Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11801–11900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Phillips 66 Company v.Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited
This case involves a suit filed by Phillips 66 Company seeking recovery of damages awarded by a US District Court for intellectual property infringement against Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court first addressed an application to reclassify the suit, ultimately holding that since the cause of action was based on IP infringement in the USA, it qualified as a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act. Subsequently, the court considered an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and allowed it, subject to the defendant paying costs.
Sh. Amar Tulsiyan v.Harshil Jayeshbhai Shah
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing his registered and adopted trademarks (NIINE, NINE, 9) used in food and personal hygiene products. The court found that the defendant's adoption and intended use of 'Nine Plus' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks and constituted infringement.
Dys Impex Private Limited v.State Of West Bengal
The petitioners, manufacturers of battery operated electric cycle rickshaws, challenged the refusal by authorities to register their vehicles based on a patent injunction. The court examined whether the subsequent modification and vacation of the original injunction made the private respondent's restraint valid. The court held that the initial injunction was modified and found the patent invalid, thus directing the authorities to proceed with registration.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vim Industries Ltd
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an interim application seeking continuation and reinforcement of an exparte ad-interim order. The court found that a case for passing off was made out, specifically concerning the use of marks VIM, SURF, and the Splat device in relation to cleaning products.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc against Ashok Kumar. The plaintiffs sought permission to amend their pleadings to identify and join another party involved in manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit cosmetic preparations. The court allowed the amendment and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.New Parle Ice Cream
The suit was filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against New Parle Ice Cream concerning an IP matter. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was formally recorded and accepted by the Bombay High Court on September 28, 2022.
Unilever Plc. v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc. seeking amendments to its suit plaint and related petitions. The Plaintiffs sought to incorporate additional impugned marks and parties into the case title based on new information received from a Court Receiver's Report. The court allowed the amendments and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Hooghly Motors Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
The petitioners challenged a notice restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws due to an earlier court order concerning a patent infringement suit. The core issue was whether the petitioner's lead cell battery technology was distinct from the patented fuel cell battery in the Title Suit. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Transport Directorate to grant registration, provided the vehicles were distinct and complied with relevant rules.
Ved Prakash Soni v.Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between Ved Prakash Soni and Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed an exemption application while simultaneously issuing notice to the respondents regarding the main suit. Both parties were directed to exchange necessary documentation, with a timeline set for filing replies and rejoinders, indicating that the substantive litigation is proceeding.
Nirma Limited v.Purnima Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Nirma Limited's rectification petition, successfully removing the deceptively similar trademark 'NIMA' registered in favor of Purnima Gupta. The court held that because Nirma's primary mark ('NIRMA') is a well-known trade mark and the marks are confusingly similar, allowing the registration would cause consumer deception and dilute Nirma's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the protective scope afforded to well-known trademarks against subsequent registrations.
M/S Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited v.Trademarks Registry
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by M/S Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited against the Trademarks Registry. The court found that the registry's impugned order, which sought to cancel the registered trademark 'GITAGGED', lacked proper adjudication and failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh disposal.
Great White Global Private Limited v.S. S. Cable Mfg. Co.
In this trademark dispute, Great White Global Private Limited sought resolution against S.S. Cable Mfg. Co. The court noted that the defendants had communicated their intent to settle amicably and provided an undertaking not to use the disputed marks (SS GRAND WHITE or GRAND WHITE) in the future. Consequently, the matter was directed towards a formal settlement hearing, indicating a potential amicable resolution of the trademark conflict.
