Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11101–11200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Resintech Inc v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark application dispute, setting aside the Senior Examiner's refusal based on the mark being descriptive. The Petitioner argued that the Examiner failed to consider prior submissions regarding the distinctiveness of 'RESINTECH,' including its use by the applicant globally and its combination nature. Consequently, the court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, ensuring all petitioner arguments are reviewed before a final decision is made.
Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co. v.Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co. against an interim injunction granted to Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that there was a high likelihood of confusion between the two parties' spice labels, particularly due to the use of similar marks and 'COW' devices. Despite the appellant's claims regarding prior use and copyright protection for their artwork, the court upheld the original order, finding that Kbm Foods had established a strong prima facie case for passing off.
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v.United Spirits Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'Royal Challenge American Pride.' The petition, which sought rectification of Trademark Registration No. 4300764 in classes 32 and 33, was rendered infructuous because the registration had already been suspended prior to the court's decision.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a comprehensive settlement between Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) and Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors. (Defendants). The parties resolved their trademark infringement dispute regarding the brands 'DOSELA' and 'ATENTRUE' versus 'DUZELA' and 'ATTENTROL'. Under the agreement, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks, destroy existing stock within specified timelines, and waive its own pending trademark applications for those names. The suit was subsequently disposed of based on these mutual undertakings.
Adidas AG v.Muthu and The Registrar of Trademarks
Adidas AG filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of the trademark registration 'ADIMAS' held by Muthu. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the dispute, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement agreement dated May 30, 2016. Consequently, Adidas sought leave to withdraw its petition, and the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Comite International Olympique v.S.Kasthuri
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by Comite International Olympique seeking rectification and cancellation of Trademark No. 1108146 in Class 12. The dismissal was based on the fact that the trademark had already expired, having been valid only up to May 30, 2023. The court granted the petitioner leave to re-apply should the mark be restored, allowing them to pursue their claim later.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-30) under reference UPC-001741, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-30) under reference UPC-001740, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Kilitch Drugs (India) Limited v.Zee Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiff, Kilitch Drugs, sought an interim injunction and relief for passing off against the Defendant, Zee Laboratories. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks (KILITCH and KILITCH SRO) in pharmaceutical preparations by the use of the impugned mark KILITH/KILITH SRO.
Also at v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and delivery up of stocks against Morepen Laboratories Ltd. for alleged infringement of three registered patents related to SAROGLITAZAR free acid and its magnesium salt. The dispute was subsequently settled out of court through a Joint Compromise Memo, which the Court recorded.
Varun Chopra & Jagdaman Kumar Chopra v.Shyam Sunder Chopra And Sons, Sampan Chopra, Vaibhav Chopra, Samvitee Foods Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning a lower court's decision to reject their trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether Section 20 of the CPC (territorial jurisdiction) was applicable despite provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that the special provisions of the Trademark Act do not oust the general principles of territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the plaint rejection application.
Raghu Ram Guda v.Kithuru Mohideen
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Raghu Ram Guda against Kithuru Mohideen and the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought to cancel Trademark No. 3952456 in Class 2. However, the court noted that the petitioner had subsequently been brought on record as the proprietor of the trademark, rendering the original petition unnecessary and moot.
M/S.J.S.F.Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v.Ms.Revathi Mohandass
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by M/S.J.S.F.Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought the removal and rectification of Trademark No. 3712623 in Class 30. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that a compromise had been reached in an earlier infringement action, leading to the withdrawal of the current petition. This outcome highlights how prior litigation settlements can directly impact ongoing IP remedies.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-27) under reference UPC-001744, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Three Plaintiffs v.Revision Petitioner (Defendant in original suit)
A suit was filed by three plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for using the trademark 'IONS'. The defendant challenged the plaint, which was dismissed. The present Civil Revision Petition challenged this dismissal, arguing that Article 227 grants unfettered power of superintendence. The Court held that Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, and thus dismissed the revision petition.
