sekarreporter1: Madras High Court Grants ITC Interim Injunction Over Alleged Infringement Of Classmate Trademark https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/madras-high-court-grants-itc-interim-injunction-over-alleged-infringement-of-classmate-trademark-536179 [30/05, 11:54] sekarreporter1: TOP STORIES SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURTS IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX Top

[30/05, 11:53] sekarreporter1: Madras High Court Grants ITC Interim Injunction Over Alleged Infringement Of Classmate Trademark
https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/madras-high-court-grants-itc-interim-injunction-over-alleged-infringement-of-classmate-trademark-536179
[30/05, 11:54] sekarreporter1: TOP STORIES SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURTS IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX Top Stories Supreme Court & High Courts IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX INCOME TAX OTHER TAXES COMPANY LAW/LL/MSME ARBITRATION SECURITIES LAW COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT RERA COMPETITION LAW MERGER/ACQUISITION COMPLIANCE/REGULATORY BANKING/NBFC DEBT RECOVERY LAWS DIGESTS COLUMNS LAW FIRMS INTERVIEWS PMLA/FEMA Home/IPR/TRADEMARK/Madras High Court Grants ITC… Madras High Court Grants ITC Interim Injunction Over Alleged Infringement Of Classmate Trademark Riya Rathore 29 May 2026 6:35 PM (3 mins read ) Share this The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of ITC Limited. The injunction restrains traders from manufacturing, selling, marketing or otherwise dealing in products bearing the mark “CLASSMAN” or any mark alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to ITC’s registered trademark “CLASSMATE”, pending disposal of the suit. Justice N. Senthilkumar passed the order on May 13 in seven applications filed by ITC. The applications sought reliefs relating to trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement and trade dress violations. Also Read – Delhi HC Temporarily Restrains Use Of ‘Schezwan Dipping Chutney’ Mark In Ching’s Secret Trademark Suit “Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience in its favour and accordingly there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for.”, it noted. Appearing for ITC, counsel submitted that the company is the registered proprietor of the word mark “CLASSMATE” in relation to notebooks, pencils, copier paper, scholastic products and various writing instruments. Also Read – Calcutta High Court Refuses Interim Injunction Against ‘ON & ON’ In ONN’s Trademark Suit According to the order, the mark “CLASSMATE” is registered under Trade Mark Registration No.1846290 dated July 31, 2009 in Class 16. The mark has been used since April 1, 2003. Counsel further submitted that during the financial year 2024-25, ITC had a total income of Rs.77,690.38 crore. The Court also recorded the submission that ITC owns several trademark registrations in relation to products in Class 16 having “CLASSMATE” as their leading and identifying feature. Also Read – Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of ‘Kranti Kamat’ Mark In Kamats Worldwide Trademark Suit “The learned counsel for the applicant referred to paragraph 9 of the Plaint, wherein a list of several trade mark registrations belonging to the plaintiff in relation to relevant products in Class 16, having CLASSMATE” as their leading and identifying feature is mentioned. But the respondent with a malafide intention adopted deceptively similar mark “Classman.”, thereby infringing the right of the plaintiff.”, the court noted. Also Read – Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Western Digital Challenge Over Refurbished Hard Drive Sales After hearing the submissions, the Court held that ITC had made out a prima facie case. It further held that irreparable loss and the balance of convenience were in favour of the company. Accordingly, the court granted interim injunctions as sought in the applications. The injunctions restrain the respondents from dealing in products bearing the mark “CLASSMAN” or any mark alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to “CLASSMATE”, pending disposal of the suit. The court issued notice to the respondents. The matter will be heard next on June 15, 2026. For ITC: Advocate Arun C Mohan Tags Madras High CourtJustice N Senthilkumar Case Title : ITC Limited v. Shree Ramdev Notebook & Ors. Case Number : OA Nos. 457. 458,459,460, 461. 462 and 463 OF 202 in C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 141 OF 2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 133 To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE Next Story Delhi HC Temporarily Restrains Use Of ‘Schezwan Dipping Chutney’ Mark In Ching’s Secret Trademark Suit Riya Rathore 28 May 2026 1:14 PM (3 mins read ) Share this The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala, trading as K3 Masala, from dealing in products under the marks ‘Schezwan Chutney’ and ‘Schezwan Dipping Chutney’ in a trademark infringement suit filed by Capital Foods Private Limited, the maker of Ching’s Secret products. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order on May 22 after observing that the defendant’s products were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark and that adoption of the mark was “clearly not honest or bonafide.” Capital Foods, an associate of Tata Consumer Products Limited, told the court that it adopted the mark ‘SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY’ in 2012 and had used it continuously and extensively since then in relation to sauces, dips, and condiments sold under the Ching’s Secret brand. The company also relied on a January 2023 order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which had noted that the mark had acquired secondary significance. According to the plaintiff, it learnt in August 2025 that the defendant was manufacturing and selling products under the mark ‘SCHEZWAN DIPPING CHUTNEY’. The plaintiff further alleged in April 2026 that similar products were also being sold under the house name ‘Fruvanta’, apart from products sold under the ‘K3 Masala’ and ‘Green Piece’ branding. The plaintiff submitted that despite legal notices issued in August 2025, November 2025 and April 2026, the defendant did not respond. Capital Foods argued that the insertion of the word ‘DIPPING’ between ‘SCHEZWAN’ and ‘CHUTNEY’ was merely an inconsequential change and described the matter as a “classic case of smart copying”. Agreeing with the contention, the court observed, “Merely by using the word ‘dipping’ between the words ‘Schezwan’ and ‘Chutney’ would really not make such a distinction as to enable an unwary consumer with an average intelligence and imperfect recollection to be able to differentiate between the two products.” The court further observed that brand names such as “K Masala”, “Green Piece” or “Fruvanta” appearing on the packaging would not sufficiently distinguish the defendant’s products from those of the plaintiff. The court also took note of the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant was selling Jain versions of the impugned products, similar to the plaintiff’s own Jain variant, which according to the plaintiff showed that the defendant was closely tracking its product variations. “The defendant appears to be riding the coattails of the plaintiff’s immense reputation and substantial goodwill. This is bound to dilute the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s trademark,” the court said. Holding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, the court restrained the defendant, its agents, and distributors from dealing in the impugned products or any other deceptively similar mark. The court also directed the defendant to place on record its books of accounts, invoices, sales memos and other documents relating to the allegedly infringing products in a sealed cover within six weeks from the date of service. The matter is next listed before the court on November 17, 2026. For Capital Foods: Advocates Dhruv Anand, Rohil Bansal and Chirayu Prahlad Tags Delhi High CourtJustice Tushar rao gedela Case Title : Capital Foods Private Limited v. Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala Trading As K3 Masala Case Number : CS(COMM) 562/2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 555 To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE Next Story Calcutta High Court Refuses Interim Injunction Against ‘ON & ON’ In ONN’s Trademark Suit Riya Rathore 27 May 2026 7:05 PM (2 mins read ) Share this The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal by Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited, which uses the registered ‘ONN’ mark for its hosiery products, seeking a trademark injunction against Anila Kedia, who was using the mark ‘ON & ON’. A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the Commercial Court at Rajarhat’s December 23, 2025 order refusing interim injunction to the appellant. Biswanath Hosiery, a manufacturer and seller of hosiery products, had filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Kedia. The trial court’s refusal to grant interim relief prompted the appeal. Before the High Court, the appellant argued that since ‘ONN’ was a registered mark under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the respondent’s use of ‘ON & ON’ amounted to infringement. It also contended that the respondent could not claim prior use, since the appellant’s registration and claimed use dated back to 2011, while the respondent’s invoice on record was from 2016. The Trade Marks Registrar had in 2011 raised an objection under Section 11 of the Act citing similarity with existing marks, including ‘ON-N-ON’. In response, the appellant’s advocates stated that ‘ONN’ was “a coined and meaningless expression” that was “visually, structurally and conceptually different” from the cited marks. The appellant proceeded to obtain registration on the basis of that stand before the Registrar. The respondent argued that the appellant was estopped from contending that ‘ONN’ was similar to ‘ON & ON’, when it had itself claimed dissimilarity with the structurally comparable ‘ON-N-ON’. Agreeing, the court observed, “On the parity of the reasoning as contained in its letter dated September 30, 2011, it cannot be said that there are similarities between ‘ONN’ and ‘ON & ON’. At least on a prima facie level while considering a petition for grant of injunction, similarity finding cannot be returned.” Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court’s order, the bench dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs. For Biswanath Hosiery: Senior Advocates Soumendra Nath Mookherjee and Ranjan Bachawat, with Advocate Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Debayan Sen, Mohima Chobera, Yamini Mookherjee, Susrea Mitra and Niket Ojha For Respondent: Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha with Advocates Suvasish Sengupta, Syed. E. Huda, Pratiksha Sharma, Sahadat Ali, Sk. Aptabuddin and Nabeela Akbar Tags #Calcutta High CourtJustice Debangsu BasakJustice Md. Shabbar Rashidi Case Title : Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited v. Anila Kedia Case Number : FMAT-IPD/2/2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 141 To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE Similar Posts Delhi HC Temporarily Restrains Use Of ‘Schezwan Dipping Chutney’ Mark In Ching’s Secret Trademark Suit The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Kishan Rameshbhai Kaswala, trading as K3 Masala, from dealing in products under the marks ‘Schezwan Chutney’ and ‘Schezwan Dipping Chutney’ in a trademark infringement suit filed by Capital Foods Private Limited, the maker of Ching’s Secret products. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the ex-parte… Calcutta High Court Refuses Interim Injunction Against ‘ON & ON’ In ONN’s Trademark Suit The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal by Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited, which uses the registered ‘ONN’ mark for its hosiery products, seeking a trademark injunction against Anila Kedia, who was using the mark ‘ON & ON’. A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the Commercial Court at… Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of ‘Kranti Kamat’ Mark In Kamats Worldwide Trademark Suit The Bombay High Court on May 13, 2026, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Kamats Worldwide Food Services Private Limited. It restrained Musa Bhai Nadaf, who runs a restaurant under the mark ‘Kranti Kamat’, from using the mark ‘Kranti Kamat’, any other mark containing the word ‘Kamat’, or any mark… Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Western Digital Challenge Over Refurbished Hard Drive Sales The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 27 May declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court ruling permitting the sale of refurbished hard disk drives bearing Western Digital’s trademarks, holding that removal of the original marks before resale does not amount to trademark “use” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. A Bench of Justices B.V…. Saket Court Rejects Jagran Prakashan’s Trademark Claim Over “JAGRAN”, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs The Saket District Court at New Delhi, on 25 May dismissed Jagran Prakashan Limited’s trademark infringement and passed off suit against agricultural magazine Krishi Jagran, holding that a proprietor cannot monopolise a commonly used word through trademark registration when another party has established prior and continuous use. District Judge… Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Vajiram & Ravi, Slams It For Delaying Main Trademark Suit The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to civil services coaching institute Vajiram & Ravi in its trademark dispute with rival Vajirao & Reddy, while warning that the suit could face dismissal if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the trial. A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora… Urban Company Agrees Before Delhi High Court To Edit One Of Ads Allegedly Disparaging Kent RO Products Urban Company (UC), maker of the Native RO water purifier, agreed before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday to edit one of three advertisements that Kent RO Systems alleged were disparaging its products, without agreeing to take it down entirely.The matter was heard by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, with Senior Advocate Amit Sibal appearing for Urban… Delhi High Court Restrains Named, Unknown Parties From Using SKF Trademark For Bearings, Freezes Bank Accounts The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained five known entities and several unknown entities from using Swedish bearing manufacturer AB SKF’s registered “SKF” trademark after finding a prima facie case that they were allegedly dealing in counterfeit bearings, while also directing Kotak Mahindra Bank to freeze three bank accounts linked to some… Delhi High Court Restrains Google From Using Hindware Trademark As Ad Keyword, Awards ₹30 Lakh The Delhi High Court has recently permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India from using the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as advertising keywords, holding that Google could not avoid responsibility for enabling infringement through its keyword advertising tools. Justice Mini Pushkarna, in a judgment pronounced on May 22, also directed… Delhi Court Restrains 9 Traders From Selling Counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren Goods, Awards ₹5 Lakh Damages A Delhi district court has permanently restrained nine Gandhi Nagar traders from selling counterfeit Polo Ralph Lauren products and awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. District Judge Arul Varma of the Saket district court, in a judgment dated May 19, 2026, granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from… Rajasthan HC Sets Aside 10-Year-Old Decree Restricting Use Of ‘METRO ENGINE’ Mark, Orders Fresh Trial The Rajasthan High Court on 19 May set aside a 2016 Trial Court judgment that had restrained Dhanvarsha Oil Mills from using the mark “METRO ENGINE” for its mustard oil products. Justice Sameer Jain held that registration of a trademark under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act only raises a rebuttable presumption of validity and cannot, by itself,… About Us Contact Us Advertise with us Careers Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Top Stories INCOME TAX MSME Know the Law Compliance Other Taxes IBC PMLA & FEMA Competition Law Law Firms ARBITRATION Supreme Court & High Courts IPR Company Law Regulatory Interviews Columns Commerical Court Act GST / VAT / CST LLP Securities Law Debt Recovery Laws Banking/NBFC Custom & Excise & Service Tax RERA Compliance Digests Merger and Acquisition 2026 © All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw Media Pvt Ltd Powered By – Blink CMS We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok

https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-hc-temporarily-restrains-use-of-schezwan-dipping-chutney-mark-in-chings-secret-trademark-suit-536016