Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11401–11500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Kolkata v.M/s. McLeod Russel (India) Limited
The Revenue appealed an order dropping demands for Service Tax on royalties paid by M/s. McLeod Russel (India) Limited to a foreign company for using licensed trademarks and patents related to tea production. The Tribunal held that since the trade marks and patents were not registered in India, they did not qualify as Intellectual Property Rights under Indian law 'for the time being in force', thus making the royalty payment non-taxable.
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd appealed against the registration granted to Relaxo Footwears Limited for a slipper design. The Supreme Court accepted a new design from Aqualite and ordered that the pending appeals and related applications be disposed of, subject to the parties being bound by their statements.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd v.Controller General Of Patents, Design
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which had refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based primarily on the grounds that the subject matter lacked inventive step over existing prior art. Biomoneta highlighted the innovative nature of its device, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute arising from the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). Following the termination, AEWCS continued operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad,' leading to concurrent litigation regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court addressed both the contractual dispute and the IP misuse, ultimately finding that while the termination clause was binding, the public needed clarity regarding the school's affiliation status.
Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the refusal of their Indian Patent Application No. 201911036748 by the Controller on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the invention was novel, inventive, and not subject to the bar of Section 3(d). However, the High Court upheld the Controller's refusal.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed against an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its Indian Patent Application No. 10246/DELNP/2012. The rejection was based on Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued directions for filing replies and further pleadings.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Immersion Corporation, filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff through their manufacture and sale of mobile handsets. The court allowed procedural applications regarding document submission and exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
The petitioner sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 301322 (Impugned Patent) registered in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2, arguing that it was liable to be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption for filing annexures and directed notice to be issued to the respondents.
Umai Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ramesh Kumar & Anr.
In a series of rectification petitions, Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited sought the cancellation of several trademarks owned by Ramesh Kumar and others. The court noted that the respondents had entered into a settlement with the petitioner and subsequently filed applications with the Trade Marks Registry to voluntarily withdraw or cancel the disputed marks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of these withdrawal applications within three weeks, effectively disposing of the rectification petitions pending compliance.
Ms Bharat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks Also Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed objections raised in a rectification petition concerning the trademark 'LUBI'. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the registration occurred in Ahmedabad and not New Delhi. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner's filing was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to a prior pending suit in the District Court at Ahmedabad. Given these complex jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court decided to renotify the matter for further consideration.
Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation v.Meera Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a civil original trademark rectification petition filed by Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation against Meera Devi. The court found that the respondent's adoption and use of the similar mark 'BAL BIHARI SUPER' was dishonest, as it followed an earlier acknowledgment of the petitioner's rights by her husband. Given the identical nature of the goods (tobacco products) and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court ordered the removal of the impugned trademark from the Register.
Dorco Co Ltd v.Durga Enterprises And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Dorco Co Ltd against Durga Enterprises And Anr, successfully removing the infringing 'DORCO' trademark (Registration No. 1252224) from the register. The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of the mark for five years and that its registration was obtained dishonestly to ride on Dorco’s established goodwill. This ruling reinforces the principle that trademarks must be used genuinely, and prior users with strong reputation have superior rights.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Suffee Garments
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling shirts and apparels bearing falsified trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse logo') and deceptively similar designs (Arcuate Stitching) of the plaintiff. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement and passing off.
Gpl Exports Limited & Golden Peakock Overseas Limited v.Global Lighting Source Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a comprehensive settlement reached between GPL Exports Limited and Global Lighting Source Private Limited. The original suit involved claims related to intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, designs, and confidential information concerning the lighting industry. By entering into a mediated agreement, both parties resolved their disputes, with the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the settlement.
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited v.Government of India
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to call for the records of the Government of India concerning two specific patent applications (Nos. 211904 and 196432) and quash the related order dated 04.12.2017. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the prayer had become infructuous.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The dispute involved Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd asserting its exclusive patent rights over a specific suspo-emulsion formulation. The parties reached a settlement regarding Defendant No. 1 (BR Agrotech), acknowledging the Plaintiff's patent validity and granting a permanent injunction against infringement.
