Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11601–11700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust v.New Horizon School
The plaintiff, New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust, claimed that it was the registered owner of the trademark 'NEW HORIZON' for educational services. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, New Horizon School, was illegally using a similar name/logo, causing confusion and passing off. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Zephyr Biomedicals v.Lalit Mahajan And Anr
Zephyr Biomedicals filed a post-grant opposition against Patent No. 224469. The court addressed procedural issues regarding the patentee's non-response and the subsequent service of notice after the abolition of the IPAB, allowing the patentee to file a reply.
The Managing Director and Appellate Authority, Tasmac v.M.Loganathan
Tasmac appealed an interim order from the Single Judge, which directed them to provide certain commercially sensitive information regarding liquor purchasing rates in a sealed cover. Tasmac argued that this information constituted trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
M/S V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.M/S Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by V-Guard Industries against an order that deemed its trademark opposition abandoned. The court held that the strict interpretation of 'leave with the Registrar' in the Trade Marks Rules should not lead to the evisceration of a citizen's valuable commercial right to oppose registration. Despite the evidence being received three days late, the High Court set aside the abandonment order and directed the Deputy Registrar to proceed with considering V-Guard's opposition.
V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in V-Guard Industries Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., directing that the present appeal be listed along with another case for a final hearing on January 6, 2023. This interim order manages the procedural timeline of the ongoing trademark dispute between the parties.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its application for patent (No. 3304/DEL/2005). The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for computer programs. Microsoft argued that the reliance on outdated guidelines was incorrect and cited prior court views supporting patentability.
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Whirlpool Properties, Inc. against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its device mark application. The court found that the coined word 'AFFRESH' was inherently distinctive and not descriptive, thus overcoming objections under Section 9(1)(a). Furthermore, after reviewing cited marks, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar to existing registrations, allowing the registration process to continue.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's MATTEO range of switch plates infringed upon three registered designs (296178, 296179, and 296180) held by the plaintiff for its LYNCUS switch plates. The court examined physical samples and photographs to determine infringement.
Perkinelmer Health Sciences Inc And Ors v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged an order refusing a patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, based on Section 3(f). The Appellant argued that the objection was raised for the first time at the hearing stage without prior notice, violating natural justice. The Court agreed, finding that the Respondent violated procedural fairness by not communicating all objections in advance.
Adani Wilmar Limited v.Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex legal issue concerning the enforceability of trademark rights after a party voluntarily waives actionable claims related to that brand. The court specifically examined an affidavit where the defendant, Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., declared they forewent any enforceable right in their unregistered brand 'Shubh Labh Fortune' for GST exemption purposes. Given the implications on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court directed the Department of Revenue to file its stand and submissions in the current proceedings.
Modi Naturals Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Modi Naturals Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark, 'OLEEV ACTIVE'. The court found that the coined word 'OLEEV', combined with 'ACTIVE' and a slogan, was distinctive and not merely descriptive. Furthermore, it determined that the subject mark was not deceptively similar to any earlier marks cited in the examination report. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with the registration process.
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited v.M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited appealed against an order passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, which allowed temporary injunctions sought by the plaintiff. The appeal challenged the misuse and misrepresentation of the plaintiff's logo, channel name, and assets by the defendants. The High Court dismissed the appeals but held that the impugned order was subject to the trial court's determination of jurisdiction.
N.V. Satheesh Madhav And Anr v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for an invention related to a bio-bed and method for growing Vigna radiata plants. The initial objections included lack of inventive step, non-patentable subject matter (Section 3(h)), and clarity issues. Although some objections were dropped, the final refusal was based on Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d).
Metis Eduventures Private Limited v.Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Metis Eduventures Private Limited against Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors. The court found a prima facie case based on the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'CAREER POWER' trademark in the education sector. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing marks across e-commerce websites and directed to remove specific content featuring the mark.
Jivraj Tea Limited v.Dayalji Vanravan Kotecha
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning tea brands. The plaintiff, Jivraj Tea Limited, argued that its registered mark 'JIVRAJ-9' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'DOUBLE HAATHI PREMIUM TEA NO.9'. However, given the introduction of additional pleadings and documents during the appeal process, the High Court found it necessary to remand the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the interim injunction application.
Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj v.Mr. Gagan Bhardwaj
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector, the Delhi High Court issued a series of orders. The court granted an interim restraint on the defendant from manufacturing or selling similar products while allowing him to liquidate his existing stock within three months. Furthermore, the parties were mandated to undergo mediation, signaling that the dispute will proceed through structured negotiation before further litigation.
M/S Soktas Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret As v.ACIT, International Taxation
The assessee, a Turkish non-resident entity specializing in textile production, received consideration for granting an exclusive and perpetual license to use its trademarks and brand names to its Indian subsidiary. The core dispute was whether this payment constituted royalty or capital gains under the India-Turkey Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8620/DELNP/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The original rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the claimed method for repairing a gas flue inside was merely standard operation or part of an operational manual. Nippon Steel contended that its claims disclosed several unique technical steps ignored by the Examiner. The Delhi High Court issued directions for both parties to file detailed submissions and supporting documents before proceeding with the appeal.
Kalki Industries v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V
Kalki Industries appealed against an excise order demanding duty, interest, and penalty based on alleged evasion of central excise duty by wrongly availing SSI exemption. The core issue was whether the appellant, having acquired the rights to the 'KALKI' trade mark, was entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption.
Tci Foundation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by TCI Foundation against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its label mark application. The court overturned the initial rejection, which was based on grounds including non-compliance with examination reports and similarity to prior marks in different classes. The judgment clarified that a composite mark can be registered and directed the Registry to process and advertise the subject mark.
Entertainment Network (India) Limited v.Https//Tuneincom/Podcasts/Arts--Culture- Podcasts/Bangla-Sunday-Suspense-P2082186/ and Ors
In this copyright infringement case, Entertainment Network (India) Limited sought to protect its audio content, 'Sunday Suspense,' which is based on literary works. The court issued an ex-parte order directing intermediary platforms (like Tuneincom) to immediately take down the infringing URLs and compelling Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose server details used by the infringers. This ruling highlights the proactive role of courts in enforcing IP rights against digital infringement.
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Abhinav Singh & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr against Abhinav Singh & Ors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were operating a fraudulent website using the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and DS Group trademarks to lure the public into fake distributorship schemes, while also infringing on copyright by copying the label layout. The court found a prima facie case was made out, leading to immediate restraining orders against the use of the marks and domain name, along with directives to suspend the domain and freeze associated bank accounts.
M/S RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Developers Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S RPG Enterprises Limited, granting a permanent injunction against RPG Developers Private Limited and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deliberately using the 'RPG' mark to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's well-known trademarks. Furthermore, due to the dishonest conduct of the defendants in attempting to deceive the public, the court awarded damages and costs to the plaintiff.
Shree Ganesh Rollings Mills (India) Ltd. v.Jindal Rollings Milla Ltd.
In a significant procedural order, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to transfer two pending rectification applications filed by the respondents against the petitioner's trademarks. This move ensures that all related intellectual property proceedings are heard together in the High Court, aligning with established IP Division rules. The court set a timeline for the transmission and digitization of these records, paving the way for consolidated pleadings.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs And Anr.
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
Samsung India Electronics Co Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs 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 the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices before setting a returnable date.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt Ltd v.Mohsin Dehlvi
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The court recognized that despite previous procedural hurdles, the pleadings raised valid questions concerning the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'DEHLVI' trademarks and the legal standing of an alleged Assignment Deed. Crucially, the judgment noted that under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, rectification petitions can now be clubbed with civil suits, eliminating the need for a stay on the main litigation.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Design regarding its patent application for a composition comprising DGLA. The initial objection was related to Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, which Nestle addressed by amending the claims. However, the subsequent amendment was rejected under Section 59 on grounds of expanding the original claim scope.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd
Diageo Brands B.V. filed an application seeking injunction against Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd, alleging piracy of their registered Design No. 306577. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product design was a fraudulent imitation of Diageo's protected design. The court examined complex issues regarding the scope of novelty analysis versus infringement analysis and the appropriate 'eye' (instructed vs. ordinary purchaser) for comparison. Ultimately, the court found that the distinguishing features used to establish the suit design's originality also differentiated it from the defendant's impugned design, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.
