Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12301–12400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center
Sotefin Sa filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others for the alleged infringement of its Indian Patent 214088, which covers the 'Silomat Dolly' used in automatic car parks. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were importing 'Smart Dollies' from China that closely resembled and infringed upon their patented technology. After considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunction.
Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. v.Amit Saini & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. against Amit Saini & Ors. The court found sufficient grounds, based on prior ex-parte findings, to establish a case for passing off and trademark infringement. This interim order prohibits the defendants from copying or counterfeiting the plaintiff's 'STREAX PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPER' products or using deceptively similar marks like 'STREAX,' thereby preventing them from misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sanjay Chadha Trading As Eveready Tools Emporium and Another v.Union Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to cancel a registered trademark. The petitioners, who owned the 'EVEREADY' word mark for hand tools, challenged its removal by the respondent, Eveready Industries India Limited. However, the court found that the IPAB had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the petitioners' adoption and use of the mark were dishonest and lacked continuous user. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally registered the lawsuit filed by Relaxo Footwears Limited against M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr. The suit alleges infringement of the 'SPARX' trademark, along with claims of passing off and copyright infringement. During the initial proceedings, the defendant acknowledged receiving summons and stated that they had ceased online sales of the goods in question following objections from the plaintiff.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
This case involves a Review Petition filed by Defendants No. 1 & 2 against an earlier order passed by the Delhi High Court. The defendants challenged the court's directions requiring them to produce third-party agreements, arguing that these documents were irrelevant to determining the essentiality of the suit patents and constituted an erroneous understanding of the facts.
Medal Electronics Private Limited v.M/S Goldmedal Electricals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Medal Electronics challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted against them in a trademark dispute. Despite arguments regarding prior use and alleged acquiescence, the appellants chose to withdraw their appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but granted liberty for the appellants to file appropriate applications before the Trial Court, urging the lower court to expedite the decision on the interim injunction application.
Indus Tmt Industries Ltd v.M/S Mega Steel Industries
This case involved Indus Tmt Industries Ltd filing Original Suits against M/S Mega Steel Industries alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks and design. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for the unauthorized use of similar marks like 'Index Gold'. During the proceedings, the court permitted the plaintiff to delete the prayer pertaining to the Designs Act, 2000, leading to the suits being remanded back to the Trial Court to resolve the remaining disputes.
Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v.Novartis Ag
This appeal before the Telangana High Court concerned an infringement suit filed by Novartis Ag against Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding patent IN 229051, which covers a specific Valsartan/Sacubitril combination drug. The respondents (Novartis) had secured an interim injunction based on prima facie evidence of infringement due to the appellant's (Msn Labs) manufacturing approval for a similar formulation. The court examined the statutory provisions of the Patents Act and CPC, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the injunction granted in favor of Novartis.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca Ab, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited, was infringing their Indian Patent IN 297581, which covers the anticancer drug Osimertinib (marketed as Tagrisso). The plaintiffs claimed the defendant was soliciting large orders to manufacture and sell the infringing product without authorization.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sham Bansode
The dispute between Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Sham Bansode regarding the 'Dream11' trademarks was amicably settled through mediation. The parties agreed that the court would decree the infringement suit based on the settlement terms. Key provisions included the defendant acknowledging ownership of the plaintiff's listed trademarks, agreeing to cease all use of similar marks, transferring the domain name www.mydream11.in, and paying a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Elder Labs Limited & Anr.
The dispute between Himalaya Wellness Company and Elder Labs Limited was resolved through mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement accepted by the Delhi High Court. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs' rights in trademarks like 'Liv.52' and 'HIMALAYA', as well as their trade dress (orange and green color combination). In exchange for discontinuing infringing activities and paying damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms.
Levi Straus & Company v.Braint Denims
The plaintiff, Levi Straus & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademarks (including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design') by the defendant, Braint Denims. The court found that while exact damages were difficult to calculate, it awarded punitive damages of ₹2,00,000/- against the two defendants due to their evasion of court proceedings.
Rica S.P.A. v.M/S Skin Safe Industries Through Its Sole Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Rica S.P.A., a cosmetics company, against M/S Skin Safe Industries. The plaintiff alleged infringement and passing off concerning its trademarks, copyrights, and trade dress related to hair removal products. Citing prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or copying the plaintiff's packaging and artistic works until the final hearing.