P.Periyasamy v.M/S.Jaya Jeya Agro Mills
The plaintiff filed civil suits alleging that the defendants infringed his registered copyright concerning the artistic and literary work detailing a precast concrete chimney. The court addressed multiple suits, ultimately dismissing C.S.No.102/2018 as not pressed for against one defendant, while granting relief in C.S.No.96/2018.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Indo Mim Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Pabitra Kumar Swain
The plaintiff, a company specializing in MIM products, filed a suit against its former employee (Defendant No. 1) and his new employer (Defendant No. 2), alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement by soliciting employees and customers after resignation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding solicitation and loss, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
Patanjali Ayurved Limited v.Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted Patanjali Ayurved Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors. The court found that the proposed amendments were procedural, correcting inadvertent errors and clarifying the scope of the claims without altering the substance or prejudice to the defendants. This allows the core dispute regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off to proceed with more precise pleadings.
Sns Products Private Limited v.Ijazuddin
The Delhi High Court disposed of a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 34/2022) in favor of Sns Products Private Limited. The defendant, Ijazuddin, agreed to permanent injunctive relief for the plaintiff and consented to transferring all relevant trademark and copyright applications to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court passed a decree based on these terms, resolving the dispute.
Fontaine Limited v.Vinod Mahadik & Anr.
Fontaine Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'impugned mark,' registered by Vinod Mahadik & Anr. The Petitioner demonstrated that the Respondent had failed to use the mark continuously for over five years, providing evidence of non-use through investigator reports and online searches showing inactivity. Given the Respondent's failure to appear despite substituted service, the Court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the conflicting registration.
Inreco Entertainment Private Limited v.M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur Audio)
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by Inreco Entertainment Private Limited against M/S. Nav Records Private Limited. The court granted necessary procedural leaves and dispensed with certain requirements due to the urgency pleaded in the case.
Google Llc v.Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.
Samridhi Enterprises v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Samridhi Enterprises filed a suit against Flipkart and several sellers for alleged infringement of its trade marks and copyrighted marketing materials related to car covers. The court recognized the prima facie case of infringement, particularly concerning the unauthorized use of design look-and-feel and promotional imagery by third-party sellers on the platform. Crucially, the court issued an interim injunction restraining these infringing parties from using the plaintiff's intellectual property until the full trial can proceed.
Astral Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Astral Limited and Astralglee following a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs against specific defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) according to the terms of the settlement dated February 21, 2023. Notably, the judgment confirmed that one clause within the settlement—where Defendants admitted 'ASTRAL' is a well-known trademark—would legally bind them.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Mr. X, Trading As, M/S Prabhat Store
In a trademark infringement case concerning Pidilite Industries Limited's products (FEWIKWIK and M-SEAL), the Delhi High Court granted an extension for its local commissioners. The court allowed the plaintiff to continue seizing counterfeit goods based on new market evidence, ensuring that enforcement actions could proceed until the next hearing date. This order maintains the status quo regarding anti-counterfeiting measures while allowing defendants time to prepare their defense.
Element Six Technologies Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application (No. 10030/DELNP/2011) under Section 3(d). The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the application for fresh consideration of the remaining claims.
Ticona Polymers, Inc. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ticona Polymers against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'COOLPOLY'. The court held that a trade mark cannot be dissected into its component parts (like COOL and POLY) when assessing inherent distinctiveness. Finding that 'COOLPOLY' as a whole was not descriptive, the High Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the application for further processing.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Shivashankar
The plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing tobacco products under the trademark HANSCHAAP, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were dishonestly adopting and using identical/deceptively similar trademarks (HANS and HANSVENBA) on their impugned goods. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement, passing off, dilution, and copyright violation.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd v.M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd against M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises concerning trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The dispute involved the use of the 'OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY' mark across various classes and digital platforms. Crucially, the court accepted a Memo of Compromise and Trademark Assignment Deed signed by both parties, leading to the suit being settled and decreed without costs.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v.The Registrar
The Delhi High Court allowed Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation's appeal, overturning the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register a proposed mark. The court held that despite some phonetic similarity, the marks were not similar when viewed as a whole because the cited mark was a composite device containing unique visual elements (a sketch and bilingual text) absent in the appellant's mark. This ruling emphasizes that for trademark opposition under Section 11(1), the comparison must be holistic, preventing mere phonetic resemblance from leading to rejection.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Sandip @ Sandeep Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated trademark opposition proceedings where Petitioners, established users of a mark in the Plaster of Paris (POP) business since 2004, sought cancellation of a registered mark held by Respondent No. 1. The court allowed an initial application for exemption regarding document filing while setting out the procedural framework for the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, and the parties were directed to file detailed submissions before further hearings.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Hygiene Wash' by the Joint Controller. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on insufficiency of disclosure (Section 10(4)), was violative of natural justice as no objection was raised at earlier stages. The court directed re-notification to hear the matter further.