SAP SE v.SAB INFOTECH SOLUTION PVT LTD & ANR
The dispute between SAP SE and Sab Infotech Solution Pvt Ltd was resolved through a comprehensive settlement decree by the Delhi High Court. The core agreement mandates that while Sab Infotech can continue using the full trading name 'SAB INFOTECH,' they must not use the mark 'SAB' in isolation or deceptively similar to SAP's registered trademarks. Furthermore, Sab Infotech agreed to withdraw a specific trademark application related to their brand. This settlement allows both parties to move forward with defined usage parameters.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Dipankar Mandal
Aditya Infotech Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Dipankar Mandal in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was falsely printing the plaintiff's registered 'CP Plus' logo on unbranded CCTV cameras, leading to potential consumer confusion. Given the market reputation of 'CP Plus' and the risk of irreparable harm, the court granted immediate relief to protect the brand's goodwill.
Manoj Kumar Goyal, Sole Propreitor Of M/S Manoj Sweets v.The Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Also Registrar of Trademark Registry & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute where the petitioner, Manoj Sweets, claims prior use and registration of the mark 'MANOJ SWEETS' in classes 30 and 43. The core issue is the subsequent registration of an identical mark, 'MANOJ BAKERS,' by another party (Respondent No. 2), which the petitioner alleges was done without proper citation of his existing rights. The court has initiated proceedings to examine this conflict, directing notice to all parties and setting timelines for filing detailed submissions.
Smt. Manju Pathak v.M/S Shree Agro Foods
The plaintiff, a scientist, holds Patent No. 23606 for a process of developing Blood Sugar Regulating Products from germinated soybean seeds. She sued M/S Shree Agro Foods alleging that their product, NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR, infringed her patent. The court found the defendant liable and granted permanent injunction but declined damages due to lack of evidence.
Stanley Black And Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The Delhi High Court rejected a defendant's attempt to have the plaintiff's trademark infringement suit dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court affirmed that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated sufficient nexus to New Delhi, citing the defendant's sales across India, online transactions via websites like shoption.in and indiamart.com, and physical delivery within the city. This ruling reinforces the expansive interpretation of jurisdictional reach in modern commercial disputes involving digital commerce.
Artsana India Private Limited v.Vishanji Viijpar Savla
The plaintiff, Artsana India Private Limited, a subsidiary of Artsana SPA (Italy), claimed ownership of the well-known trademark "CHICCO" used for child care goods. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was fraudulently adopting and misusing this trademark to run his own business, causing dilution and loss. The court granted permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and awarded costs.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201611000234) on grounds of ineligibility under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the invention was a technical advancement with practical implementation and should be granted a patent.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The commercial suit filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp against Yms Laboratories Private Limited for Patent Infringement concerning Sitagliptin was settled mutually. The court decreed the suit in terms of this settlement agreement, which included the Defendant acknowledging the patent's validity and agreeing to cease all infringing activities.
M.I. Industries, Incorporated v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M.I. Industries against the Registrar of Trade Marks, overturning the rejection of their trademark application 'NATURE'S VARIETY'. The court found that despite consisting of common dictionary words, the mark was sufficiently distinctive when applied to animal foodstuffs (Class 31), as it evoked a natural quality without being directly descriptive of the goods. Furthermore, the Appellant's international reputation and goodwill were noted in the decision.
M/S Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Veda Seed Sciences against an interim trademark infringement order. The court affirmed that Kohinoor Seed Fields was the prior adopter and registrant of the marks 'SADANAND', 'TADAAKHA', and 'BASANT'. Despite Veda's later registration, the court found their use was dishonest, stemming from a marketing agreement where they acknowledged ownership by Kohinoor. The injunction restraining Veda from using these trademarks remains in effect.
The Hind Samachar Limited v.M/S Punjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed for the rectification of the 'PUNJAB KESARI NATIONAL' trademark following an inter-party settlement. The court directed the Trademark Registry to amend the registration, limiting the scope and territory of the mark exclusively to specific regions defined in the parties' Memorandum of Family Signature (MoFS). This decision provides a clear legal mechanism for resolving complex territorial disputes between brand owners through negotiated settlements.