Rasila Jain v.Sh.J.Pradeep
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Rasila Jain seeking to remove or rectify the trademark entry 'TULASI LABEL' (No. 1783252). The court noted that documentation presented indicated the trademark was valid only until February 10, 2019. Consequently, since the mark had expired, no further adjudication was required, and the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Cadbury India Limited v.Gomathi Suresh
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Cadbury India Limited seeking to expunge Trademark No. 1050347 from the register. The court noted that the primary respondent, Gomathi Suresh, submitted that the trademark in question had already expired on October 8, 2021. Consequently, since the mark was no longer active, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without further adjudication.
M/S.Resq Technologies Private Limited v.Rajdeep Energies Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/S.Resq Technologies Private Limited against Rajdeep Energies Private Limited and the Registrar of Trademarks. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of the trade mark 'RESQ' (Device Mark) registered under Trade Mark Registration No. 1779942 in Class 09, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal followed a settlement reached between the parties involved.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-26) under reference UPC-001746, OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED appeared in dispute with AUTOSTORE AS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Baskar v.CPIO, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, DPIIT, RTI Cell
The appellant filed an appeal seeking detailed information about objections and classification of their design patent application (367649-001) under the Designs Act, 2000. The CPIO denied the request, arguing that the procedural aspects of design examination are governed by the Designs Act and Rules, not the RTI Act. The Commission upheld this stance, citing precedents on the limited scope of public information.
Kiri Industries Limited v.Huntsman Advanced Material (Switzerland) GMBH, The Controller of Patents, The Controller of Patents & Design
Kiri Industries Limited filed an Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 216182, granted to Huntsman Advanced Material for 'AN AZO DYE'. The petitioner subsequently informed the court that it was withdrawing the rectification petition.
Chivas Holdings (Ip) Limited v.Mcdowell And Company Limited
The Madras High Court allowed Chivas Holdings' petition seeking the removal and rectification of a conflicting trademark registration, 'Tribute,' in Class 33. The court noted that Respondent No. 2 (United Spirits Limited) had filed an application for cancellation of this specific mark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register by removing Trademark Registration No. 636945 from the records.
T.G.Arumugam v.T.G.Harigopal
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of the trademark 'UMBRELLA BAND' registration. The court noted that the dispute had been resolved through a joint memorandum of compromise, which was subsequently decreed by a lower court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Trademark Registry to allow applications filed under Form TM-P and Form TM-M, thereby officially recording the petitioner as a joint proprietor alongside the respondent. Furthermore, the registry was mandated to implement the agreed geographical division of territory.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-23) under reference UPC-001748, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Solera Holdings, Inc. v.Solera Networks Inc.
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Solera Holdings, Inc. seeking the cancellation of Trademark No. 1795016 registered in the name of Solera Networks Inc. The court noted that the trademark registration had already expired on March 13, 2019. Consequently, since the mark was no longer valid, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without any order regarding costs.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-22) under reference UPC-001750, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236791 from the patent register. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the petition.
N.Mariappan v.S.A.Safiullah and Co.
N.Mariappan filed an appeal seeking revocation of Patent No.198079, arguing that the invention lacked inventive step and was not patentable. The first respondent submitted that the relevant patent had already expired on August 28, 2020.
UltraTech Cement Ltd. v.Ultratech Paints and Allied Products
The plaintiffs filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants. The court allowed the application, granting an interim order restraining the defendants from using the impugned name 'ULTRATECH' and associated domain names to infringe upon or pass off goods related to the well-known trade mark 'UltraTech'.
Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd. v.Acit, Circle- 2(2)(1), International ...
Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd. appealed against an assessment order holding that consideration received from supplying/distributing its copyrighted software was chargeable to tax as 'Royalty' under the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Tribunal, following Supreme Court precedents, ruled that payments made for resale through EULAs do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright.
World Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network v.Daystar Television Network India Pvt. Ltd.; Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal and rectification of the trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK' from the register. The petitioners argued that the first respondent company had been struck off the Register of Companies and that the impugned trademark ceased to be valid after June 25, 2017. Given these developments, the court found the petition to be infructuous.
