Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12401–12500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Sulphur Crop Care Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patent related to a Sulphur 90% WDG product by the defendants.
Toasha Agencies And Another v.Siddhant Choudharyand Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the trademark passing-off suit filed by Toasha Agencies against Siddhant Choudhary and others. The core disputes revolve around whether the plaintiffs are lawful proprietors of the 'TOASHA' trade name, if they possess distinctive goodwill, and crucially, whether the defendants have engaged in passing off or unfair competition. The court directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence, setting the stage for a full trial.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd And Anr. v.Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Sporta Technologies regarding the domain name 'www.fandream11.com'. Following disclosure from GoDaddy, the court removed Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd from the suit and impleaded Mr. Bapi Das as Defendant No. 1. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their plaint to seek a declaration of their mark 'DREAM11' as a 'well-known' trademark, allowing the litigation to proceed against the actual domain owner.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing Indian Patent Nos. 247381, which covers the subject matter related to Apixaban. The court granted the ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing in or advertising the infringing generic products 'Apixaz' and 'Apiquis', and ordered the permanent delisting of such advertisements.
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s JB Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s JB Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyright designs associated with 'hotpot' products. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory directions to stop the unauthorized use and sale of deceptively similar goods. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Slk Software Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Universal Test Solutions LLP
The petitioner, a software development company, challenged an arbitration award (AC No.92/2018) passed by Respondent No. 2 (the Arbitrator). The dispute arose from a Business Alliance Agreement regarding the perpetual licensing of 'Test Magic' software. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award.
Unilever Plc. v.Malti Ice Cream Industries
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit after the defendants volunteered to submit to a decree. The court allowed the petition for leave and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, while permitting the defendants to destroy the wrappers bearing the offending marks under specific conditions.
Mita Ashok Kapoor Through Poa Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed civil suits alleging that the defendant was infringing their registered design for an air-cooler grill. The plaintiff holds registrations (No. 324986-017 and No. 233559) covering the unique shape and configuration of the grill. The court examined the claims, noting a striking similarity between the designs and finding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for protection.
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant Indian Patent Application Number No. 156/DELNP/2014. The court issued several interim orders regarding procedural matters such as condonation of delay, exemption from filing documents, and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Hetero Labs Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its salts/solvates. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting defendants to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
C.Prakash v.S.N. Media
C.Prakash appealed an order that vacated an initial injunction granted in his favour against S.N. Media. The dispute centered on whether C.Prakash's assignment of digital dubbing rights for films 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta' was invalid because the first defendant claimed non-payment of consideration. The court held that copyright assignment does not require payment of consideration to be valid.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vedansh Industries
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Vedansh Industries. The proprietor of the Defendant agreed to submit to a decree in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the Court decreed the suit, ordering the destruction of seized goods by the Defendants.
Cross Fit Llc v.Rtb Gym And Fitness Centre Through Its Proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Cross Fit LLC against RTB Gym And Fitness Centre for using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in the fitness industry. Given that the defendant had failed to appear despite service, the court appointed a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is mandated to visit the premises, remove all infringing signage and advertisements, seize stock of materials bearing the disputed mark, and prepare an inventory report for the plaintiff.
AMPM Designs Thr. Partner Akash Mehta v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Mumbai Bench)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by AMPM Designs, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its registered trade mark 'AMPM Designs' from the register. The court found that the IPAB erred in law and fact, specifically by failing to consider binding Supreme Court precedents regarding rectification applications. Crucially, the High Court determined that the petitioner's business (interior design services) was materially distinct from the respondent's primary business (fashion apparels), thus negating any likelihood of consumer confusion.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging infringement of its registered trademark VOLINI, copyright violation in its packaging art, and passing off due to the use of 'VOLINEX'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
DINA MALAR A Partnership Concern v.K.Ramasubbu
This suit was filed by Dina Malar against several defendants, including K. Ramasubbu, alleging infringement of its trade marks ('DINA MALA') and copyright related to the work 'DINAMALAR'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and surrender of infringing materials. However, despite the initial filing under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
R.Venkitapathy v.Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd.