Ozone Overseas Private Limited v.Sukkhjinder Singh Virdi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court framed issues in the suit filed by Ozone Overseas Private Limited against Sukhkjinder Singh Virdi & Ors. The litigation involves multiple IP claims, including infringement of the registered trademark OZONE/OZONE DEVICE and copyright infringement related to product catalogues and logos. Furthermore, the plaintiff has alleged passing off due to the defendants' use of near-identical materials. This order sets the stage for a full trial addressing territorial jurisdiction, ownership rights, and damages.
Greaves Electric Mobility Private Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors
The petitioner, Greaves Electric Mobility Private Limited, filed a case against The Controller of Patents. The respondent argued that the Controller was not a necessary or proper party to the revocation petition, relying on Section 64(5) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Astral Ltd v.Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd
Astral Ltd filed a suit against Ashirvad Pipes Pvt Ltd, alleging that the defendant's use of the mark 'CPVC FLOWPRO' infringed upon Astral's reputation associated with its trademark 'CPVC PRO'. The core dispute centered on whether the similarity between the marks created a likelihood of confusion in the market. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for granting an interim injunction.
Sunit Shah v.Sunshine Food Products
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding the trademark 'HOT MIX'. While the appellant argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness, the High Court agreed with the trial court's initial finding that 'HOT MIX' is descriptive of the namkeen product. However, recognizing the need for justice, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the remaining proceedings and decide the suit promptly.
Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the proper service of an objection notice related to a trademark application. The core issue was whether the appellant (Purushottam Singhal Proprietor Ms. Prime Cable Industries) actually received the notice sent by the Registrar of Trade Marks, who claimed it was delivered to their agent. Given the conflicting claims regarding service, the Court decided not to rule immediately.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia appealed the rejection of her patent application for a device and process related to tactile feedback replicating breath hold. The Assistant Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 and D2. The High Court found the impugned order perfunctory and unreasoned, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Jainsons Lights Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration for 'Jainsons Lights,' finding it deceptively similar to an earlier mark, 'M/s Jainsons Lites.' The court determined that despite the appellant claiming historical use of the name 'Jainson' since 1978, their specific claim of user for the complete subject mark was only from 2014. Since this date is subsequent to the prior mark's established usage in 2005, the appellant could not invoke Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act to overcome the likelihood of public confusion.
Dabur India Limited v.Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited
Dabur India Limited successfully secured a decree against Goodluck Ayurveda Private Limited regarding the infringement and passing off of its trademark 'HONITUS.' The dispute was amicably resolved through mediation, leading to a Settlement Agreement. Under this agreement, the Defendant acknowledged Dabur's rights, agreed to cease using the infringing packaging/label/trade dress, modified their product presentation, and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
Visage Beauty & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Herbal Carts & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several crucial interim orders in the trademark infringement suit, Visage Beauty & Healthcare vs Herbal Carts & Ors. The court directed Fashnear Technologies Pvt. Ltd., an e-commerce intermediary, to provide contact details of sellers listing infringing products on its platform. Furthermore, the court allowed the impleadment of a proposed defendant involved in alleged collusion and deferred the request by Facebook Inc. to modify existing interim injunction terms regarding 'similar' vs. 'identical' URLs.
Rusan Pharma Ltd v.Aumgen Pharma Llp & Ors
The case involved a settlement agreement between RUSAN PHARMA LTD and AUMGEN PHARMA LLP regarding patent infringement. The defendants agreed not to engage in activities infringing the plaintiff's patent.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which found that her patent application lacked inventive step based on cited prior arts D1-D3. The appellant argued that the decision was non-reasoned, leading to a request for remand.
Umang Dairies Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Umang Dairies Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark 'WHITE MAGIK'. The court found that while the word 'WHITE' might relate to milk products, the composite mark is suggestive rather than descriptive. Furthermore, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar from cited marks and noted that evidence of use had been on record but overlooked by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the registration process was directed to proceed.
Smithkline Beecham Limited v.Gskfinancial.Com & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, Smithkline Beecham Limited sought relief against rogue websites operating under similar domains like gskfinancial.com. The plaintiff alleged that these sites were fraudulently collecting money from the public while incorporating its corporate identity and trademarks (GSK). The court issued extensive interim directions, including permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, restraints on domain name registration, and specific orders to block access to fraudulent websites and freeze associated bank accounts.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a review application challenging an earlier order. The core issue was whether his implicit challenge to the constitutional validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, had been overlooked during the original proceedings.