M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited v.M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited against M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd. The court found that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'NATURASSENCE' was closely identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'NATURE'S ESSENCE'. Given the prima facie case made by the plaintiff regarding goodwill and reputation, the court restrained the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or trade dress until further hearing.
Dr Ashim Kumar Biswas v.A To Z Pharmaceuticals And Laboratory & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Ashim Kumar Biswas against A To Z Pharmaceuticals for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's product was an exact copy of the plaintiff's Ayurvedic medicine, using a deceptively similar mark ('DR. BISWASH') while also naming the plaintiff as the manufacturer. Given the clear prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation, the court restrained the defendants from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd
The dispute concerned the validity and potential revocation of Patent No. IN240893. Although the court had previously found the patent invalid under Section 64(1)(h) in an earlier judgment, the matter was carried out in appeal. The core issue before this bench was whether the patent could be revoked based on grounds like insufficient disclosure (Section 64(1)(h)).
M/S Mold Tech Packaging Limited v.S.D. Container Proprietor Patwari
The appeal was filed by M/S Mold Tech Packaging Limited against an order rejecting its application for a temporary injunction. The plaintiff claimed that the respondent was pirating and infringing their registered designs of containers and lids. However, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff's designs were not new or original as they had been in use globally prior to registration.
Ajanta LLP v.Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal concerned an attempt by Ajanta LLP to modify a consent decree reached with Casio Computer Co. Ltd., alleging a typographical error regarding the scope of the settlement agreement. The original suit involved claims of design piracy related to scientific calculators, citing specific registered designs. Although the parties had settled and the High Court decreed the suit based on this settlement, Ajanta LLP sought rectification, arguing that the agreement incorrectly specified trademark elements. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that a consent decree cannot be modified merely due to misunderstanding unless the mistake is patent or obvious.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Sharmila Lalit Vyas And Anr.
Louis Vuitton Malletier filed an Interim Application seeking an injunction against the Defendants to prevent them from manufacturing, selling, or distributing products featuring the impugned LV mark or deceptively similar marks. The court directed the Applicant/Plaintiff to serve the proceedings on the Defendants before considering any ad-interim relief.
Schaeffler Technologies Ag And Co Kg v.Ms Gangason Enterprises
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Schaeffler Technologies (FAG) against Ms Gangason Enterprises for alleged trademark infringement. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute through an amicable settlement, which the court formalized into a decree. Under the terms of this settlement, the Defendant acknowledged FAG's exclusive rights and agreed to cease all use of the mark 'FAG,' withdraw related trademark applications, destroy infringing products, and provide an apology for the violation.
Dfm Foods Limited v.ITC Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark dispute between Dfm Foods Limited and ITC Limited. While the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, the court immediately directed both parties toward mandatory mediation. This order sets the stage for amicable resolution while allowing procedural steps like filing additional documents and exemptions from pre-institution mediation.
Astra Zeneca Ab And Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The dispute concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patents IN 205147 and IN 235625 by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the drug Dapnat/Dapagliflozin. The present application sought to release the defendant from a bank guarantee obligation, but the court declined this prayer.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.Needs Supermart Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'Nutella' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an order on February 2, 2022. While the court maintained the existing interim injunction against the defendant, it deferred the dispute over whether products were counterfeit to the trial stage. Furthermore, the court directed both parties toward mediation and conciliation to attempt a settlement of the ongoing litigation.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P v.Sandeep Arora & Anr.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P filed a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the copyright registration of 'SPORTS POLO' held by Sandeep Arora & Anr. The petitioner argued that the respondent's logo substantially reproduced its well-known trademarks and artistic marks. The court found that the respondent's artwork was an imitation of the petitioner's registered marks, lacking originality, and therefore wrongly registered. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the impugned copyright registration.