The Raring Corporation And Anr v.Neogie Engineering Works Pvt Ltd
The petitioners sought interim protection against the respondent for copying their registered design, 'Sonic Nozzle', which is an essential component of their dust suppression system. The dispute centered on whether the respondent's product infringed the petitioner's protected shape and configuration, or if the design was purely functional and therefore unprotectable.
V.V.Chandran v.Atco Udyog
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the District Court concerning a counter claim for revocation of a patent. The court held that the matter falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the High Court, but dismissed the petition because it was not suitable for admission at that stage.
Kanishk Sinha v.Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a suit alleging patent infringement against Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors. The plaintiff sought urgent interim relief but failed to satisfy the court regarding the necessity for dispensing with procedural formalities under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court granted one further opportunity to the plaintiff to address these formal requirements.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Suresh K.K.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed an appeal challenging a lower court's judgment regarding trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Super Wash – 555' washing soap. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using identical wrappers to deceive the public. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, primarily finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove prior use due to the inadmissibility of photocopied documents. Furthermore, the court held that the suit lacked territorial jurisdiction as the defendants' business was not within the court's limits.
ashok kumar sethi v.amazon technologies inc
Ashok Kumar Sethi and another sued Amazon Technologies Inc. for copyright infringement and passing off related to Henna Hair Colour products sold via Amazon's internet platform, alleging the use of identical labels 'Black Gold and Amin's'. The plaintiffs claimed significant advertising costs and a long-standing business presence under the trademark since 1993.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat (decision issued on 2023-06-16) under reference UPC-001753, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
A.Arjun v.Balaji B
A.Arjun filed an application seeking leave from the Madras High Court to sue Balaji B for copyright infringement and passing off related to artistic work used on garments. The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that both parties operate primarily in Madurai, despite alleged online sales in Chennai.
M.Raja Mohamed v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed a long-pending writ petition filed by M.Raja Mohamed seeking the restoration of his trademark, 'RAJA SUPARI.' The court did not delve into the merits of the case but issued a Mandamus directing the Registrar of Trademarks to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2017 and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks. This order effectively moves the matter forward for substantive consideration by the Trademark Registry.
Groupe Seb India Private Limited v.Sumit Bafna Trading As: B & J Marketing
Groupe Seb India Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'MAHARAJA WHITELINE' from the register, citing issues related to its validity. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition because the impugned trademark registration number 921351 had already expired on April 28, 2020. This ruling highlights the critical importance of monitoring the expiry dates of intellectual property rights.
M/s.Vicky Industries v.Sh.J.Pradeed; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/s. Vicky Industries seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'TULASI LABEL' (No. 1783253). The court noted that the term of the impugned trademark had expired on February 10, 2019. Consequently, the petition was deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was granted leave to re-apply should the mark be restored.
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Varna Homes Pvt. Ltd.
In a case concerning trademark disputes, Hyundai Motor India Limited sought the removal and rectification of Varna Homes Pvt. Ltd.'s trademarks from the register. The Madras High Court noted that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to implement specific amendments to the service descriptions in both trademarks within four weeks.
Vedant Fashions Private Limited v.Rajul Devi Trading As Manyavar
The Madras High Court addressed petitions filed by Vedant Fashions Private Limited seeking the rectification of registered trademarks held by Rajul Devi Trading As Manyavar. The court noted that the dispute between the parties had been resolved through an out-of-court settlement agreement dated April 1, 2019. Consequently, both petitions were closed without any formal order regarding costs.
OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G. v.BHAGAT GROUP
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-06-14) under reference UPC-001754, OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G. appeared in dispute with BHAGAT GROUP concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust v.M/s.Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust filed two Original Petitions seeking the revocation and removal of Patents No. 207233 and 234103, both held by M/s. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., in the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to transfer these matters for adjudication regarding patent invalidity. However, the court noted that both patents had already expired on March 24, 2019. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
I Am The Ocean, LLC v.Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Bombay High Court ruling, the petitioner successfully challenged an Examiner's refusal to register their trademark. The court found that the original rejection was not a 'reasoned order' because it failed to consider detailed arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness and its unique visual structure. Consequently, the high court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, ensuring all petitioner submissions are properly addressed.