Adama India Private Limited v.Fmc Corporation & Anr.
Adama India Private Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) does not infringe Patent No. IN 298645 held by FMC Corporation. The court, while addressing an interim application, granted a temporary restraint on the defendants from contacting distributors or regulatory authorities to prevent business hindrance.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of an identical trademark from the register, arguing that their own mark was already registered. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Inbrew but granted Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. an opportunity to respond before making a final decision on the removal prayer. This interim order sets the stage for further litigation regarding trademark rights.
Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary & Anr.
This order in Landmark Crafts Private Limited vs Union Of India concerns the rectification of Trademark No. 266607. The court noted that the matter was pending and scheduled it to be listed before the IP Division on March 2, 2023. This procedural step indicates the ongoing legal process aimed at correcting issues related to the registered trademark.
Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Rajdeep Sharma & Anr.
Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd filed a contempt petition alleging that Mr. Rajdeep Sharma and others were willfully disobeying a prior court order dated May 11, 2017. The original order required the respondents not to use the 'CLARIDGES' trademark. Claridges presented evidence showing the respondent continued using the trademark for a real estate project in advertisements. While the petition was filed alleging infringement and contempt, the Court issued directions for further proceedings rather than delivering a final judgment.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
Laboratoires Expanscience v.Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Laboratoires Expanscience seeking the rectification of the trademark register. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's registration of the word mark 'MUSTELA' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations) infringed upon its own prior, registered rights in Class 3 (non-medicated skin care). Crucially, the respondent agreed to relinquish the mark and cooperate with its deletion. Consequently, the Court directed the removal of the impugned registration, rectifying the register accordingly.
Surender Kumar v.The Registrar Of Trademakrs
The Delhi High Court allowed Surender Kumar's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to refuse registration for the mark 'CANON'. The court found that the Senior Examiner erred by disregarding a prior settlement decree, which explicitly permitted the use and registration of 'CANON' for the services applied for. Furthermore, the court dismissed objections regarding user date requirements as they were introduced after the application was filed. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Registry was directed to proceed with the mark's advertisement and registration.
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v.State Of U.P. And 11 Others
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking directions to state authorities to initiate proceedings against private respondents for alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner sought mandatory action under both IP statutes. However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that if any violation exists, the petitioner must pursue remedies through an FIR or other permissible legal actions, rather than seeking enforcement via writ jurisdiction.
American International School Chennai v.American International School Greater Noida & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of American International School Chennai against American International School Greater Noida. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of the name 'American International School' was likely to deceive the public. This crucial early ruling protects the plaintiff's registered trademarks while the full litigation proceeds.
Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd against the Trademark Registry's refusal of its application for 'TRAVELODGE SKYE'. Despite concerns regarding similarity with prior marks, the court directed that the subject mark be permitted to be advertised without acceptance. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with the registration process while any underlying disputes over the core 'TRAVELODGE' mark remain pending.
Vending Updates (India) Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Vending Updates (India) Private Limited against the refusal of its device mark registration. The initial objection, based on similarity to Amazon's registered trademark, was overcome when Amazon Technologies, Inc. provided a Letter of Consent. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection order and directed the application to proceed towards publication and registration.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition seeking mandamus from the Delhi High Court to compel the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to restore his patent application. The application, for a "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," had been deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. Chaudhary contended that the abandonment was an error caused by his erstwhile Patent Agent and that he never intended to abandon the invention.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietor M/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff, H.S. Sahni, seeking a stay under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued notice to the defendants and set the matter for return on July 4, 2023. This order indicates that the dispute regarding trademark rights is actively progressing through litigation.
Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its trademark application, 'THE SERAI JAISALMER.' The court found that the mark was not descriptive for Class 43 services, especially given the existence of a nearly identical registered mark in the same classes. Furthermore, considering the lapse or refusal status of most cited prior marks, the Court directed the Trademark Registry to process and advertise the application, subject to an explicit disclaimer regarding the word 'JAISALMER.'
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd. v.M/S S M Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd against a prior order that denied a temporary injunction. The plaintiff sought to stop the defendant from using the trade name 'POLYGON', claiming it infringed upon their registered trademark 'POLYCON'. However, the court found no prima facie case for infringement or passing off, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding market goodwill or proof of prior use. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the court clarified this ruling does not prejudice the final trial on merits.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mobilfuels Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Exxon Mobil Corporation challenged the use of an impugned mark by Mobilfuels Private Limited. While the defendant claimed to be giving up the mark, the court noted that the defendant had also filed a registration application which needed withdrawal. The court directed the defendant to place communication regarding the withdrawal on record and scheduled a future hearing specifically to address claims for costs and damages.
