Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11701–11800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
M/S. Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks, Govt. Of India
Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious disposal of its long-pending trademark registration application for 'DELPAR.' The Rajasthan High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application no. 2192781 as quickly as possible, specifically within three months from receiving the court order. This ruling provides a crucial timeline for the petitioner's intellectual property rights.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors
The case involves issues related to patent infringement, rights relating to confidential information, and copyrighted drawings concerning the Automatic Tube Cleaning system. The court appointed Local Commissioners to ascertain the working of the system used by the Defendants.
Hombale Films Llp v.Thaikkudam Bridge
Hombale Films LLP, the producer of the film 'Kantara', challenged an order passed by the District Court, Kozhikode. The original suit was filed by Thaikkudam Bridge (a musical band) claiming authorship and copyright over the song 'Navarasam'. The lower court had previously restrained respondents from using the music without permission.
Milaap Social Ventures India Pvt Ltd v.Google India Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court allowed Milaap Social Ventures to amend its original suit, which was initially based on common law passing off. The petitioners sought to incorporate a statutory claim for trademark infringement after their mark ('MILAAP') was registered. The court overturned the trial judge's rejection, emphasizing that amendments should be liberally granted if they do not cause prejudice and are not mutually destructive with existing reliefs. This ruling allows parties to consolidate related IP claims under one suit.
Lakme Lever Private Limited v.Shyama Mai Enterprises And Anr.
This Bombay High Court judgment addresses a commercial arbitration application concerning the alleged misuse of the LAKME trademark. The court reviewed an affidavit from one respondent, who stated she was operating a salon under a different name ('8 to 8 Salon') and was not using the LAKME brand after her husband's death and the expiry of the franchise agreement. Given these new facts, the Court directed both parties to confer and provide instructions on whether the applicant still wishes to proceed with invoking Section 11 (likely related to trademark rights) and if the respondent is willing to remit past franchise fees.
Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd v.Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Sorrel Hospitality Pvt. Ltd against Lucknow Recreational Facility Centre Private Limited. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondent from continuing to use the 'Best Western' sub-licensed mark even after the underlying Sub-License Agreement was terminated due to defaults by the respondent. The court found that the continued unauthorized use of the mark, despite termination and legal notice, was likely to cause irreparable damage and mislead the public regarding an ongoing relationship between the parties.
Burger King Corporation v.Swapnil Patil & Ors.
In a significant move protecting its brand integrity, Burger King Corporation successfully secured an ad interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that defendants were attempting to circumvent previous orders by opening new bank accounts and registering highly similar domain names (www.burgerkingfranchise.co.in). Consequently, the court ordered the immediate suspension of these domains, freezing the associated bank accounts, and mandating the takedown of all infringing online listings.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement and passing off of its medicinal goods under the marks 'SITARED' and 'SETARET', claiming similarity with the defendant's mark 'SITARA-D'. The court found that prima facie, the two marks were not phonetically or visually similar, and dismissed the application for an interim injunction.
Kurlon Enterprises Ltd. v.M/S Goel Foam Co.
The plaintiff, Kurlon Enterprises Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, M/S Goel Foam Co., was misguiding customers by displaying the plaintiff's glow sign board and selling products under its name without authorization. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved through documentary evidence that the defendant was infringing upon their trade mark and business reputation.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietorm/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors
This Delhi High Court order initiates a trademark infringement suit filed by H.S. Sahni against Saic Motor Corporation Limited concerning the use of the marks 'M.G' and 'M.G.I' in the automotive sector. The Plaintiff claims rights based on continuous use since 1989 and registered trademarks from 1998, alleging that the Defendant is infringing upon these established marks. While procedural applications were disposed of, the Court formally registered the suit and directed the Defendants to file a detailed affidavit regarding their sales figures and product launches under the disputed mark.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Nirmala Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to confectionery products. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that its marks (PULSE/) were being deceptively used by the defendants' goods (PELSE/ and PLUS++/). Furthermore, given the defendants' failure to appear despite service, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Parle Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
Parle Products filed a suit against Britannia Industries alleging disparagement and unfair competition through advertisements for 'Britannia Milk Bikis.' The court found that the use of terms like 'G-NAHI' and similar packaging strongly suggested a comparison with Parle-G. Recognizing both parties' willingness to resolve the dispute, the Delhi High Court referred them to mediation while issuing an interim injunction preventing Britannia from re-publishing the print advertisements.