L'OREAL v.Haridas Pa
The plaintiff, L'Oreal, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks ('L'OREAL', 'L'OREAL PROFESSIONNEL', 'L'OREAL PARIS') and passing off. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (LOERA, LORA) in relation to beauty care products and services, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD v.UDIT KHATRI & ORS.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT LTD against Udit Khatri & Ors. The court found that the defendants were engaging in blatant trademark infringement by selling spurious, sub-standard oil filters using names and get-ups deceptively similar to KLEENOIL's registered trademarks. Citing prima facie evidence, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from marketing or supplying products under 'KLEENOIL' or 'CLEANOIL' until further hearing.
Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Emaar Properties Pjsc against Emaar Farm Technik Private Limited. The plaintiff, a well-established global brand, alleged that the defendant was deceptively using the registered trademark 'EMAAR' for farm equipment to benefit from the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The court recognized the clear case of infringement and passing off, temporarily restraining the defendants from using the mark on any products or e-commerce platforms until further proceedings.
Airtec Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. v.Sunil Kumar Saluja
The Delhi High Court dismissed Airtec Electrovision's appeal against the Commercial Court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. Airtec sought protection for its registered mark 'EIRTEC' against Sunil Kumar Saluja's use of 'AIRNET' on television sets, claiming deceptive similarity. However, the court found no sufficient phonetic or stylistic similarity and emphasized that common words like 'air' are often used in the electronics trade, ultimately upholding the lower court's decision.
Infiniti Retail Limited v.M/S Croma Through Its Proprietor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Infiniti Retail Limited, granting a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and ordering the transfer of the domain name www.croma.in. The court found that the plaintiff's mark 'CROMA,' which is registered and declared well-known, was being illegally used by a third party who was profiting from its reputation through website squatting. This judgment reinforces the strong legal protection afforded to established, well-known trademarks in the digital space.
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited v.Galatea Limited
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited approached the Gujarat High Court seeking procedural directions concerning an ongoing Trademark Suit. The petitioner specifically relied upon Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, to influence the trial court's proceedings regarding a Counter Claim (Exhibit 28). After mutual consent from both parties, the High Court disposed of the petition while directing the Trial Court to decide Exhibit 28 within four weeks.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed an appeal challenging a decision by the Senior Examiner regarding its trademark application for 'ALPHARD' in Class 12. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the appellant to cure procedural delays and admitting the appeal, set the matter down for further hearing. Toyota argued that as a prior user of the mark since 2008, the examiner erred in declining registration.
MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v.COURTYARD HOLIDAYS WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marriott Worldwide Corporation against Courtyard Holidays World Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant was misleading consumers by using marks and domain names identical or similar to Marriott's registered 'COURTYARD' brand. Despite the defendant having a registration, the court noted that this registration was obtained through false representation, leading to the restraint order.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Ashok Kumar Trading As WWW.SASTAJOOTA.COM & ORS.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of New Balance Athletics Inc. against Ashok Kumar Trading As WWW.SASTAJOOTA.COM & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendants were operating websites offering footwear bearing New Balance's mark without authorization, leading to apprehension of counterfeit goods. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate deactivation and blocking of the infringing websites.
M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited (Madura F and L Division)
M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd filed an Original Suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against M/S. Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited for allegedly infringing the plaintiffs' granted patent (No. 306901) related to 'Stay Dry Period Panty'. However, the plaintiffs subsequently moved to withdraw the suit.
M/S Thind Industries v.M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between M/S Thind Industries and M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation. Recognizing the appellant's willingness to modify its branding, the court granted permission for M/S Thind Industries to revise its trademark and label. This interim decision allows the parties to move forward with a resolution by allowing the appellant time to submit the revised materials.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Montessori & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd. against M/S Fly High Montessori & Ors. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark, 'GOLDEN FRANKFINN,' for educational services, thereby infringing on and passing off its registered trademark 'FRANKFINN.' The court found that a prima facie case was made out, immediately restraining the defendant from using the disputed marks in any manner to prevent further infringement and unfair competition.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound APIXABAN. The defendant is accused of manufacturing and selling APIXABAN API without authorization.
Indian Oncology Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the trade mark application 'Indian Oncology Foundation' by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that while the applicant claimed long-term use and reputation, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence—such as advertising expenditure or sales data—to prove that the descriptive mark had acquired secondary meaning. This ruling emphasizes that mere usage is insufficient; concrete proof of distinctiveness must be presented to overcome statutory objections.
Ht Media Ltd v.Pooja Sharma & Ors.