Gopika Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the renewal of Trademark No. 1039952, which was originally registered under Dayal Industries Limited but subsequently renewed in the name of its sister concern. The court heard arguments regarding whether this change constituted a bona fide mistake or an improper transfer. To clarify the complex factual matrix, the Court issued directions requiring all relevant respondents to file detailed affidavits and produce supporting documentation within three weeks.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim injunctive relief regarding trademark infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found prima facie substance in Glaxo Group Limited's claim against Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning the marks BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, ruling that these were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks (BETNESOL/BETNOVATE). Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using these specific marks pending the final suit. However, the court declined to grant an injunction against the mark BETASON.
Kamal Kumar & Ors. v.Jagteshwar Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Kamal Kumar & Ors. against Jagteshwar Singh & Anr., which originated from a suit involving trademark and copyright infringement claims. The court noted that due to regulatory notifications, the matter needed specific handling within the IP division of the High Court. Consequently, the Registry was directed to re-register the appeal and schedule its hearing before the Intellectual Property Division on March 14, 2023.
Star Sintered Products Ltd. v.Karan Bhutani
The Delhi High Court addressed an application related to trademark rectification between Star Sintered Products Ltd. and Karan Bhutani. The court noted that the defendant had withdrawn earlier applications seeking objections or rectification against the plaintiffs' trademarks. Consequently, the status of the plaintiff's marks was updated in the Registrar's records, removing references to prior objections. As a result, one specific interlocutory application (I.A. 2301/2021) was disposed of, while the court scheduled further hearings to consider the plaintiffs' claim for damages and other pending matters.
XY LLC v.The Asst .Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in April 2023.
Marico Limited v.Narico Agrovet Private Limited & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Marico Limited against Narico Agrovet Private Limited. The court was reviewing Defendant 1's compliance with a previous directive to change its company names to avoid infringing on Marico's registered trademark. However, the defendant raised procedural hurdles related to the unavailability of necessary e-forms from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Consequently, the Court directed the MCA to appear and clarify this position, ensuring that administrative difficulties do not impede the legal process.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Hitesh Ghanshyamdas Shah & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition filed by the Petitioner alleging non-compliance with a prior court decree, specifically concerning Trademark application No. 1865799. While the parties initially debated the status of the cancellation request before the Registry, both sides ultimately agreed on a path forward. The Court clarified that the Petitioner was free to approach the Registrar directly for cancellation based on the existing decree and correspondence, leading the Petitioner to withdraw the petition.
Prem Raj Parekh (Deceased) / Abhishek Parakh v.Shah Food Products And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the substitution of the deceased Plaintiff, Prem Raj Parekh, with his legal representative, Abhishek Parakh. This order facilitated the continuation of the trademark suit, allowing the applicant to formally assign ownership of Trademark No. 543474 in his name. While the procedural hurdle was cleared, the court explicitly left open the substantive objections raised by the Defendant regarding the Plaintiff's actual ownership of the trademark, setting the stage for further litigation.
Jockey International Inc v.Domain Administrator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Jockey International Inc's application to add domain name registrars and associated banks as additional defendants in its trademark infringement suit. The court granted crucial interim relief, directing the blocking and suspension of specific infringing domain names (www.jockeydealer.in and www.jockeyshops.in). Furthermore, it issued orders freezing bank accounts linked to these domains, significantly strengthening Jockey's ability to protect its 'JOCKEY' trademark against online infringement.
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Sk Geo Centric Co Ltd appealed a refusal order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant argued that the refusal order, which cited prior art D4, was bereft of any reasoning to support the conclusion of lacking inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order invalid due to lack of justification and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging piracy of registered designs (switch plates). The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation and expunction of these same designs. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of this counterclaim, arguing that only the Controller of Designs could handle such petitions under the 2000 Designs Act. The court rejected the objection, citing a Supreme Court judgment which reversed the view that cancellation pleas must be filed solely before the Controller.
M/S. Suparshva Swabs India v.Sh. Vipul Chhabra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's request to cancel a registered trademark, finding no deceptive similarity between the marks. The court held that despite both marks starting with 'T' and ending with 'IP', the overall visual, phonetic, and structural differences were substantial enough to prevent consumer confusion. This ruling emphasizes that similarity must be assessed as a whole, not merely by common letters.