Cavinkare Pvt. Limited-Trends Division v.P & P Associates
Cavinkare Pvt. Limited-Trends Division filed a civil suit against P & P Associates alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'GREEN TRENDS' and copyright infringement related to product artistic works. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
TIMAB NL BV v.Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a crucial interim injunction in favor of TIMAB NL BV against Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. The court found that TIMAB had demonstrated prior and continuous use of its mark, making it entitled to restrain Shamrock's use of identical or similar marks for cognate goods. This order significantly protects TIMAB's goodwill and exclusive rights during the pendency of the suits.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of Ms Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vijay Baweja against Ajay Baweja concerning the trademarks 'AIRGOLD' and 'AIR GOLD (Device)'. The court accepted the petitioner's application to summon the original records related to these marks from the CGPDTM. The core dispute revolves around the joint ownership of the mark, which was subsequently assigned exclusively by the respondent without obtaining a necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioner.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic APIXABAN infringing Indian Patent No. IN'247381. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' continued activities, such as participating in tenders and authorizing distributors post-injunction, constituted willful disobedience or contempt of court.
Inventio Ag And Anr v.Schneider Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Inventio Ag And Anr. against a newly formed company, VDMIL Elevator India. The court found that this new entity was being used to circumvent existing trademark injunctions previously passed against the original defendants (Schneider Elevator). The order restrains the proposed defendant from using marks or logos deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and from mimicking the plaintiff's website look and feel.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia, holding several patents deemed Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for cellular technologies (2G-5G), filed an application seeking directions against Oppo. The dispute centered on whether Oppo's use of these patented standards required licensing under FRAND terms. The court dismissed Nokia's application, finding insufficient evidence to establish liability or justify the interim relief sought.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.S.Sura & Ors
The Delhi High Court delivered a mixed verdict in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aktiebolaget Volvo. While the court found that Defendants 6 and 7 were infringing the 'VOLVO' mark through deceptive similarity and dilution, leading to permanent injunctions and costs being awarded to Volvo, it ultimately dismissed the suit against other defendants (4, 5, and 9). The judgment highlights the critical importance of evidence regarding trademark usage and ownership in determining liability.
Vintage Distillers Limited v.Ramesh Chand Parekh
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Vintage Distillers Limited against Ramesh Chand Parekh regarding their alcoholic beverage brands. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'DHOLA THARU' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DHOLA MAARU'. Furthermore, the court recognized infringement not only under trademark law but also under copyright law due to the slavish imitation of the Plaintiff's artistic label design and trade dress. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to file additional documents in a commercial suit against Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which concerned alleged infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of trade secrets. The Plaintiffs sought to introduce various financial statements, correspondence, and domain details related to the Defendants' competing entities. However, the Delhi High Court scrutinized the request under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, emphasizing the need for speedy disposal.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, patent holders of Indian Patent No. 312847 covering a combination therapy for diabetes (Metformin + Canagliflozin), filed suit against the defendant for infringement. The court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of the plaintiffs and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing the infringing product.
Cosmos Corporation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by Cosmos Corporation seeking correction of a prior order. The correction was necessary because the parties had reached a settlement, resulting in the assignment of Trademark Registration No. 3628175 (TROPICLEAN) from the Registrar of Trade Marks to Cosmos Corporation. This ruling formally recognized the terms of the private agreement within the court record.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd & Ors
The case involves RXPRISM challenging the validity of a patent held by Canva, with arguments presented regarding non-infringement and prior art.
NEC Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
NEC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717010986) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subsequently listing the case for further hearing.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.GSP Crop Science Private Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit seeking an injunction against GSP Crop Science Private Limited for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. IN 252004, which covers a method for preparing intermediates used in manufacturing the insecticide CTPR. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant's process was identical to the patented method. However, the Court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the balance of convenience favored the Defendant and raising doubts about the patent's industrial applicability due to its age.