OERLIKON TEXTILE GMBH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G v.HIMSON ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
Rajeev Hiremath v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Rajeev Hiremath filed an appeal challenging the Controller's refusal to register specific claims (1-12) under Application No. 201741023631. However, on the date of judgment, the appellant withdrew the appeal.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures' Association v.Nippon Soda Co. Ltd
The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation/cancellation of Indian Patent No. 268448 related to a method of producing granular agrochemical composition. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they intended to withdraw the petition without prejudice to their rights.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Oppo Mobile appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel charging system and power adapter. The appellant contended that the rejection lacked reasons, failed to appreciate the requirements for novelty/inventiveness, and violated procedural rules by not issuing a Second Examination Report after amendments. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Ajanta Pharma Limited against Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court passed an order accepting the Consent Minutes, disposing of the suit and interim applications accordingly.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.ICOS Corporation of Eli Lilly and Company; The Controller of Patents
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 235242 before the Madras High Court. The court noted that the patent had already expired on April 26, 2016.
Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa, setting aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to register a subject mark. The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider crucial material on record, including evidence of opposition and abandonment status of cited marks, as well as a NoC obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for the Respondent to conduct a fresh hearing based on all submitted facts.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Beiersdorf Ag successfully challenged an administrative order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its international registration. The Bombay High Court found that the original order was arbitrary, lacking independent reasons or consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, mandating a reasoned decision within eight weeks.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v.Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a lower court's decision regarding an interim injunction concerning its registered plant variety PAN 804. The appeal focused on procedural fairness, arguing that the trial court violated principles of natural justice by relying solely on voluminous documents produced by the respondents without giving the appellant a chance to respond. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an injunction.
Monsanto Technology Llc v.Union Of India
Monsanto Technology LLC challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 6560/CHENP/2008) by the Patent Office. The court found that the impugned order breached principles of natural justice because it referenced sections and paragraphs (like Section 10(4)(a), (b), (c) and paragraph 53) that were neither in the First Examination Report nor in the subsequent hearing notice.
Radhakrishna Adiga v.M/s.Vasudeva Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of petitions filed by Radhakrishna Adiga against M/s. Vasudeva Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd and the Registrar of Trademarks. The original petitions sought the removal or rectification of several trademarks registered under the name 'Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd.' However, the court noted that the petitioner had been instructed to withdraw all cases due to a settlement reached between the contesting parties.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation or rectification of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained by misrepresentation. The court noted that the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Shrinivas (Gujarat) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit against Shrinivas (Gujarat) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the latter was manufacturing and selling medicinal preparations under the deceptively similar trademark ZONFLOX, infringing on Mankind's registered trademark ZENFLOX. The court found the marks to be visually, phonetically, and structurally similar, leading to confusion among consumers.
Lakshmi Ring Travellers (Coimbatore) Limited v.Bracker Ag
Lakshmi Ring Travellers filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212183 held by Bracker Ag. The court noted that the term of the impugned patent had already ended on March 26, 2015.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained through misrepresentation. The court noted that the document indicated the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
Unilever Plc. v.Anurag Tiwari
The Commercial IPR Suit No. 481 of 2022, filed by Unilever Plc. against Anurag Tiwari and others, was settled by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, permitted amendments to the cause title, and disposed of the suit.
Mrs.Veena Kumaravel v.Union Of India
Mrs. Veena Kumaravel challenged the abandonment of her trademark application, 'Natural's @,' before the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to quash the public notice that treated her mark as abandoned under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act. However, the case was ultimately dismissed because the Central Government subsequently withdrew the order of mass abandonment that formed the basis of the challenge.