Robotics Today B.V. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Robotics Today B.V., setting aside the rejection of its trade mark application 'ROBOTICS TODAY' under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the composite mark was suggestive rather than descriptive when used in the robotics industry, and determined that it was prima facie dissimilar to the cited conflicting mark. Crucially, the judgment mandated a disclaimer, ensuring the registered rights would only cover the combination 'ROBOTICS TODAY' and not the individual words.
Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited v.Chotiwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited against Defendant No. 5, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their registered mark 'CHOTIWALA,' which has acquired significant goodwill over decades, was being deceptively used by the defendant. This order provides immediate protection to the established brand while the main litigation proceeds.
Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Les Ateliers Louis Moinet Sa against the rejection of its trademark application 'LOUIS MOINET' for horological instruments and jewellery. The court recognized that the mark, being the founder's name used for luxury timepieces, possessed inherent distinctiveness. Despite objections regarding similarity to a cited mark ('LOUIS MONT'), the Court allowed the application to proceed to advertisement without acceptance, directing that any subsequent opposition must be decided on its own merits.
Anubhav Jain v.Satish Kumar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking cancellation of the 'Jain Shikanji' trademark registration. While dismissing the petitioner's initial arguments regarding lack of distinctiveness under Section 9, the court found technical deficiencies in the grant. Consequently, it directed the Registrar to re-examine two critical issues: the objections raised in the First Examination Report (FER) concerning prior marks (Section 11), and the validity of the claimed date of user. This interim order allows the respondent to continue using the mark while a de novo review is conducted.
Hermes International & Anr. v.Crimzon Fashion Accessories Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hermes International, declaring its 'H' trade mark as a well-known trademark. The court meticulously examined five factors outlined in Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, including global promotion, extensive use since 1997, international registrations across numerous countries, and successful enforcement actions abroad. This judgment solidifies the legal standing of globally recognized luxury brands within India.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Kentucky Fried Chicken's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'CHICKEN ZINGER'. The court found that while the word 'CHICKEN' itself is generic, the combination with 'ZINGER' was suggestive rather than purely descriptive. Crucially, the court clarified that KFC would not acquire exclusive rights in the common term 'CHICKEN', ensuring a disclaimer would be reflected upon registration.
M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v.Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Battelle Memorial Institute v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding with the case. Liberty was also granted for either party to apply for an early hearing.
Sri.A.J.Shashank S/O A.N.Jagadish v.Aiplex Software Private Limited
The plaintiff, who runs a YouTube channel uploading film clips from 'Encounter Dayanayak', sued Aiplex Software and others seeking mandatory injunction to withdraw copyright strikes and damages. The defendants argued that they were acting as an authorized antipiracy service provider for M/s Kasturi Media, which held the absolute rights over the movie.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed the refusal of its patent application, titled 'Composition for use in the Prophylaxis of Allergic Disease,' which had been rejected by the Patent Office on grounds including being a method of treatment and lack of inventive step. The High Court examined arguments regarding claim scope, permissible amendments under Section 59, and the demonstration of synergy. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, finding that the subject matter satisfied the criteria for inventive step and directing the application to proceed for grant.
Pentraxin Therapeutics Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Pentraxin Therapeutics Limited challenging matters before the Controller General of Patents. The High Court at Calcutta received this matter via transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued procedural directions to the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report, setting the stage for further litigation.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha M/S Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27. The court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'ALPHARD' within India, particularly in the specific classes of goods where the respondent was registered. Consequently, the petitions seeking cancellation were dismissed.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha / Toyota Motor Corporation v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petitions filed by Toyota Motor Corporation against Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd. regarding the trademark 'ALPHARD'. Toyota sought to remove registrations held by the respondent in Classes 9, 12, and 27, arguing its global reputation. However, the court found that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or transborder reputation for 'ALPHARD' specifically within India, particularly concerning the goods registered by the respondent. The judgment emphasizes that mere foreign sales are insufficient without evidence of extensive local use and advertising.
Subway Ip Llc v.Infinity Food & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff Subway IP LLC's request for an interim injunction against Infinity Food & Ors. The court found that despite initial allegations of trademark infringement and passing off (using similar names like 'VEGGIE DELICIOUS'), there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers, especially given the reputation of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court clarified that similarity in restaurant décor or layout alone does not grant a monopoly under Indian law, leading to the dismissal of the injunction request.