M/s. L'Oreal S.A. v.M/s. J.R. Cosmetic Shop
The plaintiff, L'Oreal S.A., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, J.R. Cosmetic Shop, was manufacturing and selling goods using trademarks deceptively similar to its well-known brands like L'OREAL and MAYBELLINE in Hyderabad. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr. v.M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd, setting aside a trial court order that had restrained them from using the phrase 'HAIR SPA'. The court ruled that since 'HAIR SPA' is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in the cosmetics industry to denote hair treatment, its use by the appellants under their registered trademark 'BERINA' did not constitute trademark infringement. This decision emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between proprietary marks and common trade language.
United Biotech Private Limited v.Cipla Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition seeking cancellation of an impugned trademark. Respondent No. 1 (Cipla Limited) assured the court that it was not using the mark, leading to the petitioner's success. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark and rectify the register accordingly.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited successfully argued that its restaurant brand, 'BUKHARA,' qualifies as a well-known mark in India. The Delhi High Court recognized the extensive reputation, global acclaim, and long history of the brand, despite similar marks being used by defendants. This judgment reinforces the strong protection afforded to established brands under Indian IP law, particularly concerning transborder reputation.
Rms Fire And Safety Services Pvt Ltd v.Ispl Automation Pvt Ltd
The appellant challenged the revocation of their patent for a Motor Bike Fire Engine granted in 2019. The case was heard by the Delhi High Court to determine its territorial jurisdiction over an appeal originating from the Mumbai Patent Office. Ultimately, the court held that since the appropriate office was in Mumbai, it lacked jurisdiction.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The Plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Insecticides India Limited, alleging that the Defendant was infringing their patent (IN'645) by using a patented method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined whether the Defendant's process was equivalent to the claimed invention.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Estates Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, ITC Limited sought various procedural reliefs against Central Park Estates Private Limited. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advanced document service. Crucially, the court allowed an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect samples and inventory related to the disputed mark 'BALKH BUKHARA', setting the stage for detailed evidence gathering in the ongoing infringement dispute.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
This judgment addresses complex jurisdictional issues arising after the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The court examined three proceedings: two revocation petitions and one appeal under the Patents Act, 1970. In C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021, the court considered a petition to revoke Patent No. IN 268846. However, in other cases, the court ruled that jurisdiction was lacking because the appropriate office or another High Court already held the matter, preventing parties from pursuing parallel proceedings.
M/S Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Lotus Organic Care
M/S Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of detergents, filed an appeal seeking to overturn the rejection of its application for a temporary injunction against M/S Lotus Organic Care. The appellant claimed that the respondent was infringing upon its registered trade mark 'Decide' and associated copyrights with its product 'Delite'. Despite arguments regarding prima facie infringement, the High Court found no legal infirmity in the trial court's decision to deny the injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to expedite the final disposal of the original suit.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy & Ors. v.State (Government of West Bengal)
The petitioners challenged a notice restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws due to an earlier title suit concerning patent infringement related to fuel cell batteries. The court held that since the petitioner's battery is distinct (lead cell) from the subject matter of the Title Suit, the Transport Directorate must grant registration, provided all other formalities are met.
Smt Supriya Shrinate v.M/S Mrt Music Ors.
This Commercial Appeal challenged an ex-parte order passed by the trial court, which directed the removal of links and blocking of social media handles belonging to political parties and associated entities. The plaintiff, M/S MRT Music, alleged copyright infringement when videos from a national political party's yatra used music similar to their film soundtrack (KGF Chapter-2). The Karnataka High Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the restrictive injunction orders but mandating that all involved parties remove the offending content from social media platforms. The matter was then remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
MC-monitoring SA v.Pro Tech Monitoring Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in developing predictive health monitoring solutions for rotating machines, sued the defendant for illegal use, passing off, dilution, and copyright infringement of its name/mark MC-monitoring. The plaintiff argued that the mark had acquired international recognition and goodwill. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders
This case involved a civil suit filed by M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and violation of copyright through the use of the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. However, both parties reached a mutual settlement agreement.
Imberatek Llc v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order in CS(COMM) 763/2022 addressing several interlocutory applications filed by Imberatek Llc against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed the plaintiff to file confidential documents related to the suit patent under strict confidentiality terms.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright in the associated artistic work and trade dress used on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' and passing off inferior products. Both parties subsequently reached a settlement, leading the Madras High Court to dispose of the captioned suit based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Bibimoney Global Ltd. v.Taisys Technologies Ltd. And Ors.