Shaik Nazeemuddin v.Mohammed Aslam; Registrar of Trademarks
Shaik Nazeemuddin filed two petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the removal and cancellation of trademarks 'BRIGHT ROCK' and 'BRIGHT' registered by Mohammed Aslam. The petitioner sought to maintain the purity of the trademark register. However, shortly after filing, the petitioner instructed his counsel to withdraw both cases. Consequently, the court dismissed (T)OP(TM)Nos. 288 & 289 of 2023 as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Madhuri Singh
The Bombay High Court addressed an application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the 'Jawed Habib' trademark and associated copyright in hair salon services. The court denied the plaintiff's request for immediate relief, primarily because the defendant asserted that she had ceased using the marks as of September 17, 2022, and there was no prima facie evidence to the contrary. Crucially, the court allowed the defendant to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, effectively directing the dispute towards arbitration.
Premier Airways Limited v.Easy Group Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Premier Airways Limited seeking the removal of a trademark belonging to Easy Group Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner company had been struck off the Register of Companies, meaning it no longer existed as a juristic entity. Consequently, the court found the petition infructuous and dismissed it without making any order regarding costs.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the suit filed by Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited against Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar and others. The court found that since the disputed trademark was successfully removed from the register via a rectification petition, and the defendant provided affidavits confirming no commercial use of the mark had ever occurred, all prayers in the original suit were rendered infructuous. This decision effectively closed the infringement proceedings.
Agfa Nv & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Agfa Nv appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'MANUFACTURING OF DECORATIVE LAMINATES BY INKJET'. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of clarity, succinctness, and inventive step. The Delhi High Court examined these grounds, particularly focusing on whether vague terms like 'thermosetting resin' were adequately defined in the complete specification. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order, directing the Patent Office to proceed with granting the patent.
M/s Martindal Research Laboratories v.M/s Shalina Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a civil appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute between Martindal Research Laboratories and Shalina Laboratories. The appellant sought to overturn an order that denied temporary injunction, citing lack of evidence regarding prior use of their mark 'VITAPLEX'. Recognizing the long pendency of the original suit (since 2008), the Court disposed of the appeal without interfering with the lower court's finding on interim relief. Instead, it directed the trial court to expedite the final decision on the merits of the case within a strict timeframe.
Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Hab Pharmaceuticals And Research Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vee Excel Drugs challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to cancel two pharmaceutical trademarks: 'VEGA ASIA' and 'VEGAH TABLETS'. The core issue revolved around determining prior use, particularly when one mark was registered on a 'proposed to be used basis.' The Court upheld the IPAB's finding that the subsequent user had the better right, emphasizing that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.
Harish Khatri S/o Late Shree Radheyshyam Khatri v.M/s Khatri Pannalal Premraj Bidi Manufacturer, Firm City Sawai Madhopur
The Rajasthan High Court modified a previous temporary injunction that had halted business operations by restricting the use of the registered trademark 'Macchis Brand Bidi'. Recognizing that both parties are partners in the firm, the court stayed the restriction on using the trademark until the underlying partnership dispute is resolved. This decision allows the defendants to continue their trade while ensuring the main suit proceeds expeditiously.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Br Retail India Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv, finding that the defendants were likely infringing on IKEA's registered trademarks. The court ordered the defendant to immediately cease using the deceptively similar 'TIKEA/' mark across all goods and services. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of any infringing material from the website www.tikea.in and directed the defendants to take steps to get such content taken down from third-party websites.
Nayan India Science And Technologies Private Limited v.Intents Mobi Private Limited & Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of three Indian Patents (373372, 407425, and 317629) by the defendant. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed parties to file pleadings while addressing applications for injunctions.
Hindware Limited v.Anil Kumar & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, Hindware Limited successfully negotiated an amicable settlement with Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff agreed to drop its claim for damages provided that the defendant withdraws his pending trademark application and commits not to use the disputed mark 'HINDWARE' on his goods. This order marks a pragmatic resolution in the ongoing dispute.