The General Hospital Corporation And Anr. v.The Controller of Patents And Designs And Anr.
The General Hospital Corporation appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs under Section 15 of The Patents Act, 1970, which dismissed their patent application. By consent of both parties, the Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order.
Art Screw Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Art Screw Co., Ltd. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller denying its patent application for 'Fastener and Fastening Structure' on grounds of lack of inventive step over prior art. The High Court found that the original order lacked proper reasoning and comprehension, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Laans Portfolios Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Laans Portfolios Pvt Ltd's appeal against an order that deemed its trademark application 'VEGAZVA' abandoned. The core issue was a procedural discrepancy where the Registrar failed to consider the Appellant's filed counter-statement despite it being on record for one of the identical opposition filings. Recognizing this clerical error and the unfairness to the applicant, the Court set aside the abandonment order, restored the application, and directed the Registry to process the registration.
M/S Tejram Dharampaul v.M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Tejram Dharampaul against M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GANESH CHHAP TOBACCO' was likely to cause confusion with the Plaintiff's long-established mark, despite the Plaintiff lacking a formal word mark registration for the specific phrase. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory and seize goods bearing the infringing mark.
The Hind Samachar Limited v.Punjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition concerning the trade mark 'PUNJAB KESARI' after the involved family members reached an oral and written settlement. The court directed the amendment of the trademark registration, effectively carving out specific geographical territories for both the petitioner (VKC group) and the respondent (AKC group). This resolution allowed the parties to coexist using the same mark within defined regional boundaries.
M/S Tej Ram Dharam Paul & Anr. v.M/S Om Shiva Products Inc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court found that the Defendants' marks, 'ICE FEEL' and 'LIPLOCK', were deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' registered trade dress and word marks, 'COOL LIP'. Despite jurisdictional challenges raised by the Defendants, the Court held that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case based on prior use and substantial similarity. The injunction restricts the Defendants from manufacturing or selling products under these impugned marks.
Mr. Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar @ Kumar G.M v.M/S. Eaglesight Media Private Limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged a lower court's dismissal of an intellectual property suit filed by M/S. Eaglesight Media Private Limited. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court had jurisdiction, given that the suit related to trademarks and other assets but was valued low due to seeking only injunction. The High Court addressed this jurisdictional conflict, emphasizing that for commercial IP disputes, the 'Specified Value' under the Commercial Courts Act must be determined based on the market value of the intangible right, not merely the nature of the prayer.
Ds Intellectual Properties Llp & Anr v.Ashutosh Kumar Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ds Intellectual Properties Llp against Ashutosh Kumar Singh and others. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Rajnigandha' trademark and associated copyrights, alleged that defendants were using a deceptive website ('www.rajnigandhadealership.online') to lure the public into fake distributorships under their brand name. Consequently, the court restrained the defendants from using the trademarks or the domain name and directed the domain registrar and bank to take immediate action.
Ramesh Chander v.Pritam Das
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark opposition filed by Ramesh Chander against Pritam Das. The petitioner claims prior use and ownership of the mark 'ANIL' for confectionary goods, arguing that the respondent's later registration is barred under Section 12(1) and obtained through fraud. The court issued directions to serve notice on the respondent and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders, moving the matter forward in the opposition proceedings.
Somani Industries v.Registrar Of Trade Mark, Government Of India; Somani Ceramics Limited
Somani Industries approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking intervention regarding a long-pending trademark application ('SOMANI'). The petitioner sought direction for the Registrar of Trade Marks to expedite the decision process, especially considering an existing opposition from Somani Ceramics Limited. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Registrar to decide both the pending application and the associated opposition at the earliest, preferably within two months.
Biogaia Ab v.Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Biogaia Ab against the Senior Examiner's refusal of the 'PROTECTIS' trademark for Class 5 goods (pharmaceutical products). The court found that 'PROTECTIS,' being an arbitrary term with no dictionary meaning, possesses sufficient distinctiveness and is not descriptive. Furthermore, the court noted that prior objections regarding similarity to other marks were unsustainable after reviewing their status. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the trademark application was directed to proceed for registration.