The parties requested time to file written submissions regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court concerning patent revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court listed the matter for further hearing.
Avery Dennison Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Avery Dennison Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for 'Notched Fastener' due to lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the specific features (notch creation, position, shape, direction) provided a technical advancement over prior art documents D2 and D3. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the invention satisfied the test of inventive step.
Mahle Filter Systems (India) Pvt Ltd v.Mobis India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the dispute between Mahle Filter Systems and Mobis India Ltd concerning a subject trademark. The court directed both parties to file concise written submissions and, crucially, instructed counsel to exchange proposals aimed at resolving the trademark issue amicably. This indicates the ongoing litigation is moving towards potential settlement or mediation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves Nokia Technologies Oy filing against Oppo and Vivo for patent infringement related to telecommunications technology. The hearings have focused on non-infringement and invalidity aspects of the patents.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark
The Delhi High Court allowed Jindal Industries Private Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its trademark application. The court held that the rejection, based on non-distinctiveness or prohibition under Section 9 of the Act (specifically regarding the use of India's map outline), was unsustainable. Citing previous rulings and the 'No Objection' from the Survey of India, the High Court directed the Registrar to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Jaipur Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes concerning the use of the 'RATHI' mark in steel manufacturing. The Plaintiffs challenged the Defendants' compliance with previous undertakings regarding the cessation of unauthorized use of the trademark. While the Defendants submitted an affidavit, the court found it inconsistent with their prior assurances. Consequently, the court directed the Defendant to file a fresh, compliant affidavit within one week.
Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Visage Beauty And Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of their mark 'GLOW-GETTER'. The court held that while the component word 'GLOW' might be descriptive in cosmetics, the combination forms a composite mark that does not inherently describe the product's quality or kind. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for registration, provided the appellant accepts a disclaimer ensuring no exclusive rights vest solely in the word 'GLOW'.
Pm Franchise Brands, Llc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a trademark application, PRETZELMAKER. While the court found that the word mark was problematic under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to descriptiveness and similarity, it recognized the distinctiveness of the accompanying logo. Consequently, the court allowed the Appellant to proceed with registration by deleting the descriptive word 'PRETZELMAKER' from the application.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Zee Laboratories Limited and others for manufacturing and selling generic Apixaban products ('Apixaz' and 'Apiquis') that infringed Patent No. IN 247381. The court noted that the patent had expired on September 17, 2022. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, but directions were issued regarding the removal of listings from e-commerce platforms.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited concerning an impugned product. The Defendants stated they would not launch the product until the expiry of the suit patent. Based on this statement, the court decreed the suit in favour of Vifor.
S. Bir Pal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company and Ors.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, S. Bir Pal Singh sought interim protection against Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As M/S. Pawandeep Singh & Company. The court issued a crucial order directing Respondent No. 1 not to create any third-party rights in four specific registered trademarks associated with 'AKALI PATRIKA.' This protective measure ensures the status quo is maintained while the main litigation proceeds, setting a key date for further hearing.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application titled "HYGIENE WASH". The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed several interlocutory applications and listed the matter for further hearing.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Zydus Wellness Products Limited
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed a suit against Zydus Wellness Products Limited and others alleging passing off concerning its glucose-based chewy tablet brand, BOLTS, versus the defendants' product under the mark VOLT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions regarding trademark infringement, tag line similarity, and packaging get-up. While initial prayers related to the tagline and color scheme were dropped due to prior compromises, the core dispute over the 'VOLT' mark remained central. The court ultimately directed the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Messrs Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd v.Mr Pushpinder Garg & Ors / Super Impex and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple facets of the trademark dispute involving 'MONICA GOLD' and 'MONICA PRIME'. In the infringement suit, the court allowed an application to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises and inventory infringing goods. Separately, the court initiated proceedings for the rectification of the mark 'Monica Prime', issuing notices to the respondents. The overall matter remains active with interim orders in place.