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted an immediate injunction protecting Ht Media Ltd's 'SHINE' trademark and its website www.shine.com from unauthorized use by rogue defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using the plaintiff's IP to deceive the public through fraudulent job/career services. Crucially, the judgment issued sweeping directions to various service providers—including ISPs, telecom operators, domain registrars, and Gmail—to block infringing websites and disclose user information, effectively providing a powerful mechanism for online IP enforcement.
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd v.VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking leave to initiate a lawsuit against VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The petitioner argued that no such leave was required under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, as the main suit addressed these IP violations. Furthermore, counsel established the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction based on the Petitioner's Mumbai registration. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
S Bant Singh Sole Proprietor M S Vishavkarma Engineering Works v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'PUNNI,' in Class 35. The plaintiff argued that another party had registered the identical mark on a later date, leading to a conflict. The court initiated the proceedings by issuing notice to the defendant and setting a timeline for filing pleadings.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.Ashoka Developers And Builders Limited
Central Park Estates Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition against Ashoka Developers And Builders Limited regarding the use of 'CENTRAL PARK' in real estate projects. The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary applications, dispensing with pre-institution mediation for urgent reliefs. The court subsequently issued summons to all defendants and set the matter for further pleadings and arguments on the injunction application.
Novartis Ag v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Novartis Ag, filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning the drug Eltrombopag Olamine. The court found a clear prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, noting that the rights to the patent had been confirmed previously.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringed its patent by launching a product containing Eltrombopag Olamine without a license. The court granted an ex parte injunction against the defendant's product 'REBOPAG'.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr.
The appeal was filed challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated August 24, 2021, which rejected Indian Patent Application No. 201817006495. The appellants argued that the rejection based on multiplicity of inventive concepts violated principles of natural justice as no specific objection was raised in the examination report.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd was infringing five of its patents related to telecommunication standards (UMTS, LTE, etc.). The current application sought discovery through interrogatories and production of license agreements with chipset providers like Qualcomm and MediaTek. The court partly allowed the application, directing the defendants to answer specific questions and provide relevant third-party agreements in a sealed cover.
Shri Govind Baheti v.Shri Kamal Kishore Baheti
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement related to the use of the 'VRAJ' trademark for tractor parts. The petitioner claimed that the respondents were violating the territorial restrictions set forth in the 2012 settlement by allowing their wife's firm to sell spare parts bearing the mark outside the permitted five states. Consequently, the Court directed notice to be issued to the respondent, setting a date for returnable appearance.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Combitic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court order, Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited sought time to challenge the validity of a trademark registered by Combitic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd. The court allowed the application and granted an adjournment of three months. This procedural step allows the plaintiff to formally apply for the rectification of the defendant's trademark registration before the IP Division.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction against Sadar Laboratories, which was seeking protection for its well-known trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The court found that while 'Rooh Afza' may be a strong mark, the defendant's use of 'Dil Afza' did not necessarily cause consumer confusion, especially given the long history and peaceful co-existence of similar marks in the pharmaceutical market. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts during the pendency of the suit.
M.Gagan Bothra v.The Central Government
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents to act upon a 2013 order from the Central Government regarding R.Anbarasu's misuse of the National Emblem. The court found that despite central government directions, the State Government failed to initiate action against the ex-member of parliament for misusing the emblem on his letter pad.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting Indian Patent Application No. 8198/DELNP/2013. The appellant argued that the notice of hearing failed to cite all relevant prior arts ('D2' and 'D3') which were used as grounds for rejection.
Maruti Air Couriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. v.Ram Singh Rathore & 9 Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that their former franchisees (Defendants nos. 1 to 9) and a newly incorporated entity (Defendant no. 10) were continuing to use the original artistic label and name of 'Maruti Air Couriers' on consignment notes and trade documents after the termination of their franchise agreements. The plaintiffs claimed this constituted copyright infringement and passing off.
DLF Limited v.Rediff.Com India Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'EMPORIO' brand, DLF Limited and Defendant No. 2 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The Delhi High Court formally recorded this settlement, decreeing the terms against Defendant No. 2 while allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally against the remaining defendants. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex IP disputes within the judicial framework.
Inter Ikea Systems B V v.Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed applications filed by the defendants (Italica Floor Tiles) seeking to set aside an earlier ex parte decree passed against them for trademark infringement. The court acknowledged that while the plaintiffs had a strong case regarding their established brand, the procedural lapse and lack of opportunity for the defendants to present their defense warranted reconsideration. Consequently, the ex parte order was set aside, and the main suit has been revived, allowing both parties to proceed on the merits.
Marico Limited v.Dabur India Limited
Marico Limited filed a suit against Dabur India Limited before the Calcutta High Court seeking urgent relief. Given the urgency presented, the court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny. Furthermore, the court granted necessary leave under various provisions, including Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, allowing the proceedings to move forward.
Db Corp Ltd v.Whatsapp Llc & Ors
Db Corp Ltd filed a suit against WhatsApp LLC alleging unauthorized circulation of its copyrighted e-newspapers within private messaging groups. The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction, directing WhatsApp to immediately take down and block the identified infringing groups. This order underscores the platform's responsibility in preventing copyright infringement when content is illegally shared on its services.
Roland Corporation v.Hi Tone Electronics
The Delhi High Court resolved the dispute between Roland Corporation and Hi Tone Electronics through successful mediation. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement that involved mutual withdrawals of cancellation petitions and opposition proceedings related to their respective trademarks. Crucially, HiTone agreed to change its mark and use it in combination with Roland's 'BOSS' trademark for specific products, while Roland also consented to certain changes regarding HiTone's marks.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Urmilla Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Aditya Infotech Limited against Urmilla Jain. The Plaintiff, a leading security solutions provider, alleged that the Defendant was selling counterfeit CCTV cables using its registered trademark 'CP PLUS' and copying its trade dress. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, recognizing the potential harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill. This interim order immediately restrained the Defendant from further infringing activities until the final hearing.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v.Shivani Cosmetics Through Its Partners Vinod Monga and Nishant Monga
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. against Shivani Cosmetics. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the defendant was copying not only the registered trademark but also the trade dress, copyright, writing style, and overall packaging of the plaintiff's 'BLUE HEAVEN GsET BOLD' eyeliner product. This crucial order protects the plaintiff's goodwill while the full trial proceeds.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd v.M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co
The Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd filed a suit against M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co alleging trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and seeking damages. During the proceedings, the defendants conceded to certain prayers, and the plaintiffs restricted their claim for damages. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting permanent injunctions, mandatory injunctions, and awarding damages amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs.
Kake Di Hatti v.Sidharth Aggarwal And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in this order, including a municipal matter regarding unauthorized stairs on a public footpath, directing the North DMC to ensure pedestrian safety and removal of obstructions. Crucially for the IP dispute, the court noted that while respondents were previously directed to cease using the 'Kake Di Hatti' brand, they are now operating under the name 'Kake Di Rasoi,' keeping the trademark infringement matter active.
Leeds Hr Solution v.The Controller General of Patents
Leeds Hr Solution challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on December 2, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further action was necessary from the respondents.
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, geographical Indications, Designs
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on November 30, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further judicial consideration was necessary regarding the refund claim.
Seedsmen Association v.Government Of Andhra Pradesh
The appeal challenged an order passed in a Writ Petition concerning a Government Order that fixed the reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds. The court considered arguments regarding the prejudice to the petitioners if the order was suspended, particularly its effect on pending arbitral disputes.
Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd v.Cratus Pharma Limited
Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Cratus Pharma Limited alleging infringement of its registered trade marks ("CRATUS" and "CRATUS LIFE CARE"). The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was accepted by the court.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v.CIAN HEALTHCARE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Glaxo Group Limited and Cian Healthcare Limited based on a settlement agreement reached through mediation. The defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards the plaintiff's claim and costs, and crucially, consented not to use the trademark 'BETASOL' for their products. This resolution allowed both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
M/s.Maya Appliances P Ltd. v.Apex Consumer Appliances P ltd.
M/s. Maya Appliances P Ltd. filed a civil suit alleging that Apex Consumer Appliances P ltd. was infringing upon its registered copyrights related to the design of its VIDIEM AIR frameless gas stove. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's APEX EVA stoves were identical or deceptively similar, constituting both copyright infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant used proprietary phrases from the promotional video on their carton boxes. The Madras High Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions, damages, and ordering the destruction of infringing products.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc & Anr v.Mobi Antenna Technologies(Shenzhen) Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court passed an order addressing an interim relief application and framing an additional issue regarding the validity of a patent. The core dispute involves whether Patent Number IN 240893 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ramada International, Inc. v.Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc. against Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited and others. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions for infringement, passing-off, and dilution of its registered trademark 'RAMADA.' The court found a prima facie case existed, noting the defendant's use of similar marks (CLUB RAMADA) in identical hotel services, leading to an immediate restraint order until further proceedings.
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application (No. 2109/DEL/2011). The rejection was based on the claim subject not fulfilling the requirements of Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The High Court granted certain exemptions but directed further proceedings, including the presence of the Assistant Controller.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis sought an interlocutory injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for allegedly infringing its suit patent (IN 233161) covering the drug Eltrombopag Olamine, marketed as REVOLADE. The defendant contested by questioning the patent's validity under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found that infringement was established and there was no prima facie case of vulnerability to revocation, thus granting the injunction.
Marce Cemen Works Ltd. v.Shree Cement Ltd. & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit. While acknowledging the initial discretion exercised by the lower court, the bench decided that the matter required a full hearing at the trial level. The appellate proceedings were disposed of, with directions issued for both parties to exchange affidavits and proceed before the learned trial judge.
Global Car Group Pte Ltd. v.Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, Global Car Group alleged that Ola Fleet Technologies was infringing its 'Cars24' trademarks by bidding on them as keywords in Google Ads. While the petitioners argued this constituted use of the mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court did not rule on the merits at this stage. Instead, it directed the respondents to temporarily refrain from such keyword bidding until the legal position is clarified, allowing both parties to proceed with their respective arguments.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Midie Cosmetics Through Its Proprietor Sh Tilak Raj & Anr.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation or rectification of the trademark 'BLUEHEART' (No. 3388032) registered in Class-03. The court issued notice to the defendants, Midie Cosmetics, setting a date for them to complete their pleadings and proceed with the matter.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking temporary injunction regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to the Crompton brand. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were deceptively using the protected trade name 'Crompton' across their product lines, despite prior warnings. While the court noted the ongoing dispute over design piracy of pumps, it issued a specific interim direction compelling Defendant No. 1 to formally instruct its channel partners and distributors to cease all use of the Plaintiff's trademark on products and online platforms.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Muhammed Rafi
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Muhammed Rafi alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'SPLAT LOGO', used for detergent goods. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V. v.M/S Guru Nanak International & Ors. (specifically Defendant No. 5 - M/s Sazia Garments)
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V., finding that Defendant No. 5 (M/s Sazia Garments) was engaged in deliberate trademark infringement by manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel bearing their marks. Based on the local commissioner's report confirming the seizure of substantial infringing stock, the court decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages of Rs. 10 lakhs for the calculated willful infringement.
TTK Registered Ltd. v.Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd.
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Ltd., sued Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off due to the sale of its 'PRESTIGE' kitchen appliances on the defendant's online platform without authorization. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of exhaustion applies once goods are lawfully sold into the market, and there is no privity of contract between the parties.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenged a single judge's judgment that invalidated the Appellant's patent IN240893 under Sections 64(1)(h) and (k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since no issues were framed regarding these specific grounds for revocation, the learned Single Judge could not have entertained them.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.S4S Security Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the suit filed by G4S Limited against S4S Security Services, which alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court noted that G4S holds valid registrations for its marks, including 'G4S'. After considering the allegations of deceptive similarity in the defendant's use of 'S4S', the Court issued notice to the defendants and granted an interim restraint order against them pending further proceedings.
Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd v.Head Digital Works Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd against Head Digital Works Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was leveraging the plaintiff's established reputation by using the trademark 'WinZo' as a meta/title tag on its competing website, thereby causing consumer confusion and benefiting from the plaintiff's goodwill. Despite receiving a Cease and Desist notice, the defendant only made minor alterations to the mark, prompting the court to issue an immediate restraint order.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors.
The appeal was filed by Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson against the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent. The court found that there had been a violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically regarding the lack of opportunity for the appellant to deal with fresh objections.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Vifor's patent. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement on August 9, 2021.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and selling jeans and accessories bearing falsified and confusingly similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', etc.). The court found the defendants guilty of trademark infringement and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
The case involved patent infringement concerning Vivo mobile phones. A specific application was filed by defendant No. 3 (Xihi Technology Private Limited) seeking deletion from the parties array, claiming they only manufacture mobile chargers. The court accepted the undertaking given by D-3 not to infringe and passed an interim injunction against them.
Uster Technologies Ag v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Uster Technologies Ag challenged the rejection of its patent application, which related to a method for optimizing textile manufacturing processes. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was erroneous and failed to consider the provisions of the Patents Act regarding convention applications and amendments. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & M/s. V.R. Holdings v.Mr. Guddu Ansari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited, finding that Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by operating a nearly identical website and domain (www.heroelectro.in). The court found that the defendants were actively duping consumers by misrepresenting their affiliation with the renowned 'Hero Electric' brand to solicit dealership enquiries and collect large sums of money. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs, and mandated the transfer of the infringing domain name to the Plaintiffs.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors
The plaintiff, Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely infringing its patents related to parts of the SANDVIK VSI Crusher. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting infringement and irreparable loss.
Sss Lungie Company v.SSS Lingam Company
Sss Lungie Company filed a civil suit against SSS Lingam Company and others, alleging trademark passing off and copyright infringement related to the '3 ROSES label' used on lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages for unauthorized use of their brand and artistic work. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
Delhi Public School Society v.Deepak Kumar Pal & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction suspending the use of the respondent's registered trademark 'Delhi Public Secondary School.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent violated a previous consent decree by registering similar trademarks, leading to public confusion. This order reinforces the court's power to maintain the status quo and protect established goodwill against deceptive practices.
Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v.The Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioners challenged an impugned order regarding their patent rights related to electronic eco-friendly battery-operated vehicles. The court addressed arguments concerning the necessity of adding other manufacturers and states as parties, ultimately finding that the limited scope of the petition did not require such additions.
The Foundry Visionmongers Limited v.Mesmor Studio Private Limited
The Foundry Visionmongers Limited filed a suit against Mesmor Studio Private Limited alleging rampant piracy and unauthorized use of its specialized animation software, including NUKE, NUKE X, and NUKE STUDIO. The plaintiff asserted ownership of copyright in these 'Computing Programs,' which are integral to the film and television industry's visual effects. Based on technical evidence showing 5059 infringement hits across at least 36 computer systems, the court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The court heard arguments regarding an application (I.A. 8386/2019) concerning the continuation and absoluteness of a previous interim order dated 31.05.2019, which restrained Ztt India Private Limited from infringing patents IN 241433 and IN 280211. The defendant affirmed that they had no objection to the existing restraint continuing until the suit's disposal.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Allergan, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Allergan, Inc. challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark in the Delhi High Court. The court initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the Registrar, allowing the defendant two weeks to file a response. This order sets the stage for a substantive hearing on whether Allergan meets the criteria for trademark registration.
Ashok Kumar Sethi Trading as M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation v.Amilal Ramkrishnan Dass
This suit addressed allegations of copyright infringement concerning the picture mark 'AMIN's' used on black henna products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant for using similar marks and designs. During the pendency of the litigation, both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this memorandum of compromise, allowing both parties to continue their respective branding practices without further legal conflict.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit against Canva Pty Ltd seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its patented technology, titled 'Present and Record Feature of Canva'. The court allowed the plaint to be registered as a suit and set out directions for issuing summons and filing written statements.
Eli Lilly And Company & Ors. v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
In this pharmaceutical dispute, Eli Lilly sued several companies for marketing its patented compound Baricitinib under a brand name ('Barinat') for rheumatoid arthritis, allegedly breaching licensing agreements that restricted use solely to COVID-19 treatment. The court addressed an application by one defendant (Defendant No. 11), who claimed the marketing was an inadvertent error and no sales had occurred. After the defendant provided undertakings not to market or sell the drug for any ailment other than COVID-19, the plaintiff agreed that no cause of action survived against this specific defendant, leading to its removal from the suit.