Macgregor, Alexander v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order dated November 19, 2020, which rejected Patent Application No. 3036/DELNP/2012 for 'Derivatives of Di(phenylpropanoid) Glycerol'. The court first condoned a delay of 479 days in re-filing the appeal and subsequently issued directions to list the matter before the Joint Registrar.
Microsoft Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patants And Designs
Microsoft Corporation filed an application seeking discharge of its advocates. It was stated that Microsoft had assigned the subject Patent Application no. 84/DEL/2005 to Zhigu Holdings Limited in 2017, and since the matter transferred from IPAB, there has been no communication with the assignee.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement based on their patent. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions for mediation and allowing parties time to file necessary pleadings and documents.
Grauer And Weil (India) Limited v.Mr. Nirav Shah & Ors.
In a dispute concerning specialized lubricants, the Delhi High Court allowed Grauer And Weil to proceed with its suit against former employees and their associated firms. The court granted an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation and appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with conducting a detailed inventory of the defendants' products and collecting samples, based on allegations that the defendants are using confidential information and trade secrets related to the plaintiff’s 'GRODAL' brand.
Lt Foods Limited v.Dawat Biryani & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Lt Foods Limited and Dawat Biryani & Anr. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached through court mediation. The defendants acknowledged Lt Foods as the proprietor of the well-known 'DAWAT' trademark and committed not to use any deceptively similar marks, such as 'Dawat Biryani,' in a manner that suggests affiliation or causes infringement or passing off. This resolution provides clear legal certainty regarding the protection of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Huhtamaki Oyj And Anr v.Controller Of Patents
Huhtamaki Oyj appealed a patent application rejection (Application No. 6727/DELNP/2014) based on lack of inventive step. The High Court examined the prior art references and found that the initial rejection was flawed, particularly regarding the procedural aspects. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the case of Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd vs The Registrar Of Trademark & Anr. While granting exemption and condoning a delay of 21 days, the court proceeded with the main petition (W.P.(C)-IPD 25/2023). Notice was issued to all respondents, setting a timeline for them to file their counter-affidavit within four weeks, indicating that substantive litigation on the matter is moving forward.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Om Shiv Footwear Through Its Owner Partner Proprietor Mr. Sushil Bansal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Relaxo Footwears Limited against Om Shiv Footwear. The suit alleged infringement of a registered design (Design No. 365606-001) for its 'BAHAMAS' footwear, along with passing off and imitation of the unique trade dress and packaging. The court found that a prima facie case was made out, noting striking similarities in both the product design and the distinctive packaging between the parties. This interim order immediately restrained the defendant from further dealing in the infringing products.
Bigmuscles Nutrition Pvt Ltd v.Avijit Roy & Ors.
Bigmuscles Nutrition Pvt Ltd successfully secured an ad interim injunction against social media influencers (Defendants 1-3) who were allegedly spreading false and defamatory claims about its '100% Performance Whey' product. The court found that the defendants' videos, which claimed the supplement was unsafe and amino spiked, constituted deliberate defamation and tarnishment of goodwill. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate takedown of specific impugned content across various social media platforms to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and sales.
Carlsberg Breweries A/S v.Tensberg Breweries And Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding the alleged expansion of business by Tensberg Breweries despite a prior injunction order. Carlsberg contended that Tensberg was willfully violating the court's restraint by applying for fresh excise licenses in new states using the restrained marks. The court found merit in Carlsberg's contention, leading to notice being issued to Tensberg and setting the matter for further arguments.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd v.Ashish Padia & Anr.
Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 418294, titled "BONDED FUSION BOWL," registered in the name of Respondent No. 1. The court issued interim orders addressing procedural matters and restraining both parties from engaging in conduct that hinders each other's business during the pendency of the proceedings.
Great Galleon Ventures Limited v.Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor Of Dharmesh Distillery & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex-parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of Great Galleon Ventures Limited (Plaintiff) against Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor (Defendant). The court found that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning their 'GOA' brand. Crucially, the court dismissed the Defendant's challenge to territorial jurisdiction, noting that the plaint explicitly stated the goods were being sold in Delhi, thereby maintaining the injunction pending final disposal of the suit.