Sharad Mehra v.Sanjay Mehra & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute between two brothers regarding the exclusive rights to the trademark 'Superon' following a Family Settlement concerning their company. The court formalized an agreement where Sharad Mehra conceded the right to use 'Superon' in the domestic market, while Sanjay Mehra gained exclusivity for that territory. To facilitate this transition, the court directed parties to seek expedited approvals from Metrology and GST authorities regarding packaging changes.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Arrow Coated Products Ltd. (Acpl)
Shilpa Medicare Limited appealed an order that returned its plaint filed in Raichur. The suit sought a declaration that their manufacturing process was not covered by Patent IN 200301, which Arrow Coated Products Ltd. held. The appeal challenged the Trial Court's decision regarding territorial jurisdiction.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences Llc filed an appeal challenging the rejection order dated September 9, 2020, concerning its patent application for 'ENDPOINT TAQMAN METHODS FOR DETERMINING ZYGOSITY OF COTTON'. The case was listed before the Delhi High Court after being transferred from the IPAB due to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
Auckland Uniservices Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Auckland Uniservices Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application for 'Magnetic Field Shaping for Inductive Power Transfer'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step over prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Respondent failed to provide reasoned analysis regarding how a person skilled in the art would move from existing knowledge to the claimed invention.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Rishabh Bansal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a complex IP dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and rectification petitions between Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rishabh Bansal. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement mediated by the court. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'SAKARNI' brand (trademark) and its packaging features (copyright). The defendant committed to withdrawing an infringing mark, ceasing all use of similar marks/designs, and paying substantial damages.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Mr X Trading As Messrs Amar Medical Store & Ors.
Boehringer Ingelheim International sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a suit concerning its pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff asserted rights over its trademarks and distinctive trade dress, which it claimed constituted original artistic works under the Copyright Act. While the court allowed the application for interim relief, it mandated that notice be issued to the Defendants before execution of the order, setting the stage for further litigation regarding brand protection.
U.S. Green Building Council v.Deming Certification Services Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) against Deming Certification Services Pvt Ltd. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation due to the Defendant's use of identical names ('International Green Building Council') and logos, as well as verbatim copying of the Plaintiff's website content. Given that the Plaintiff demonstrated significant goodwill in India through its certifications and reputation, the Court found a prima facie case for infringement. Consequently, the Defendant was immediately restrained from using the infringing marks and providing further certifications under those names.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Akash Aggarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over e-commerce platform features, specifically Flipkart's 'latching on' function. The plaintiff, V Tradition, alleged that this feature allowed unauthorized sellers to piggyback on their brand reputation and product listings, constituting passing off. While the initial order strongly restricted the use of this feature, the court ultimately stayed those restrictive observations pending further examination. This decision highlights the tension between protecting IP goodwill in e-commerce and maintaining platform functionality.
Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy v.M/S. Servomax Precious Electronics
The Telangana High Court set aside a lower court's dismissal of an application for interim injunction in a trademark dispute involving the 'Servomax' brand. The appellant, claiming ownership based on an assignment deed from 1998, argued that the respondent's subsequent registration was obtained through fraud and concealment of prior rights. Given the ongoing injunction and the merits of the claim regarding fraudulent acquisition, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the suit while maintaining the interim protection for the appellant.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd v.Ch V Pulla Rao
Alkem Laboratories Ltd filed a petition alleging that Ch V Pulla Rao was willfully disobeying a settlement agreement by using the deceptively similar trademark "A VITA Z" against Alkem's mark, "A to Z". The petitioner presented photographic evidence of the alleged infringement. The respondent denied the allegations and stated they were not using the infringing mark. The court noted that the respondent's counter affidavit was missing and listed the matter for further hearing.
Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited v.Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited against Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya. The suit involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the pharmaceutical brand 'GLIMET'. The court found that the impugned mark 'DLYMET' was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered mark, especially since both were intended for medicinal preparations. Given the strong prima facie case and the risk of irreparable injury, the court ordered a temporary restraint on the defendant's use of the disputed mark.
Pfizer Inc & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Pfizer Inc & Ors filed a suit for permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement of patent IN 218291 covering the drug 'Palbociclib'. The parties subsequently entered into an amicable settlement agreement, which was recorded by the Court.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd.
The court heard several applications filed by Gsp Crop Science Private Limited, including an application seeking interim injunction and discovery. The Petitioner sought protection against the Respondents interfering with its business related to the process claimed in patent IN 252004.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.Kyk Corporation Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a judgment that had partially allowed a counter-claim by Kyk Corporation, granting it permanent injunctions. The court found that while the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) findings were dispositive regarding trademark registration, they did not address Kyk Corporation's core claim of passing off. Consequently, the High Court set aside the granted injunctions and remanded the matter to the Single Judge to specifically consider Kyk Corporation's claim for passing off based on the existing evidence.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This order addressed various interlocutory applications in the commercial suit filed by Bayer Healthcare Llc against MSN Laboratories Private Limited. The court allowed several procedural requests, including granting time extensions and allowing additional documents. It also noted that the defendant had not yet launched its product and directed it to maintain status quo.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical appealed the Controller's order refusing a patent application for a medicament combination involving Brexpiprazole, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-reasoned and procedurally flawed, particularly because the Respondent introduced new prior art documents (D2 and D3) without giving the Appellant an opportunity to respond. The High Court found the impugned order vitiated due to procedural infirmities and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order on September 22, 2022, addressing several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning antenna technology. The court listed one application for hearing regarding the certificate of validity under Section 113 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The suit involved allegations of infringement against the subject matter of Plaintiff No. 1's registered Patents. The parties amicably resolved the dispute regarding legal costs, leading to a settlement.
Komal Meena v.Mayank Pareek
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a lower court's order that had rejected an application for a temporary injunction. The core issue was whether the lack of a registered trademark barred the plaintiff from seeking relief in a passing off suit. The High Court clarified that while registration provides exclusive rights, Section 27(2) allows suits for passing off even if the mark is unregistered. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to reconsider the injunction application based on the correct legal principles.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit sought a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing FMC Corporation's patent IN'645, which covers a method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined the processes used by both parties and relied on scientific advisor reports. Ultimately, the court found that the competing processes were distinct and not 'equivalent', allowing Natco to launch CTPR.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Pan Parag India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the cancellation petition filed by M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd against Pan Parag India Limited & Anr. The court granted the relief based on an undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated they had no intention to use the impugned registered trademark 'GOLDIE' in their trade business of PAN MASALA. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to cancel and expunge the registration within six weeks.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Charulbhai Patel Prop. Business under name of Pacific Paints Industries.
The applicant (Asian Paints Ltd.) filed an interim application seeking further ad-interim relief in a commercial IP suit against the defendants. The court noted that previous ad-interim relief had been granted, and since the defendant was served, the matter was placed on the board for 'further ad-interim relief' on a subsequent date.
Pfizer Inc v.Azista Industries Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking an injunction against Azista Industries Private Limited for infringing patent no. IN 218291, which covers the pharmaceutical product 'Palbociclib'. After considering the submissions and assurances given by the Defendants that they would not manufacture or sell the product in India, the Court decreed the suit.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Anr.
The appellant challenged the denial of his plea for extending the validity/tenure of his Patent due to seven-year delays by authorities. He also questioned the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that no provision allows for automatic extension as a penalty and noting that the issue of constitutional validity was not properly argued.
M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd.
The Delhi High Court resolved a complex trademark dispute between M/S Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Kent RO Systems Ltd. The case involved an injunction suit against alleged infringement of the 'HEPA PURE' trademark. After extensive litigation, including appeals challenging rectification orders, the parties successfully entered into mediation. Consequently, the court decreed the original suit based on a settlement agreement, allowing Kent RO Systems to continue using the mark while Mankastu Impex agreed not to object.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between Dharampal Satyapal Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Defendants). The parties amicably resolved the dispute over trademark infringement concerning flavored pan-masala products. Key terms include the Defendants acknowledging the Plaintiff's sole proprietary rights in 'TANSEN' and 'TANSEN BLUES,' agreeing to immediately cease using the infringing mark 'TENSION FREE,' and undertaking to destroy all related materials and withdraw associated IP registrations.
M/s.Micro Labs Limited v.Mr.A.Santhosh
M/s. Micro Labs Limited filed a civil suit against Mr. A. Santhosh alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AVAS' and copyright in its label by the use of the deceptively similar mark 'AVASLIP'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits. However, the Madras High Court rejected the plaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement stipulated under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Hfcl Limited for infringing its Indian Patent No. IN335369, which relates to optical fiber cables (OFCs). The defendant challenged the patent's validity and sought vacation of the ex-parte injunction. The court found serious doubt regarding the novelty and inventive nature of the suit patent.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. And Ors. v.Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected a motion filed by Amazon Sellers Service Private Limited seeking rejection of the trademark infringement suit on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that since the Plaintiffs alleged they have physical stores and their licensees' websites target consumers in Delhi, a valid cause of action exists within the territorial limits of India. This ruling allows the core litigation regarding the use of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks to move forward.
Zydus Wellness Products Limited v.M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction in favor of Zydus Wellness Products Limited against M/S Arihant Remedies & Anr. The court found that the defendant's product was prima facie deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark and trade dress, despite arguments regarding ownership transfer and territorial jurisdiction. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established brands through both trademark law and passing off principles.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its...
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the unauthorized sale and distribution of Baricitinib, a drug used for rheumatoid arthritis, which allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The case also involves claims for damages and delivery up.
M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v.Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the interim injunction in favor of M/S Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. against Mr. Tazeen Farooqui & Ors., finding that the defendant's mark 'SEABIRD' was deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s established trademark 'STEELBIRD'. The court emphasized the importance of common law rights derived from long, continuous use, ruling that registration alone does not supersede prior proprietary rights. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against potential dilution and confusion in the market.
Indiamart Intermesh Limited v.Mr Sameer Samim Khan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiamart Intermesh Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant for infringing its registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works associated with the 'INDIAMART' brand. The court also ordered the transfer of specific domain names to the plaintiff and awarded punitive damages due to the defendant's alleged nefarious scheme to deceive innocent persons. This judgment strongly affirms the protection afforded to established digital brands operating in the B2B space.
Fmc Corporation v.Best Crop Science Llp
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly using the patented process IN '645 to manufacture Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) under the brand name CITIGEN. Defendants contested the suit, raising issues of patent invalidity due to non-working and allegations of evergreening by plaintiffs. The Court ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner and Scientific Advisors to independently analyze the product and map the defendants' process against the suit patent.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner challenged an impugned order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which granted a patent for 'Novel Fungicidal Composition'. The petitioner argued that the respondent made amendments to their claims without providing them an opportunity to be heard. However, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had already availed of alternative remedies.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S Blue Ivory & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S Blue Ivory & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed Local Commissioners with extensive powers to inspect premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK Marks, and demand disclosure of financial records from the defendants. This order provides immediate protection while allowing for thorough investigation into the alleged counterfeiting operations.
M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.M/S Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd.'s appeal, upholding a Commercial Court order that restrained Maan from using the trademark 'BUPROEX'. The court found that Mindwave Healthcare was the registered proprietor of the mark and that evidence suggested Maan acted as a third-party manufacturer or contract manufacturer. This ruling reinforces the principle that registration rights hold significant weight against claims of prior use by manufacturers, especially when correspondence supports the relationship.
Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd v.Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a settlement between Aeronutrlx Sports Products Pvt Ltd and Plumax Ebusiness Solutions Private Limited regarding trademark disputes over the FAST&UP brand family. The parties agreed that Plumax acknowledged the validity and rights of Aeronutrlx in sub-brands like CHARGE, FORTIFY, RELOAD, and VITALIZE, including associated trade dress. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Plumax committed to withdrawing opposition filings and ceasing all use of similar marks or designs.
Sanjay Soya Private Limited v.Lokeshwari Traders And Anr.
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 362 of 2022 after confirming that all undertakings stipulated in the parties' Consent Terms had been duly complied with. The defendants confirmed they had applied to withdraw their trademark application and declared non-use of the mark, while also providing evidence that the impugned products had been destroyed. This order formally concluded the litigation based on mutual agreement.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Anupam Singh & Ors.
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against former employees (Defendants No. 1 & 2) and their new employer, HFCL Ltd., alleging breach of confidence and misappropriation of trade secrets. The core dispute revolved around patent applications filed by HFCL that allegedly incorporated Sterlite's proprietary information. Although the original suit was not numbered as a commercial suit, the court observed that disputes involving trade secrets and confidential information related to patents fall under the broad definition of 'commercial dispute'.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II v.M/s. Future Brands Ltd
The Commissioner of Service Tax appealed against an order that dropped show cause notices alleging non-payment of service tax on the 'right to use' component of a Trademark License Agreement for the brand 'Ajile'. The Tribunal examined whether the exclusive nature of the license qualified as a 'deemed sale' under constitutional provisions. It ultimately held that since the license was exclusive, it fell within the meaning of 'transfer of right to use,' and thus service tax could not be levied.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Vatave Health Care And Anr.
The Bombay High Court extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim orders in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Vatave Health Care. The court noted that despite being served, Defendants 1 and 2 continued to remain absent from the proceedings. Consequently, the interim relief granted for trademark infringement and passing off was maintained until further orders, allowing the Plaintiff time to proceed with their case.
Kent Ro Systems Limited v.Kent Cables Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Kent Ro Systems Limited to seek exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of their trademark infringement and passing off claims against Kent Cables Private Limited. The court noted that Kent's 'KENT' mark is a registered and well-known trademark in relation to water purifiers. Consequently, the plaint was formally registered as a suit, and the matter proceeded toward filing written statements and considering an interim injunction.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd appealed against two lower court orders concerning a commercial IP suit alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product copied the plaintiff's unique artistic work and brand elements, and whether the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the alleged infringement. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where the Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and passing off against the Respondent. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the Defendant's impugned goods, which was central to the initial injunction granted by the lower court. The Bombay High Court upheld the previous orders, finding no infirmity in the single judges' discretion regarding the interlocutory applications.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd alleged copyright infringement and passing off against Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin and Anr. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had knowledge of the Defendant's allegedly infringing goods earlier than they claimed in their plaint. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding no evidence to suggest that the Plaintiffs were misled or delayed in seeking relief.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the use of an artistic design on a medicinal oil, 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil.' The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and passing off against the defendant. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's similar artwork constituted blatant copying and if the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge to pursue legal action promptly. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the defendant did not infringe upon the plaintiffs' rights.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound 'Alectinib'. The Defendant initially claimed research use only, but subsequently provided an affidavit undertaking not to commercially launch Alectinib until the patent expires or is found invalid. The court accepted these undertakings and decreed the suit.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd. v.Kothari Products Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition concerning the trademark 'GOLDIE'. The court accepted an affidavit of undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated that they had never used the impugned mark in trade and that the claimed user date was incorrect. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel/expunge Registration No. 490303 within six weeks.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought to amend its plaint to implead ZTT International Limited as a necessary party, alleging that the entity infringes the plaintiff's patent through the import and sale of optical fibre cable. The court allowed the amendment, finding the proposed defendant was indeed a necessary party based on the facts pleaded in the written statement.
Dahon Technologies Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Dahon Technologies Ltd. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its invention titled 'PUMP', a portable pump for bicycle tyres. The appellant contended that the rejection was non-speaking, violated principles of natural justice, and failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Patents Act.
Pandrol Limited & Anr. v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Pandrol Limited, who filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyright and trademark. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing products and gather evidence from the defendants' premises.
Apaar Homez Mart Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order restraining Apaar Homez Mart from using its trademark 'SEPAL' combined with 'Century'. The court found that M/S. Century World had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the significant increase in the respondent's turnover and the appellant's recent adoption of the mark. This judgment reinforces the principle that if an appellant cannot provide a plausible reason for using a potentially common term like 'Century,' they risk being found to be capitalizing on the goodwill of an established competitor.
Ajax Engineering Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court set aside an order by the Registrar of Trademarks that had rejected the trademark application 'AJAX-MAKES CONCRETE SENSE'. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary, as they had submitted extensive documentation proving continuous use since 1983. The court found that the respondent failed to apply its mind to the documents provided and violated principles of natural justice by issuing a non-speaking order. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration on merits.
Intex Enterprises Private Limited v.Sandeep Kumar
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Intex Enterprises Private Limited against a trial court order that partially vacated an interim injunction. The court found that the trial court had failed to address crucial legal arguments regarding trademark infringement under Section 29(4) and claims of passing off and copyright infringement, despite them being part of the composite suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a comprehensive review of all issues.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed disputes regarding trade dress infringement concerning SAFFOLA products between Dabur and Marico. The court noted that while the defendant had previously represented changes to its packaging (including embossing), it failed to inform the court when certain product lines, like glass bottles or 100gm PET bottles, could not comply with those representations. Consequently, the court revived the plaintiff's interim injunction application for these specific products and imposed a significant cost on the defendant for non-disclosure.
Neetu Singh v.Telegram Fz Llc
Neetu Singh and K.D. Campus Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that their copyrighted course materials, lectures, and books were being illegally disseminated through various Telegram channels. Despite initial takedown requests to Telegram Fz Llc, the infringement continued with new channels appearing daily. The plaintiffs subsequently sought discovery of the identity of the operators running these infringing channels. The Delhi High Court addressed this application by directing Telegram to disclose detailed information regarding the devices, IP addresses, and operators responsible for uploading the copyrighted material.
Ds Biopharma Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Ds Biopharma Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller. The Appellant argued that the grounds for rejection, particularly under Section 3(d), were not properly specified in the hearing notice, violating natural justice. The Court found that the Appellant lacked adequate opportunity to respond to the specific objection under Section 3(d).
Livspace Pte. Ltd. v.Livspace-Reviews.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Livspace Pte. Ltd., directing the blocking of the domain name www.livspace-reviews.com. The court found that the defendant's website, which used a similar mark and contained derogatory reviews, was operating clandestinely to damage Livspace's business reputation. Furthermore, the Court mandated regulatory bodies (DoT and MEITY) to enforce the block and ordered a detailed investigation by the Cyber Crime Unit into the domain's ownership.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed competing claims regarding the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit versus an arbitration clause contained in a family settlement agreement. The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, particularly concerning the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Instead of immediately granting or denying interim relief, the judge directed both parties to file replies to the pending applications (I.A. 12874/2022 and I.A. 13127/2022) before listing them for a final hearing.
Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. v.Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd., permanently restraining Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to its trademark 'APNA'. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APNA SHARE APP' constituted passing off, given the similarity of services offered (online learning/job search). Furthermore, the judgment ordered the cancellation of the infringing domain name and mandated the removal of all related references from social media platforms.
Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. v.Ekta Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint, enabling them to include claims of trademark infringement alongside existing passing off claims. This amendment was necessitated by a new device mark registration granted during the pendency of the suit. The court permitted both parties to file amended pleadings, ensuring the litigation could proceed with the updated scope of IP rights.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Saurashtra Chemicals And 4 Others
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Limited and Saurashtra Chemicals & Ors. on August 26, 2022. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized in Consent Minutes of Order.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh Co v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing/importing generic versions of medicines covered by their Indian Patent No. 243301, which relates to Linagliptin compounds. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a good prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing products.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a mutual agreement between the parties. The court examined the memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2022 and found no legal impediment to its terms. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima alleging copyright infringement concerning her work on 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief relating to an Australian patent application for the same product. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a joint compromise memo.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise executed by both parties on August 23, 2022. Consequently, the Madras High Court decreed the case based on the terms of this settlement, allowing the defendant to use a specified label.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms. Y. Aafiya Halima against Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science alleging copyright infringement related to 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief regarding an Australian patent application. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a compromise memo.
Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited v.Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors
The Delhi High Court referred the trademark dispute between Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited and Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors to mediation. The defendants indicated a willingness to settle the matter, stating they would cease using the impugned trademark in the future. This move signals an attempt by both parties to resolve the conflict outside of court through conciliation.
M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania Proprietor Of Amit Agencies & Anr.
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized a comprehensive settlement between M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania (Defendant). The parties amicably resolved their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms. Key outcomes include the Defendant acknowledging infringement of 'JK/JKLC/JK Lakshmi' trademarks, undertaking not to use similar marks, withdrawing specific trademark applications, and destroying all infringing materials.
Delhi Public School Society v.Savita Girdhar And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's application for an early hearing, noting that the respondents were allegedly in continuous contempt of previous orders and continuing to infringe upon the petitioner's trademark by enrolling new students. The court recognized the urgency due to ongoing alleged infringement despite prior legal dismissals. Consequently, the original hearing date was cancelled, and a new listing was set for September 12, 2022.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Plaintiffs, exclusive licensees of a patent holder (Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation), filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and marketing Canagliflozin Tablets/Capsules, which falls under Indian Patent No. 232231. The defendant opposed the interim injunction, arguing that damages could be quantified and there was no irreparable loss. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
3D Systems Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
3D Systems Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717015945) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design on grounds of lack of inventive step. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file written submissions.
Gogoro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Gogoro Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Asst. Controller of Patents regarding its application for an apparatus and method for authentication and control of power storage devices. The Appellant argued that the rejection was unreasoned, failed to consider all cited prior arts (D1, D2), and lacked clarity on which claims lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning and set it aside.
M/S. Navneet Education Ltd. v.M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Navneet Education Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction and damages against Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of copyright in its educational materials, specifically 'GRAFALCO Pre-School Numbers (1 to 100)'. The court examined the similarities between the two books but ultimately found that the content lacked originality and was not a substantial copy.
New India Biri Factory v.Mohd Saleem & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, New India Biri Factory, while addressing various procedural applications. The court dispensed with pre-institution mediation and granted leave to file additional documents, streamlining the litigation process. Crucially, the court also granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a search and seizure operation via Local Commissioners against the Defendants' premises to prevent further infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works.
Om Shivam Utpadan v.Saraswati Utpadan Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark and copyright rectification petitions after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement through mediation. The agreement outlines specific usage rights for both parties' marks and logos, allowing them to continue using certain designs under modified conditions while withdrawing ongoing legal challenges. This resolution provides clarity on their respective intellectual property rights moving forward.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application, which was held by the Controller to be non-maintainable because it belonged to the same broad class as the granted parent application. The appeal challenged the ground that the subject matter formed a single inventive concept.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
The petitioner filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke patent number 247381 covering APIXABAN. The court allowed notice and directed the completion of pleadings within prescribed timelines.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction in a suit alleging trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement. The court found that the defendants, former employees, had gained access to proprietary technical know-how and confidential business information regarding prenatal supplements (TRIMACARE/LAYERCARE). Based on this prima facie case, the court authorized local commissioners to seize digital data, stock of infringing products ('NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE'), and relevant documents to prevent irreparable injury.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) v.Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. (SDM Group)
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the ongoing commercial dispute between Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) and Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. (SDM Group). The court focused on facilitating an amicable resolution, particularly concerning the valuation of the flagship brand 'SALONI' and the use of the name 'MAHESH'. Both parties were directed to exchange financial data and present proposals regarding brand distinction before the next hearing.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Lv Bhavani Sankar
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Lv Bhavani Sankar. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FREEDOM' by the Defendant's use of 'FREEDAY' for refined sunflower oil. Crucially, the Court noted that the Defendant's mark had previously been cancelled by the IPAB due to deceptive similarity. Given the near-identical packaging and the concern over food safety standards, the court found a prima facie case existed, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Vikram A Sreerama v.U. Galeppa Reddy
The plaintiff filed an arbitration suit challenging an arbitral award related to a partnership firm that developed 'Amvicube PA 2.0', a machine for detecting broken rice grains. The plaintiff alleged misappropriation of IP rights and assets by the defendant, but the court upheld the original arbitral award.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals
The suit was decreed for the lifetime of Indian Patent No. 237430, prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing or selling pharmaceutical preparations containing Nilotinib.
Somesh Choudhary v.Knight Riders Sports Private Limited
The appellant, Somesh Choudhary (a shareholder), appealed an order admitting an application filed by Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd (the operational creditor) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The core dispute was whether the non-payment of Minimum Guaranteed Royalties for using the KKR trademark on licensed products constituted an 'operational debt'.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
The defendant filed an application seeking production of various documents, including global license agreements, declarations of essentiality to ETSI, and statements of working related to Ericsson's patents. The court observed that while some documents were relevant for FRAND determination, the burden lay on the defendant to prove comparability in trial, and thus dismissed the application.
Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant, Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd., filed two interlocutory applications before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of I.A. 12819/2022 as infructuous based on the counsel's submission. Furthermore, the application seeking leave to file additional documents (I.A. 12818/2022) was allowed.