Novartis Ag v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
Novartis initiated a suit against Zydus Healthcare Limited alleging imminent threat to its commercial interests concerning the patented combination drug Sacubitril and Valsartan. The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing that the cause of action was illusory or based on misstatements. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the court must decide such applications solely based on the allegations made in the plaint, without considering the defenses raised by the respondents.
Sonya Kapur v.Controller General Of Patent, Designs And Trademark and Ors
Sonya Kapur challenged the grant of Patent No. 363697 by the Patent Office, arguing that the pre-grant opposition filed by her was ignored. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the patent application to the Patent Office for re-consideration, ensuring the petitioner's opposition is taken into account.
Electronica Semiconductors Pvst Ltd v.Naveen Goel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark opposition proceedings involving Electronica Semiconductors Pvt Ltd against Naveen Goel and others. The court directed the parties to cure registry objections, provide necessary documentation, and file consolidated briefs of submissions within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for further substantive arguments regarding the trademark dispute.
Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International v.Qaysa Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff, Anurag Saxena T/As Unique International, against Qaysa Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'NEW IMPROVED HAMMER OF THOR' was virtually identical to the plaintiff's registered marks and trade dress, constituting prima facie passing off and trademark infringement. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff's brand while the main suit proceeds.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against the denial of an interim injunction concerning pharmaceutical trademarks. The court held that since both parties are generic drug manufacturers launching products after patent expiry, and given the similarity of the marks is based on active ingredients, there were no strong equities in favor of either party at this preliminary stage. Furthermore, the appellant's registered mark had not been used for over twenty-four years, which weighed against granting immediate protection.
Deepak Khanna M/S B.D. Khanna Jewellers Pvt Ltd. v.Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark infringement and rectification petitions involving the 'BDK' mark. Following the abolition of the IPAB, the court revived the suit for infringement alongside the pending rectification matters. The court appointed a new Local Commissioner to proceed with recording evidence, setting a timeline for completion within three months.
Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court remanded an appeal filed by Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd regarding the rejection of its trademark application 'Modern Namkeen Karare Lal'. The core issue was whether the appellant could proceed with the appeal despite a previous rejection order from 2018. Recognizing the merits of the case, the court ordered the matter to be sent back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the original review application. However, this remand is conditional: Modern Snacks must first prove that the prior rejection order was never properly communicated to them.
Exhibitions India Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Exhibitions India Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the 'SMART CITIES INDIA' device mark. The court found that the mark was not merely descriptive or generic, especially given the Appellant's extensive history of using it for organizing exhibitions since 2015. Furthermore, the court determined that the mark was not deceptively similar to conflicting marks cited by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Trademark Registry was directed to process the registration.
Nif Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this appeal concerning trademark registration, the Registrar of Trade Marks argued that Nif Private Limited was seeking repeated registrations for the same device mark. The court noted conflicting claims regarding prior and subsequent applications related to the brand 'Namaste India Creamy Delicious Dahi'. To properly adjudicate whether multiple registrations were being sought for the identical mark, the High Court directed the appellant to place both relevant trademark application documents on record.
Loreal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Loreal's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'PILLOW PROOF BLOWDRY' for hair care products. The court found that the mark was suggestive rather than descriptive, noting that while individual words are common, their combination does not immediately describe the product. Consequently, the court set aside the previous orders and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with registration, provided a disclaimer is placed on the rights of the individual component words.
Suresh Mishra Trading As Sanskriti Yuva Sansthan Society v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Government Of India
Suresh Mishra filed a writ petition seeking an expedited disposal of his pending trademark application, 'Bharat Gaurav,' which had been awaiting consideration since October 2006. The Rajasthan High Court addressed the petitioner's limited prayer by issuing a directive to the Registrar of Trademarks. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the long-pending application within a period of four months from the date of receiving the order, thereby providing relief against administrative delay.