This case involved a dispute filed by R.Venkitapathy against Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd., alleging infringement of trade marks ('DINA MALAR') and copyright in stylized lettering and associated devices. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to prevent deceptive similarity and passing off. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its registered mark 'VOLINI'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks like 'VOLINEX' and imitation packaging. The dispute was ultimately resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
Novartis AG v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers a pharmaceutical composition combining Valsartan and Sacubitril. The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited's product, described as a supra molecular complex, infringed the patented combination.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages regarding the use of their trademarks (LION, LUCAS TVS) and distinctive packaging on auto electrical parts. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiffs chose to withdraw the suit.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were infringing their registered trademarks (LION, DEVICE OF LION) and committing copyright violations through the use of deceptively similar branding and slavish imitation of distinctive packaging for auto electrical parts. Despite the detailed claims seeking injunctions and damages, the plaintiffs ultimately decided to withdraw the suit before a final judgment was passed.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited v.Rallis India Ltdl.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited challenged an Arbitral Award dated 30.3.2009 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute centered on a contract for developing transgenic cotton lines ('Suraksha') and the failure to deliver specific genes (Cry-IC standalone). Nuziveedu Seeds sought to set aside parts of the award regarding damages and deliverables.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Babbar
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 19 of 2021 after both the Plaintiff (Hindustan Unilever Ltd) and Defendant (Babbar) reached a settlement. The suit was decreed in terms of specific prayer clauses, with the Plaintiff agreeing not to press for damages.
Galpha Laboratories Limited v.Shivansh Shrivastava
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, filed an opposition against the Defendant's application for the trade mark BFOLIN. The court examined the similarity between the established mark B-COLEN and the proposed mark BFOLIN. Satisfied that there is a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Trupti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust Through Bilkis M Mir
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an interim injunction granted to the original plaintiff (the Trust). The dispute centered on the use of the name and logo 'ANANT' in the educational sector. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had established prior use of the mark since 2018, thus preventing irreparable injury from occurring to them. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the identical or deceptively similar brand name.
Arumugam Rajendra Babu v.Ashok Leyland Limited
Arumugam Rajendra Babu appealed an order dated September 1, 2021, passed in a commercial suit. The appellant sought a direction from the trial court to have the Controller of Patents provide evidence regarding his products and patent distinctions. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Girnarsoft Automobiles Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing dispute regarding the use of the 'Cars24' trademark in Google AdWords. The Plaintiffs sought to press applications for vacation of a previously granted interim injunction, which restrained Defendants from using or purchasing deceptively similar marks as keywords. The court noted that while cross-undertakings were in place, the core issues required a full hearing on merits. Consequently, the matter was listed for further arguments and case compilations.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v.M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through: Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nimesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Blue Heaven Cosmetics against T.R.N. Corporation regarding trademark infringement and passing off. Although the Defendant held a registered mark, the court found that their use of trade dress, writing style, and overall packaging was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known marks. The order restrained the Defendant from selling products with the infringing trade dress and mandated the removal of all such listings from e-commerce portals.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited & Ors
The plaintiffs, holding patent IN 218291 for Palbociclib, filed an application seeking interim relief against the defendants who were allegedly manufacturing, marketing, and selling infringing products online. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and passed several ad interim injunctions restraining the parties from further dealing in the patented product.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Abony Healthcare Limited Through Its Directors & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Abony Healthcare Limited. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress infringement, and copyright violation concerning the 'Liv' product line. The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity based on identical packaging elements, color schemes (orange/green), and similar product names ('Liv.52' vs 'Liv.55 DS'). This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing their alleged infringing activities pending the final hearing.
Indcon Structurals Pvt.Ltd v.Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd.