Premier Nutritions Privat Limited v.Amit Product A Proprietary Connern
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Premier Nutritions Privat Limited against Amit Product A Proprietary Connern, finding that the defendant's use of 'DOODH MANTHAN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MANTHAN/PREMIER MANTHAN'. Furthermore, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and seize infringing products, reinforcing the immediate protection available to IP holders facing market imitation.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves Sotkon Sp Slu alleging that Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.'s technical specifications and products for underground bins infringe upon its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse'. The Plaintiff had previously secured an interim injunction based on a prima facie comparison showing similarity between the parties' designs. During the hearing, the court addressed arguments regarding deviations in supplied goods versus bid documents. While noting that the Defendants were prima facie guilty of contempt due to non-compliance with the existing order, the Court granted them one last opportunity to present evidence upon depositing a substantial sum.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the defendants' alleged activities including import/export and online listings of the product, leading to an amicable resolution.
Sri.Aswin Naidu v.Amaresh K J
The complainant, Sri. Aswin Naidu (representing Elehem Technik Private Limited), filed a private complaint alleging that the accused illegally took confidential information and infringed the copyright of their Electro Chemical Deburring machine (Burrgon 25 V 3) in 2007. The case was tried under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, but the court acquitted the accused.
Dfm Foods Ltd. v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court granted a one-week extension to Defendant No. 1 to file its required affidavit. Crucially, the court also issued an assurance that the defendant would refrain from selling the disputed product under the 'CORN CURLS' trademark until the next hearing date. This interim order maintains the status quo while allowing procedural compliance in the ongoing infringement litigation.
Relaxo Footwears Ltd v.Aqualite India Ltd
Relaxo Footwears Ltd challenged a single judge's decision that had allowed Aqualite India Ltd to challenge an interim injunction protecting Relaxo's registered footwear design. The core dispute revolved around whether Relaxo's design, bearing registration no. 294938, possessed sufficient novelty and originality to warrant protection against infringement. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned judgment, finding that the single judge's conclusion lacked a proper foundation, particularly its reliance on mere market availability rather than established prior art.
Krbl Limited v.Smerkato
Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Smerkato for infringing its well-known trademark 'INDIA GATE' with device, which is used in relation to rice. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive use, goodwill, and acquired rights in the mark. The court found that the defendants were infringing the plaintiff's rights and granted a decree of permanent injunction.
Cinni Foundation Through Managing Trustee Dipak Kumar Sah v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Cinni Foundation challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'CINNI' in Class 07, which relates to pumps. The court issued notice and directed that the respondents be served with the appeal documents. Both matters were subsequently listed for a detailed hearing on January 16, 2023.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc, seeking permanent injunction and declarations that the defendant's legal threats regarding trademarks and architectural design were unjustifiable. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for alleged infringement. However, since the defendant had already initiated a counter-suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement, the court found the current claims infructuous. Consequently, the suit was disposed of without prejudice to the pending litigation.
Scipharm Sarl v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Scipharm Sarl appealed a decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the grant of a patent application titled 'Novel Composition for the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis'. The case was transferred from the IPAB to the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Both petitions sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970. The court condoned delays in filing written statements and disposed of related interlocutory applications. The matter was listed for further hearing due to the patent's impending expiry.
Guillermo Horacio Pino v.Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Guillermo Horacio Pino against Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Plaintiff, who owns significant goodwill associated with the children's content brand 'PLIM PLIM,' successfully argued that the Defendants were using an identical mark for baby diaper products. The Court found a prima facie case, noting the likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's reputation due to consumer confusion.
Gland Pharma Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
Gland Pharma Ltd. filed a rectification petition against Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited, seeking cancellation of the Respondent's trademark 'CLINDIUM'. The Petitioner claims prior use and ownership of the similar mark 'CLINDUM' in pharmaceutical preparations. While the court condoned the delay in filing the petition and ordered the summoning of relevant records, it denied an immediate interim stay on the impugned trademark due to its existing registration status. The matter is now scheduled for further pleadings.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited through a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court mandated that the defendants clear all existing stock of the disputed drugs within 90 days, ensuring no further sales under the impugned mark. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing several trademark applications and initiating the cancellation of the core registration (No. 5054226) within four weeks.
Dfm Foods Limited v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Private Limited & Anr.
In this intellectual property dispute concerning the 'CORN CURLS' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing Defendant No. 1 to continue selling its existing stock while agreeing to a complete rebranding. The defendant was directed to file an affidavit committing to changing both the product packaging and the trademark from 'CORN CURLS' to 'CORN CURVES'. This decision balances the need for brand protection with practical commercial realities.