Joy Universal Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Joy Universal Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the word mark 'PRINCESS PAT'. The court found that the grounds for refusal, based on similarity to earlier marks under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, were unsustainable. Crucially, the court noted that several cited conflicting marks had since been removed or refused registration, significantly changing the circumstances. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed, subject to a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights are granted in 'PRINCESS' or 'PAT' individually.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistance Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Act. The court released the matter from part heard due to heavy board load.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co., alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their respective snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials based on the similarity of marks and artistic designs used on packaging. Ultimately, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co., alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their respective snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials based on the similarity of marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution and entered into a Memorandum of Compromise.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The dispute involves a claim of infringement regarding a process patent for manufacturing Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The Plaintiffs sought to implead the Drug Controller General of India, arguing the Defendant failed to prove their process was different from the patented process. The Defendant countered that the Plaintiff was exceeding the scope and had not demonstrated product identity.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ferring B.V.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its pharmaceutical composition does not infringe Patent IN 387567 held by Ferring B.V. The defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the non-compliance with pre-institution requirements under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the plaint to be registered as a suit and directed the issuance of summons.
EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Jaya Sai Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against M/s.Jaya Sai Traders for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'DHEEPAM' and copyright violation related to the packaging of lamp oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('PANCHA DEEPAM OIL') and trade dress, leading to passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the IP infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation appealed an order that rejected its application for a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited. FMC alleged that Natco's process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) infringed their patented method IN 298645, claiming equivalence between the processes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infringement because the use of thionyl chloride by Natco was not equivalent to sulfonyl chloride in the suit patent.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
This matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court Original Side from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued procedural directions to the Department regarding record correction and directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties before the returnable date. Consequently, the case was scheduled for listing in January 2023.
Multimodal Technologies, LLC v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the relevant department to correct its records and subsequently listed the matter for January 2023.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc filed an appeal challenging the order dated July 22, 2019, by The Controller of Patents. This order rejected the application for grant of a patent under various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file submissions and pleadings.
Techfields Pharma Co Ltd Yu Chongxi v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
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 the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
Sandisk Llc v.Patel Mobile Accessories And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Sandisk LLC's application to amend its suit, permitting the impleadment of three additional parties—Shree Mataji Mobiles, Target Telecom, and Paravathi Telecom. These entities were identified as selling and marketing counterfeit products bearing Sandisk's registered trademarks. The court granted the amendments sought by the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed against a broader set of alleged infringers.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon their Indian Patent (IN 296857) related to piston compressor crankcases. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, setting out procedural directions for filing written statements and addressing various interlocutory applications.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The court heard an application filed by Defendant 7 seeking permission to place screenshots and a research paper on record to challenge the novelty of Design No. 263764 asserted by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing delay. The Court allowed the documents but directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission or denial.
M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a challenge by Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against an order directing it to change its corporate name. The dispute centered on the use of 'Raymond,' which was claimed by another entity (Respondent 3) to be protected under trademark rights and prior incorporation dates. The court upheld the administrative decision, finding no illegality in requiring the petitioner to alter its name.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The petitioner, Alpa Laboratories Limited, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent IN '231479. The petitioner argued that although the patent was revoked by the Deputy Controller of Patents on December 1, 2020, an appeal had stayed this revocation order. The court issued notice and directed parties to file submissions.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
Plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with medicines bearing marks like 'NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE', alleging misuse of confidential information related to their multi-micronutrient supplement, 'TRIMACARE'. The court examined claims of passing off and similarity between the marks. Ultimately, the ex-parte order was vacated, but the defendants were directed to disclose sales data.
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. v.Lupin Limited
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. filed a suit alleging that Lupin Limited infringed its proprietary technology, NONS (a Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray), by developing and marketing a competing product called NOXGUARD, in breach of a Confidentiality Agreement. The appeal challenged the dismissal of SaNOtize's interim application seeking an injunction against NOXGUARD.
ITC Limited v.Khayrul Bashar And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed ITC Limited's application for rectification against the trademark 'NEEMYLE'. The court found that the registration was obtained wrongfully because the Registrar failed to conduct a proper and adequate search of earlier, similar marks. Given the prior extensive use and established goodwill of ITC's mark 'NIMYLE', the continuance of the impugned mark was deemed contrary to public interest, leading to its cancellation.
M/S Jindal (India) Limited v.M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles Through Its Partners Rakesh Gandhi and Vinay Gandhi
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Jindal (India) Limited against M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks, such as 'JINDAL ROOFING SYSTEM' and 'JINDAL RANGOLI,' on roofing sheets, which infringed upon Jindal's registered trademarks like 'JINDAL SABRANG.' Recognizing a prima facie case and irreparable harm to Jindal's reputation, the court immediately restrained the defendant from selling or advertising goods using these infringing marks.
