuously worldwide and is the registered trademark holder of marks such as NIKE, SWOOSH (logo), etc. Based on the evidence and the reports submitted by the appointed Local Commissioner, the Court noted that the Defendants\u2019 adoption and usage is creating undue enrichment\u00a0by creating confusion in the minds of customers. The Court further ordered the Defendants to pay Nike a nominal damage of Rs. 50,000 each.<\/p>\n

Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/39474767\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Lacoste S.A vs. Suresh Kumar Sharma (CS (Comm) No.534\/19)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Decided On: 13.02.2020
\nCourt: Patiala House Court, New Delhi District
\nLacoste S.A., the French clothing major, had filed an application for a permanent injunction in the Delhi District Court against Suresh Kumar Sharma. \u00a0Lacoste contends that Suresh Kumar Sharma was selling shirts bearing the \u201cLacoste\u201d mark and thus infringing its trademark and passing off. The Court observed that Suresh Kumar Sharma had no right to use the \u201cLacoste\u201d mark and further held that his actions led to undue enrichment and created confusion amongst the general public. Thus, the court granted permanent injunction restraining Suresh Kumar Sharma from using the \u201cLacoste\u201d mark.
\nAvailable at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/135422936\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Puma Se vs. Mr. Vikas Jindal <\/strong>(CS No.552\/2019)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Decided On: 13.02.2020
\nCourt: Patiala House Court, New Delhi District
\nPuma, a well-known German sports footwear brand, filed an application at the Patiala House Court, New Delhi, for a permanent injunction against Vikas Jindal, a Ludhiana based business proprietor, for using its trademark \u2018PUMA\u2019 and the \u2018PUMA\u2019 logo. Puma further contended that Vikas was liable for misrepresenting and deriving unfair advantage by using the \u2018PUMA\u2019 trademark in his products. Vikas Jindal did not file a reply to the suit. Based on the submissions and evidences provided by Puma, the Court passed an ex-parte permanent injunction against Vikas Jindal and ordered him to pay nominal damages of Rupees 50,000 for selling products using the \u2018PUMA\u2019 trademark.
\nAvailable at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/85034557\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Bajaj Electricals Limited vs. Gourav Bajaj & Anr (Interim Application no. 1 of 2020<\/em>)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Decided On: 03.03.2020
\nCourt: Bombay High Court
\nBajaj Electricals, part of the Bajaj conglomerates of businesses and industries, filed an application at the Bombay High Court for an interim injunction against Gourav Bajaj (\u2018Defendant\u2019), an individual who operates two retail electrical appliance stores at Abohar, Punjab.\u00a0 Gourav Bajaj was operating his stores under the trade names \u2018Apna Bajaj Store\u2019 & \u2018Bajaj Excellent\u2019. Additionally, the Defendant is also said to operate a website under the impugned domain www.apnabajajstore.com<\/a>. Bajaj Electricals in this suit contended that the mark BAJAJ has been declared as a well-known trademark by the Bombay High Court in 1987. Bajaj further contended that even the defense of personal name use is of no consequence as the very adoption and use of the impugned mark by the Defendant is dishonest as the expression “Powered By: BAJAJ” was used upon the impugned label, suggesting that they are sponsored and\/or endorsed by Bajaj. Despite several notices, no one appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Based on the submissions and evidence provided by Bajaj, the Court passed an interim injunction against the Defendant from using the trademarks \u2018Apna Bajaj Store\u2019 & \u2018Bajaj Excellent\u2019 and the impugned domain www.apnabajajstore.com<\/a>.
\nAvailable at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/101671569\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article reviews landmark Indian trademark judgments from 2020, focusing on major infringement disputes before leading courts. The analysis covers interim and permanent injunctions, the handling of well-known trademarks, and judicial perspectives on misuse and misleading use of brand names.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":46,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,11],"tags":[4138,5577,29,207,5,7016,10919,82],"class_list":["post-68155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-4138","tag-court-decisions","tag-india","tag-infringement","tag-intellectual-property","tag-legal-cases","tag-trademark-judgments","tag-well-known-trademarks"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68155","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68155"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68155\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":140715,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68155\/revisions\/140715"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}