Fybros Electric Private Limited v.Hira Lal Jain Trading As Vikram Cable Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Private Limited's petition, directing the removal of the rival trademark 'NEBROS' from the trade mark register. The court found that NEBROS was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier marks and covered identical goods (wires and cables) in Class 9. Given the likelihood of public confusion, the High Court ruled that the registration of NEBROS should not be upheld.
M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros. v.Mr.Om Prakash
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark infringement suit filed by M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros against Mr. Om Prakash. The court found that despite both parties operating in the silver jewelry trade, the defendant's use of 'D.R.R.' alongside descriptive words ('Shri Mahalakshmi Velli Maligai') did not constitute infringement or passing off of the plaintiff's registered marks like 'D.R.RAANKA'. The judgment emphasized that a marked difference in trading style prevents consumer confusion.
Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. v.Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark dispute between Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. and Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. The court directed the Registry of Trade Marks to provide the complete record related to the impugned trademark 'INDO GARV' (Registration No. 5361272) for review by the parties. Furthermore, procedural applications regarding document exemptions were disposed of, while notice was issued in the main proceedings.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Mr. Vinod K. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited against Defendant No. 1 for infringing its trademarks ('AQUAGUARD', 'PAANI KA DOCTOR') and copyrights related to water purification systems and spares. The court also awarded damages and costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment underscores that a defendant who evades court proceedings by non-appearance can be held liable for damages, preventing them from benefiting from their evasion.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Pramod Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited against Pramod Jain and others. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding advance service to defendants and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the defendants for inventorying and seizing counterfeit spares bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrighted get-ups.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Santosh Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes against Santosh Nath and others. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the defendants' premises to prepare inventories and seize stocks bearing the impugned marks, signaling a strong judicial intent to protect the plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Vensat Bio & Ors.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment against Defendant No. 3 (Vensat Bio & Ors.) due to sufficient cause of absence. Simultaneously, the court recognized the strong prima facie case presented by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like ORISON/SPORTEK in relation to pharmaceutical products. This dual outcome highlights the procedural complexities alongside the substantive strength of trademark infringement claims.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. challenged the grant of Patent IN 426553 by alleging that the claims were broadened beyond the original filing scope, violating Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued an interim order addressing procedural matters (CM 61/2023) and directed notice to all parties for further consideration of the main petition.
Jayshree & Company v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors
Jayshree & Company challenged a notice issued by respondents restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws. The restriction was based on an order in a Title Suit where a fuel cell battery manufacturer alleged patent infringement. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing authorities to grant registration provided the vehicles are distinct from those in the ongoing suit.
Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellants appealed against the Assistant Controller's rejection of their patent application for a fungicidal treatment using Ortho-phenyphenol (OPP) to treat black sigatoka in banana plants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentability under Section 3(h).
Ms Lightbook & Anr. v.Mr Pravin Shriram Kadam & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for interim injunctive relief, despite arguments regarding priority of registration and deceptive similarity. The court found that the plaintiffs were disentitled to immediate relief due to their failure to disclose a material fact—a previous admission made by them in response to a Section 57 rectification application filed by the defendants. This omission was deemed a clear case of misrepresentation and concealment, preventing the court from granting an injunction at this preliminary stage.
Jockey International Inc. v.M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Jockey International Inc. against M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that 'JOCKEY' is a well-known trade mark, supported by extensive sales figures and promotional expenditure. While granting procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, the court proceeded with the suit, allowing for further pleadings and setting up the framework for interim injunctive relief.
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Resilient Innovations seeking the removal/rectification of several PhonePe trademarks. The court held that because the petitioner had previously raised objections regarding the descriptive nature and invalidity of the marks in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 292/2019), they were bound by Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This section mandates that challenges to trademark validity must be addressed within the original civil proceeding before the court can allow rectification proceedings.