Bikanervala Foods Private Limited v.Saatvik Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Bikanervala Foods against Saatvik Foods, concerning the continued use of Bikanervala's concept and intellectual property after the termination of a franchise agreement. While the core dispute is subject to ongoing arbitration, the court issued interim directions. The respondents were specifically ordered to remove photographs installed during the franchise period and modify their menu format to differentiate it from Bikanervala's established standards.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Cnh Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd v.Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a dispute over the cancellation of registered designs related to agricultural technology. The Defendant's application for cancellation of the designs was allowed, leading to appeals by the Plaintiff.
FMC Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
FMC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'HERBICIDAL MIXTURES' based on procedural grounds, primarily the failure to file timely written submissions. The High Court noted that while the applicant was responsible for delays, the original order lacked proper reasoning and considered the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in terms of remanding the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Indulge Sign And Graphics v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant challenged the confiscation and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on imported LED Module Lights bearing the 'Samsung' brand. The core dispute revolved around whether the goods were counterfeit and if the customs department followed the strict procedural timelines mandated by the IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007.
Jagdish Pershad Ladda v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (and others)
The Telangana High Court dismissed a long-pending writ petition challenging an earlier trademark registration order. The dispute involved two parties claiming rights to the 'Super XTRA' mark for detergent products, with one party having filed their application significantly earlier than the other. Given that over sixteen years had passed since the initial filing of the writ petition, the court found the challenge infructuous and declined to disturb the established trademark registration.
Eureka Forbes Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning a trademark dispute between Eureka Forbes and NIXI/related parties. The court allowed defendants to resume use of the domain name www.rocareindia.com, lifting an earlier ex-parte injunction that had blocked it. However, this relief was conditional: the defendants must strictly adhere to existing restrictions prohibiting them from using or representing themselves as connected with Eureka Forbes' trademarks like 'Aquaguard' and 'Forbes'.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. v.Union Of India & Anr.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. challenged the Controller of Patents' orders that deemed several of their patent applications abandoned and caused a granted patent to lapse, citing failure to file timely responses or renewal fees. The Petitioners argued that delays were due to issues with their Patent Agent and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court acknowledged these facts, quashing the abandonment orders and directing the restoration of all relevant applications and patents.
Entrepreneur Media Inc v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks Delhi
Entrepreneur Media Inc challenged the refusal of its trademark application 'ENTREPRENEUR' by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks Delhi, arguing that the mark was distinctive and had acquired local reputation. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the examiner's order. Crucially, the court did not decide the merits but remanded the case back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review based on specific evidence provided by the appellant regarding cited marks.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. v.Essencia Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. against Essencia Beverages Private Limited. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was infringing its registered trademarks ('Officer's Choice') and copyrighted trade dress by using a deceptively similar label for 'True Blu Reserve Whisky'. Citing the established reputation and well-known status of the Plaintiff's brand, the Court found a prima facie case existed, leading to the immediate restraint on the Defendants' activities until further hearing.
Seal For Life Industries Us Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Seal For Life Industries Us Llc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANODEFLEX'. The court held that the rejection, based solely on the ground that the mark was descriptive or had a dictionary meaning, was erroneous. Given extensive evidence of long-term international and domestic use, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
Safex Chemical India Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Safex Chemical India Ltd. challenged the Controller's decision to grant a patent for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition,' arguing that the Petitioner was denied natural justice because they were not informed about the allowance of Respondent No. 2's amendments before the pre-grant opposition hearing. The petitioner contended this procedural lapse rendered the granted patent invalid. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately disposed of the Writ Petition, noting that the petitioner had already availed and was actively pursuing the alternate remedy under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act.
B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing v.Guthy-Renker Llc
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing seeking an expeditious decision on its trademark registration application for 'AYU-HINA'. The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2003, had exceeded the statutory period of 18 months for disposal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to resolve the pending registration within a strict timeframe of three months.
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited v.Union Of India, Registrar Of Trade Mark Ministry Of Commerce And Industries
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention against the Union of India regarding the delayed registration of its trademark, 'Mr. Money.' The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2014, had exceeded the statutory period for decision under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Rajasthan High Court acknowledged this delay and issued a directive compelling the respondent to expeditiously decide the trademark registration application within three months.
Universal City Studios Llc v.M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
In a series of related trademark appeals, the Delhi High Court allowed applications filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for substitution of the respondent's name. The court permitted the change of Respondent No. 1 from 'Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.' to its assignee, 'Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd.', following an Assignment Deed executed on August 17, 2022. This procedural order ensures that all ongoing litigation concerning the assigned trademarks is correctly addressed by the new legal entity.
Divay Hygiene Private Limited v.Kamal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Divay Hygiene Private Limited against Kamal Garg & Anr. for trademark infringement concerning feminine hygiene products. The court found that the Defendants' use of the deceptively similar mark 'ANNY MAXI' constituted infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's established brand, 'AMMY'. Based on evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner, including seized infringing goods, the Court decreed the suit, awarding nominal damages and significant legal costs to the Plaintiff.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The court consolidated a rectification petition and a suit related to the same patent. An additional issue was framed regarding whether Indian Patent IN 247381 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M I Builders Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against M I Builders Pvt. Ltd. for using the deceptively similar mark 'M.I. CENTRAL PARK' in real estate projects. Crucially, the court also ordered the cancellation and removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 4164879) from the register, following an out-of-court settlement where the defendant agreed to the terms.
Jack In The Box Inc. v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
In a dispute concerning the Jack In The Box trademark, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order restraining one of the respondents from assigning the disputed trademark rights to any third party. This protective measure was granted after the petitioner expressed concern that such an assignment could render the ongoing litigation infructuous. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in February 2023.
Aiwa Co Ltd. v.Aivva Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Aiwa Co Ltd. against Aivva Enterprises Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were using marks ('AIVVA') visually and phonetically similar to the well-known 'AIWA' trademark, leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and lack of disclosure by the plaintiff, the court held that the balance of convenience favored Aiwa, thus maintaining the injunction until the final trial.
Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another v.Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd
This Commercial Appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed challenges raised by the original defendants against a time-limited, ad-interim injunction and court receiver appointed by the plaintiff. The suit itself was a trademark infringement action combined with passing off. The bench focused primarily on clarifying legal principles regarding applications made without notice to the opposing party.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application (No. 3679/DELNP/2015) for 'Preparation of Live Vaccines' due to lack of novelty and inventive step. The court first addressed applications regarding exemption from affidavits, filing additional documents, and condonation of delay.
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller Of Patents
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order dated October 29, 2021. The original rejection was based on non-patentability under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, and lack of clarity.
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited appealed against an order passed by The Controller of Patents rejecting its patent application (No. 201617034934). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent (IN 271338) covering a crystalline complex used in agriculture, which is commercially sold under the mark 'XELORA'. The dispute arose because the Defendant obtained registration for a similar combination product. After considering the parties' submissions and undertakings, the court decreed the suit based on the defendant's commitment not to launch the infringing product until the patent expires or is invalidated.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. v.Rajasthan Liquors Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. against Rajasthan Liquors Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark 'Officer's Choice,' had made out a prima facie case for infringement and passing off due to the Defendants' use of deceptively similar marks like 'High Choice.' This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling goods using the impugned mark until further proceedings.
Intel Corporation v.S.P. Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Intel Corporation in a long-pending trademark infringement suit against S.P. Gupta and others. The court granted permanent injunctions, recognizing the extensive goodwill and reputation of the 'INTEL' mark. Crucially, the judgment was reached after the Defendants indicated they were willing to cease using the infringing marks, leading the court to decree the suit based on this mutual understanding.
Sunil Mittal & Anr. v.M/S Darzi On Call
The Delhi High Court proceeded with the trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Mittal & Anr. against M/S Darzi On Call. The court framed five key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DARZI ON CALL' constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the term 'DARZI' is distinctive to the plaintiffs. This order sets the stage for the trial by directing both parties to file their lists of witnesses and affidavits within specified timelines.
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This judgment addresses two key applications filed within a commercial suit concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The court first dismissed the defendant's application to reclassify the suit as an ordinary dispute, holding that since the cause of action stemmed from foreign infringement of IP rights, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute.' Subsequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement by the defendant, permitting its admission subject to payment of costs.