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v.The Controller Of Patents And Anr
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application no. 4805/DELNP/2007 by the Controller of Patents and Anr. The application was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)) and insufficient disclosure (Section 10) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Tomar Enterprises and others for alleged infringement of his air cooler designs. The plaintiffs claimed their unique, registered designs were being copied by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, supported by evidence showing copies and prior rejection of cancellation applications. Consequently, the temporary injunction application was allowed, restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing design.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed an order dated July 31, 2019, wherein its application for grant of a patent was rejected. The court issued notice to the respondent and directed both parties to file written submissions within specified timelines.
John Cockerill India Limited v.Sanjay Kamalakar Navare
John Cockerill India Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Petition seeking urgent ex-parte relief against its former employee, Sanjay Kamalakar Navare. The Petitioner alleged that Mr. Navare, who had access to highly confidential designs, proprietary technical know-how, and customer data during his tenure, transferred sensitive information onto external storage devices before leaving the company. Based on a forensic analysis of the company laptop, the court recognized the gravity of the breach. Consequently, the Bombay High Court appointed a Receiver with powers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC to seize and examine all digital devices belonging to the Respondent to secure the evidence.
Ajinomoto Co Inc v.Dattatrey Studios & Anr.
Ajinomoto Co Inc successfully secured an interim injunction against Dattatrey Studios in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark 'AJI-NO-MOTO,' argued that the upcoming movie title infringed its rights and was disparaging, linking the brand to negative health claims. The court granted the relief, preventing the release of any film bearing the disputed name until further hearing.
Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory v.Rafeeq Beedi Factory
The plaintiff, Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory, sued several defendants for infringing its proprietary trademarks, copyrights, and trade dresses related to its 'Bidis' business. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over marks like DEEWANA BIRI NO. 302, which was registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (DEEBAN BIRI and numerical 305) in relation to the same goods.
Siddhant Icecreams Llp v.Ameet Pahilani
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court facilitated an agreement between Siddhant Icecreams LLP (Plaintiffs) and Ameet Pahilani (Defendant No. 2). The court mandated that Defendant No. 2 cease using the terms 'Natural' and 'Naturals' in relation to ice creams across various media, including packaging and online platforms, to protect the Plaintiffs' trademark rights. However, the order provided specific carve-outs allowing the use of the mark 'NIC' under certain conditions within India and outside India, while also permitting the sale of existing stock until a specified date.
Apollo Tyres Limited v.Glory Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Apollo Tyres Limited against Glory Enterprise & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's 'APOLLO' mark and the defendants' 'OPOLLO' mark used on automotive tyres and tubes. Furthermore, the Court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct comprehensive searches, seizures, and inventories at the defendants' manufacturing premises to gather evidence against the alleged counterfeit operations.
Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh v.Geetan Luthra
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Vbm Medizintechnik Gmbh against Geetan Luthra regarding the use of the mark 'VBM'. The court found that despite prior distribution agreements, the defendant's subsequent registration and use of a deceptively similar mark for medical equipment constituted infringement. The ruling emphasizes the need to prevent consumer confusion when one party leverages another's established brand identity.
Apnatime Tech Private Limited And Anr. v.Anik Dev Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Apnatime Tech Private Limited against the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were passing off their services using a deceptively similar mark ('APNA JOBS') and infringing on their copyrighted website layout and user interface. Citing prima facie evidence, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark and artistic works, while also directing domain name suspension and blocking to prevent further consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Krbl Limited v.Ashok Kumar
Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered trademark, 'INDIA GATE with device of INDIA GATE', which is used in the business of rice. The court found that Defendant No. 1 was fraudulently using the trademark through an impugned website and domain name, leading to unauthorized sales and collection of money.
Levi Straus & Company v.Sunil Yadav
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Sunil Yadav for the clandestine manufacturing, storing, and selling of jeans and accessories bearing falsified trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'Levi's', 'Two Horse logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design'. The court found that the defendant was blatantly infringing the registered trademarks and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff.