Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12201–12300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Beardsell Limited v.Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Beardsell Limited, granting a perpetual injunction against two defendants (Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Beardsell Equipments Pvt. Ltd.) for passing off the company's trademark 'Beardsell'. The court found that these entities unlawfully appropriated the Plaintiff's established corporate name and were carrying on similar lines of business, risking public deception. Consequently, the injunction was granted, barring them from using or advertising the mark.
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
Shabeer Ahmad Bhat v.Sushil Kumar Pathak
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the petitioner seeking to correct a clerical error in a prior order. The correction involved changing the name of the entity receiving trademark assignments from 'Globiotech International' to 'M/s Glow Biotech Ltd', as stipulated in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This minor but crucial rectification ensures the court record accurately reflects the parties' agreement regarding the assignment of trademarks.
Malabar Cements Limitd v.Drawing And Disbursing Officer, The Office of the Trademarks Registry; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Malabar Cements Limited's Writ Petition, setting aside an earlier rejection order from the Trademarks Registry. The court ruled that a Notice of Opposition filed against Trademark Application No 427808 fell within the prescribed window for filing opposition, based on a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. Consequently, the respondents agreed to accept and record the opposition upon re-submission within three weeks.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The case involves Novartis AG seeking a permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its patent related to Eltrombopag Olamine, the active ingredient in its drug Revolade.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The suit was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group challenging an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja), Section 3(d), and Section 10 of the Patents Act, 1970. The plaintiff argued that the objections under Section 10 were never raised during examination and that deleted claims were improperly used for rejection.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.4380/DELNP/2013 by the Controller of Patents, which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant challenged the basis and citation of the prior art documents used against them.
Attachmate Corporation v.DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1)
The assessee, a US company dealing in software products, challenged the Assessing Officer's order which treated income received from Indian distributors as 'Royalty' chargeable under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal held that since no right in copyright was being transferred, the consideration could not be taxed as royalty.
Agriboard International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Agriboard International LLC appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing its patent application for 'Efficient Method and Apparatus for Producing Compressed Structural Fiberboard' on grounds of lack of inventive step. The petitioner argued that the refusal was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning regarding the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art (D1).
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Azista Industries Private Limited & Ors
Pfizer Inc and others filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts against Azista Industries Private Limited and others for infringing their patented drug 'Palbociclib'. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim ex parte injunction.
UPL Limited v.Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved UPL Limited asserting its patent rights over the composition Clodinafop-Propargyl (15%) + Metsulfuron Methyl (1%) WP against Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. The matter was amicably settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
The suit sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 270765 concerning Baricitinib (Barinat). The patent holder alleged that licensed companies were marketing and exporting the product outside its approved use (COVID-19) for Rheumatoid Arthritis, primarily through e-commerce platforms like Indiamart.
Walmart Apollo Llc v.Aayush Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Walmart Apollo LLC alleging continued trademark infringement by the defendants, who were reportedly still using the mark 'WMART' despite a prior interim injunction. The court noted the defendants' willingness to propose a change of mark ('WM BAZAAR') in exchange for waiving costs and damages. Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the defendants and set deadlines for filing replies on various related applications, keeping the litigation active.
Pioneer Corporation v.Gulab Goel & Ors.
In a suit involving claims of trademark and copyright infringement, Pioneer Corporation and Defendant No. 8 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. As part of this resolution, Defendant No. 8 paid compensation to the Plaintiff. The Delhi High Court subsequently allowed the application, passing a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 8 and disposing of the suit concerning that specific defendant.
Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v.Vipin Pathak Trading As M/S Pathak Impex
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Republic Technologies against Vipin Pathak regarding the alleged infringement of the 'OCB' trademark and copyright related to smoking accessories. While the court noted that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's rights, it also accepted the defendant's willingness to change their logo and mark. Consequently, an existing interim order was made absolute, while the matter was scheduled for further hearing after the defendant presented proposed changes.
Delhivery Pvt Ltd v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Pvt Ltd and Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited reached a settlement regarding trademark infringement claims. The court formally accepted the Settlement Agreement dated February 26, 2022, which mandated that the respondent acknowledge Delhivery's statutory rights and cease using similar marks. While the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction, the appellant waived their claim for damages and costs in exchange for the resolution.
Diageo Brands B V & Anr v.Rock And Storm Distilleries Private Limited
This case involved a dispute over the use of distinctive bottle designs and trademarks in the spirits industry. Diageo Brands sued Rock And Storm Distilleries for infringement of its registered design (No. 306577) and trademark ('Hipster', No. 4419654), alongside passing off related to trade dress. The parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Delhi High Court.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd
Novartis initiated multiple suits against various defendants, including Windlas Biotech and Eris Lifesciences, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN229051, which covers a combination drug (Valsartan + Sacubitril) used to treat cardiovascular disease. The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions and access to distribution details. While the court maintained an interim injunction against manufacturing and selling the patented composition, it also directed Eris Lifesciences Limited to deposit Rs. 5 crores due to the marketing of stock post-infringement.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered patents related to Top Hammer Rock Drilling Tools. The court passed an interim order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from commercializing the infringing products and directed the defendants to disclose specific financial and production details on affidavit.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Jigs Chemical Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1, alleging that the defendant was advertising and selling 'APIXABAN' (a patented pharmaceutical preparation) as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the manufacturing and sale of APIXABAN.
Xiaomi Inc v.Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited & Anr.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed a request filed by Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited to cancel the trademark 'SHOMI.' The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the register after the respondent provided an affidavit confirming that they were not using the trademark and would not use it in the future for related goods. This decision highlights the importance of active use or intent to use when maintaining a registered trademark.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs claim infringement of their patent related to drugs comprising 'FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE'. The defendant argues that MSN Laboratories is the manufacturer for them.
Mitsubishi Power Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mitsubishi Power Ltd appealed against the rejection of its patent application by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of the stay application (I.A. 11537/2021), noting that since the patent had been rejected, no interim order could be granted.
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited filed an appeal against the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617034934) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ram Trading Co. v.Amar Singh Chawal Wala And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'RAJQILLA'. The court noted that since the mark had already been cancelled by the IPAB, an interim stay could not be granted without examining the merits of the challenge. After initial procedural delays and requests for adjournment due to connectivity issues, the matter was listed for further hearing.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.M I Builders Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Private Limited against M I Builders Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the Plaintiff, who holds registered rights in 'CENTRAL PARK' for real estate, had made out a prima facie case. The Defendant was restrained from using the mark 'CENTRAL PARK' either standalone or combined with its group name 'M.I.' to prevent consumer confusion in the ongoing construction projects.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha v.Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha & Anr.
This appeal challenged an order from the Commercial Court which held that a suit seeking protection for the mark 'Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha' was not a commercial dispute. The petitioner argued that since the dispute related to their intellectual property rights—specifically, an unregistered trademark/name—it must fall under Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court agreed with this contention, setting aside the lower court's order.
Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v.Praveen S/o. Shri Gokulchand Murarka
Bhama Enterprises challenged an order granting a temporary injunction to Praveen (M/s. Modware India) regarding the alleged infringement of their 'Kool Kruizer' bottle design by the defendant's 'Cool Crazy' product. The core dispute centered on whether trademark protection in Class 32 could cover the physical shape, or if the defendant's valid registration under the Designs Act provided superior rights. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction and dismissing the plaintiff's application.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The suit involved a dispute over Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin for diabetes treatment. The parties amicably resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated March 15, 2022.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1 for infringing their patented pharmaceutical preparation 'APIXABAN'. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.1 was advertising and selling the product through various platforms including Indiamart and Tradeindia. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Angle Bio Pharma from manufacturing or selling APIXABAN without authorization, and directed the intermediary websites to take down the listings.
M/S Rishabh Agencies v.P Kantilal
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Rishabh Agencies against a trial court order that denied an interim injunction. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar trademark 'preethi' for household goods, claiming prior common law rights in 'preeti'. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that while the plaintiff claimed prior use, the defendant had been operating since 2004. The court concluded that the balance of convenience lay with the defendant and that the core issues required a full trial.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued stringent directions in favor of Kamdhenu Limited regarding the illegal use of its trademark 'Kamdhenu' by various defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using infringing domains and bank accounts to impersonate the plaintiff and defraud customers. Consequently, the court ordered domain registrars (GoDaddy), telecom providers, and banks to disclose KYC details of the involved parties. Furthermore, it mandated investigations into the identified individuals and mobile numbers to curb ongoing trademark infringement.
JK Cement Limited v.Anav Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of JK Cement Limited against Anav Industries & Anr. The court found that JK Cement had established a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its well-known trademark 'JK' and associated trade dress on cement and wall putty products. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'JK Premium' to prevent consumer confusion in the market.
M/S Sureka Forbes (Pvt) Limited v.M/S Eureka Forbes Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Sureka Forbes against M/S Eureka Forbes. The petitioner had challenged the trial court's acceptance of a Court Commissioner's report in an ongoing suit for permanent injunction concerning trademark and copyright infringement. The court ultimately found that accepting or rejecting the commissioner's report is a discretionary function of the trial court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd v.Mr Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd against Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals. The court found that the use of the 'VIVO' mark by the defendant, especially in similar logo forms, would cause confusion and dilution given Vivo's extensive global and domestic use of the trademark. Furthermore, the court allowed Vivo to file evidence supporting its claim that the VIVO marks are well-known trademarks in India.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The case involves a revocation petition filed by Micro Labs Limited against the patent granted to Bristol-Myers Squibb for a pharmaceutical compound used as an anticoagulant. The court granted an interim injunction restraining Micro Labs from manufacturing and selling the product covered by the patent.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants (Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.) for infringement of Patent No. 259932 ("ARRANGING HANDOVER") by various mobile devices. The court addressed applications regarding adding new claims and devices during the pendency of the suit.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, which rejected its patent application (No. 1026/DEL/2012). The High Court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal and subsequently listed the matter for further hearing to determine if the invention has been put to commercial use.
M/s.24 Am Studious Private Limited v.Divya M.Jain
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendants for releasing the film 'Production No.5 (Colour) – Ayalan' without consent, alleging infringement of Tamil Satellite Television Rights in India. The dispute centered on the validity of the finance agreement where the plaintiff pledged the exclusive copyright to the first defendant.
M/S Ayush Aqua System v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Ayush Aqua System against the rejection of its trademark 'ZENKO' in Class 11. The court found that despite a cited mark ('ZENCO') existing for related goods, the goods applied for were sufficiently distinct. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised before acceptance, provided the appellant restricts itself to the applied-for goods and does not manufacture products covered by the cited mark.
Octave Apparels v.Nirmal Kumar Trading As Apricot Fashion Alloy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration ('METTLE') and simultaneously considered a related injunction suit. Recognizing the identical issues and parties, the court exercised its power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the pending commercial suit from the District Court to be tried alongside the present rectification petition in the High Court. This consolidation streamlines the legal process for both parties involved.
M/s. New Rubric Solutions LLP v.Pearson India Education Services Private Limited
The plaintiff, M/s. New Rubric Solutions LLP, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Pearson India Education Services Private Limited, infringed its intellectual property rights by using and misrepresenting the test results of its assessment product 'Kaleido' in the defendant's product 'MyPedia'. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Nisekind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Nisekind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Mankind, a major player in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement. The ruling specifically restrained the defendant from using the name 'NISEKIND PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED' and any similar mark containing the word element KIND for medicinal preparations, citing potential consumer confusion and dilution of Mankind's well-known marks.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the use of the trademark 'SARKARI RESULT' and associated domain names. The core issue revolves around establishing who is the prior adopter and user of the mark by comparing the actions of the Plaintiff and Defendants. The court has listed the matter for further hearing, indicating that the substantive determination of rights remains pending.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Group Surya
Surya Roshni Limited challenged an arbitral award concerning the domain name 'groupsurya.co.in', arguing that the arbitrator erred in holding that the mark 'SURYA' was generic. The Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner's application to condone a significant delay, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods. Consequently, the court took the petition on record and issued notice to the respondent, setting the stage for a detailed legal challenge against the initial arbitral decision.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The case involves a suit seeking an injunction against HFCL Limited for allegedly infringing on Sterlite Technologies' patent related to optical fiber cables. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the infringing products.
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd challenged the Controller General of Patents' order that deemed its patent application, relating to novel Cholecystokini Receptor Ligands, as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the abandonment was based on procedural failures and clerical errors by agents, not due to lack of interest in the invention. The Madras High Court acknowledged the violation of timelines but emphasized principles of natural justice, ultimately restoring the application for fresh consideration.
Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd v.Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court disposed of an Appeal from Order in a trademark dispute between Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd and Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Due to mutual consensus between both parties, the court quashed the previous order passed by the trial court regarding Exh.5 application. The case has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh, ensuring both sides are given an opportunity to present their arguments.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants (Dr. Reddy's Laboratories) for infringing their patent No. 268846, covering Empagliflozin products. The court heard applications concerning the continuation and vacation of an existing ad-interim injunction.
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.PhonePe Private Limited
This appeal challenged an order that allowed the plaintiff (PhonePe Private Limited) to withdraw its initial commercial IP suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off, while retaining the liberty to file a fresh suit. The appellant (Resilient Innovations Private Limited) argued this order was erroneous and not maintainable for appeal. The Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the Impugned Order did not qualify as a 'decree' under the CPC, thereby ruling on the issue of maintainability.
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.Phonepe Private Limited
Resilient Innovations Private Limited challenged an order passed by the lower court that allowed Phonepe Private Limited to withdraw its trademark infringement suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Appellant argued this grant constituted a jurisdictional error and should be appealable. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on the grounds of maintainability, holding that the Impugned Order was not a 'decree' under the CPC. While avoiding comment on the merits of the IP dispute, the court provided clarity on the legal effect of such withdrawal orders.
Vifor International Ltd v.Unijules Life Sciences Limited
The dispute involved allegations of infringement regarding Ferric Carboxymaltose protected under Indian Patent No. 221536. The parties referred the matter to mediation, resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated 21.02.2022.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) sought confirmation of an interim injunction restraining the defendants (Msn Laboratories) from infringing their patent (IN 268846) related to Empagliflozin. The court addressed two main issues: the merits of the injunction and whether the defendant could challenge it without a written statement, ultimately allowing the defendant's application for vacation.
The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.Institute Of Chatered Tax Advisers Of India Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by The Chartered Institute Of Taxation against a lower court's dismissal of its interim injunction application regarding the trademark 'ADIT'. The Court found that the Respondent, Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Ltd., was likely to cause enormous harm by using a similar name and mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the Defendant must refrain from launching any course under the name 'ADIT' while the main suit is pending.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Daxia Healthcare & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the product SILODAX-8 D, the Delhi High Court directed both parties toward mediation. The defendants agreed not to manufacture or sell further stock of the infringing product while also committing to provide details of all products manufactured and sold to date. This order signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution in complex IP disputes.
SNPC Machines Private Limited v.Pankaj Rana
SNPC Machines Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patents, copyright, and misappropriation of trade secrets related to a brick-making machine. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the Court.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its Indian Patent No. 240893, titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The court issued directions regarding bank guarantees and continuous cash deposits from the defendants to secure the claims during the pendency of the suit. The matter remains pending trial.
Tata Sons Private Limited v.Dinesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Tata Sons Private Limited and Dinesh Kumar after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The agreement confirmed Tata's ownership of the well-known 'TATA' mark and required the defendant to cease all use of the mark or any deceptively similar variations. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to assign his related trademark registration and pay a full and final settlement amount of INR 2,00,000/-.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The case involves a suit filed by Sterlite Technologies Limited against HFCL Limited for the infringement of their patent related to an optical fiber cable. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing products.
Lyka Labs Limited v.Lyka Biotech Private Limited
The petitioner, Lyka Labs Limited, filed an Interim Application against Lyka Biotech Private Limited for infringement of its trademark 'LYKA' and passing off. The court accepted the defendant's statement that it had discontinued using the impugned mark and domain name. Consequently, the court passed a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from using similar marks in relation to pharmaceutical products.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Ginodia Agro And Anr.
Everest Food Products Private Limited filed a petition seeking leave to institute a suit against Ginodia Agro and others, alleging infringement of copyright, trademark, and passing off. The court examined the jurisdictional requirements for such an IP dispute in Mumbai. The judge held that since the plaintiff operates within the court's jurisdiction, obtaining leave under Clause XII was unnecessary, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was using a process patented under IN 206995. The Defendant defended by claiming invalidity based on prior art (EP 1031566). This order addressed procedural applications, allowing the Defendant time to file the official translated copy of the cited prior art.
The North Face Apparel Corp. v.Pranav Kant Sharma
The North Face Apparel Corp. filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the dismissal of its application for temporary injunction against Pranav Kant Sharma (North Face Adventure Tours), alleging trademark infringement due to deceptive similarity. The respondent argued that since they operate in different classes of goods (Class 39 vs. appellant's classes), there is no likelihood of confusion or deception. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that because the parties trade in different classes, the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Deepak Kukreja v.Anil Kukreja
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Deepak Kukreja against Anil Kukreja, restraining the latter from using the deceptively similar trademark 'RIGALITE' in relation to electrical goods. The court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off concerning his registered trademarks RIGA and RIGGA. Furthermore, the Court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing materials, and inventory the goods.
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
This case concerns a dispute over film licensing rights for 'Sholay' and related titles between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME). The core issue revolved around alleged non-compliance with a Deed of Settlement, which included payment obligations and an extension of the license period. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeals, effectively restoring the interim injunction in favor of NHC.
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The dispute arose from agreements between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME) regarding film rights for 'Sholay' and 'Sholay 3D'. After a Deed of Settlement was executed, the core issue became non-compliance with payment terms by one party. NHC filed a commercial suit seeking declaration of exclusive license and injunction against termination notices issued by SME.
Ani Media Pvt Ltd v.Vinay G David & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Ani Media Pvt Ltd alleging that Defendant No.1 was willfully disobeying a prior ad interim injunction order. The court found prima facie evidence of breach, as the defendant continued using the plaintiff's registered trademarks and domain name on his Facebook account despite the restraint order. Consequently, the court issued a show cause notice to initiate proceedings for disobedience and mandated that the defendant remove all offending content within 48 hours.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Eris Lifesciences Limited filed a revocation petition challenging Patent No. IN 243301, arguing that it should be revoked because the claims were covered by an earlier genus patent (IN 227719). The Delhi High Court noted that another appeal concerning the same patent was already pending before the court. Consequently, the court directed both parties to serve notices upon each other and listed the matter together with the existing appeal for a hearing on April 6, 2022.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN254458 before the Delhi High Court. The contesting respondent raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the patent was granted in Chennai and an earlier revocation petition had already been filed before IPAB, Chennai.
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v.Shashi Distilleries Private Limited
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Shashi Distilleries Private Limited seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of an Aseptic Brick Pack packaging that is deceptively similar to its own distinctive trade dress used for 'Original Choice' whisky. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction to withdraw the defendant's application for approval of this similar packaging.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Raman Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Raman Gupta and others. The court found that the defendants were illegally using the registered trademark 'KHADI' and associated logos, particularly for medical products like PPE kits and hand sanitizers under the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Given the potential risk to public health due to unauthorized quality control, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling any such products bearing the infringing marks.
Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Indian Heritage School
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd., who alleged that the defendant was infringing on their established use of the mark 'HERITAGE' in the education sector. The court found a prima facie case for confusion among students and parents due to the similarity of marks used by both parties. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from opening any new educational institutions using 'INDIAN HERITAGE' or 'HERITAGE', and were ordered to cease using the name 'Indian Heritage World School' for their existing pre-school starting May 1, 2022.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which dismissed a pre-grant opposition against its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a 'speaking order' and lacked sufficient reasoning. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a reasoned decision.
Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited v.Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited against Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark entry bearing number 4786408 in Class 16. This decision effectively removed the contested mark from the register, favoring the petitioner's claim regarding the intellectual property rights.
Kores (India) Limited v.Doms Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that rejected the request to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core dispute involved whether Kores' product infringed Doms' registered trademarks for 'DOMS NEON' pencils. While acknowledging the defendant's need to challenge the validity of the registrations, the court ultimately upheld the Commercial Court's decision regarding the immediate framing of additional issues, noting that all issues related to trademark validity must be dealt with by a specialized Tribunal (under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) and not the civil court.
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited v.Maithri Aquatech Private Limited
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Maithri Aquatech Private Limited and others for alleged patent infringement. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party was located in Delhi. However, the Court found that since the defendant No.1 operated an interactive website accessible globally, and Defendants No.2 & 3 were marketing agents based in Delhi, Delhi courts possessed sufficient jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the application for leave to file the suit was allowed.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
Vishal Pipes Limited v.Bhavya Pipe Industry
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court addressed several procedural issues while advancing the main dispute between Vishal Pipes Limited and Bhavya Pipe Industry. The court allowed an application for a Local Commissioner, who was tasked with visiting the defendant's premises to inventory all products bearing the 'BPI' mark and obtain relevant sales accounts. Furthermore, the court issued notice to the defendant regarding the interim injunction request, reserving the final decision for a later date.
M/s.Avinashi Ads v.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railways
M/s. Avinashi Ads filed an arbitration suit challenging an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator concerning advertising rights and license fees with South Western Railways. The plaintiff sought damages amounting to ₹11,75,99,996/-. However, the court set aside the original arbitral award in its entirety.
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v.MS KANISHK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition for the rectification of a registered trademark. While the substantive issues were not decided on this date, the court focused on procedural matters. The court noted that the Vakalatnama for Defendant No. 1 was missing from the record and directed steps to be taken to place it on file. The matter has been listed for further hearing.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS v.RAJIV MUKUL AND ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an execution petition filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking enforcement of a prior decree. The core issue is the alleged infringement and passing off committed by the judgment debtors who began selling products under the deceptively similar trade name 'BETNEVIN'. Although the original suit covered various trademarks, the petitioners argued that their rights in 'BETNOVATE' and 'BETNESOL' were encompassed within the general scope of the decree. The Court directed notice to the defendants regarding this new alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited v.Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'JUPITER' (Registration No. 1675980). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using similar marks, such as "StayGo Jupiter Multispecialty Hospital," in relation to running hospitals and providing medical services. The court found a strong prima facie case for infringement and granted the interim injunction.
Boehinder Pharma v.Macleods Pharma
Boehinder Pharma filed an application seeking ad-interim relief to restrain Macleods Pharma from infringing its patent rights over 'Linagliptin'. The applicants argued that their patent was still valid and the respondent was manufacturing and selling the product under brands LINAMAC and LINAONE. The court, finding a prima facie case, granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing or selling Linagliptin.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Tata Motors Limited
The dispute between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited and Tata Motors Limited regarding the use of 'T-Series' marks was amicably settled in the Delhi High Court. The settlement requires Tata Motors to acknowledge the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in 'T-Series', undertake not to use the mark on automobile products, and remove all related content from its websites and social media platforms. In return, Super Cassettes acknowledged the rights of Tata Motors in marks like 'Tata' and agreed to drop claims for damages.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors. v.Venkata Siva Suhas Kumar Bommisetty & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors., filed an interim application seeking relief against the Defendants for infringement of their registered 'NATURAL' family marks and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordering them to remove related online advertisements.
The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc (COMPTIA) v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited (The Times Group)
This Delhi High Court judgment records the amicable resolution of a trademark dispute between COMPTIA and The Times Group. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement, wherein The Times Group acknowledged COMPTIA's ownership of 'CHANNELCON' and agreed to immediately cease using it or deceptively similar marks like 'CHANNELICON'. Furthermore, The Times Group committed not to oppose future registration efforts for the mark.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
The cases involve Novartis AG against Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Eris Lifesciences Limited regarding commercial disputes. The hearings are scheduled for further directions.
Ageless Clinic Private Limited v.Am Ageless Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted further interim relief in favor of Ageless Clinic Private Limited against Am Ageless Private Limited. Despite previous orders, the Defendant failed to comply by continuing to use infringing business names on signage, maintaining deceptive domain names (like i-am-ageless-aesthetic-and-dental-centre.business), and active social media accounts. The Court made absolute the Leave Petition for Letters of Patent and issued a strong injunction restraining the defendant from using any mark or handle containing 'AGELESS' that could lead to passing off.
PRECISE BIO PHARMA PVT. LTD. v.ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS & ANR.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a stay against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. This order rejected the pre-grant opposition filed by Precise Bio Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding Indian Patent Application No. 2471/DELNP/2013 under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Walpar Healthcare And Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed an Interim Application against Walpar Healthcare & Anr. alleging passing off and trademark infringement concerning their respective marks, DUZELA and DIZELA. The court found a case made out for granting ad-interim relief based on the findings of the previous order.
Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited v.Black Diamond Motors Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited challenging an order from the Commercial Court. The court upheld the necessity of protecting the registered trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND' during pending litigation, despite previous rulings that allowed both parties to use the mark under specific conditions. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction and affirmed the court's power to issue protective directions regarding goods release and security deposits.
Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes And Medical Devices Ltd. challenging the Senior Examiner's refusal to register the trademark 'DISPOSAFE'. While granting procedural exemptions regarding document submission, the court formally initiated the substantive appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that their unique combination mark should not have been rejected as generic or descriptive. The matter is now set for further hearing after notice has been issued to the Respondent.
M/S Slv Enterprises v.M/S Sree Nandi Upachar; M/S Hotel Sree Saravana Bhavan
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Slv Enterprises seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged trademark infringement. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the lower trial court to decide on its interim application promptly. However, the High Court declined to interfere in the trial court's discretionary power, noting that the respondents were granted time to file their written statements and objections. The judgment emphasizes allowing the trial court to manage the proceedings while encouraging the petitioner to pursue matters there.
Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited v.The State Of West Bengal
The application sought to recall and clarify a prior order passed in WPA 2070 of 2022. The Court found that the writ petition failed to disclose crucial previous orders, including those related to injunctions and infringement suits.
Lt Foods Limited v.Sri Annapurna Agro Indsutries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on a comprehensive settlement reached between Lt Foods Limited and Sri Annapurna Agro Industries. The defendants formally acknowledged Lt Foods as the exclusive proprietor of the trademark 'HERITAGE/INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT.' Crucially, the defendants undertook to cease all use of the mark, refrain from registering similar marks globally, and pay damages amounting to INR 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited against the defendants. The court found that the defendants were fraudulently adopting and misusing Hero's registered trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero Motocrop') and identity materials to set up fake dealerships, thereby deceiving the public. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using these marks or offering services under the plaintiff's name, and associated domain names and bank accounts were ordered to be frozen pending the final disposal of the suit.