Indcon Structurals Pvt.Ltd filed a civil suit against Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off concerning their distinctive 'CATHERINE' tile drawing. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the unique design, which was allegedly copied by the defendant's 'OPUS' tiles. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit, holding that since the design was not registered under the Designs Act, the claim for copyright infringement was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
M/s RSPL Health Private Limited v.Gian Soap Factory
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gian Soap Factory for infringing its registered trademark 'XPERT' and engaging in passing off. The defendant adopted the deceptively similar mark 'GIAN'S 729 EXPERT' for manufacturing and marketing cleaning materials like soaps and detergents. The court found that the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's proprietary rights, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
SaNotize Research and Development v.Lupin Limited
The court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, specifically regarding the separation of pure copyright material into a new exhibit. Given the sensitive nature of both parties' confidential information, the court ordered a controlled inspection meeting between limited representatives of both sides to facilitate further proceedings.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Harman Finochem Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was violating and infringing their registered patent (IN 209816) related to Sitagliptin. Despite previous assurances, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing the defendant continued to advertise and export infringing products. The court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from further infringement.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed an application seeking an ex parte injunction against Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited, alleging that the latter was unlawfully imitating and pirating its distinctive footwear designs. The plaintiff highlighted that two specific slipper designs were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's designs. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing designs.
Achira Labs Private Limited v.Dr.Lokanathan R.Arcot
Achira Labs Private Limited filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking temporary injunctions to restrain Dr. Lokanathan R. Arcot from working with competitors or divulging confidential information after his resignation. The court dismissed the petitioner's petition, finding that it did not meet the criteria for granting interim relief, and also dismissed the respondent's counter claim.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic Apixaban product that infringes Indian Patent No. 247381. The court, relying on previous orders regarding the same patent, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the infringing generic product.
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. v.Lupin Ltd
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. filed suit against Lupin Limited alleging infringement of its Nitric Oxide Releasing Solution (NORS) technology, breach of confidentiality, and copyright infringement related to its nasal spray product, NONS/ENOVID. The dispute centers on the use of a proprietary dual-chamber delivery system for nitric oxide in medical treatment. The court granted an interim prohibitory injunction against Lupin's Indian arm and manufacturer.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, a Spanish company operating in India, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse' (IN 329620) and violated its copyrights. The infringement was alleged based on the defendants' tender bid submitted to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP v.Mind Blowing Naturals LLP
The Plaintiffs, proprietors of the mark NATURAL for ice creams since 1983/84, filed an interim application alleging that Defendants were using a substantially similar mark (MIND BLOWING NATURALS) and infringing their copyrighted logo. The Court found prima facie evidence of confusion and deception.
Pfizer Inc v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court passed several orders regarding various interlocutory applications in the suit filed by Pfizer Inc against Natco Pharma Limited. Specifically, the court granted an undertaking to the defendant that they would provide four weeks prior notice before launching the drug alleged to infringe the patent.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.M/S Skynet Placements & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited against M/S Skynet Placements & Ors. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MACLEODS' for deceptive purposes, specifically related to fake job offers. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from promoting or offering services under the mark, and banks were directed to freeze specific accounts linked to the alleged fraudulent activity.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424 related to the drug Alectinib. The court granted the injunction, restraining commercial activities, but allowed the defendant to use the product for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act.
Vinod Snacks and Confectioners Private Limited v.Vinod Multifood Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Vinod Snacks & Confectioners Pvt. Ltd. against Vinod Multifood Products Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trademarks 'POOJA' and 'SHIV'. While the court allowed the main suit to proceed, it granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from independently selling products under these marks. However, the defendants were permitted to continue supplying these products to the plaintiff, provided separate sales accounts are maintained.
Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv v.The Origin Ventures & Ors
In a significant ruling for global beverage giants, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Cerveceria Modelo Demexico S De R L De Cv. The court found that the defendants were using the well-known 'CORONA' and 'BUDWEISER' trademarks and logos in a derogatory manner on their clothing line products. Recognizing the prima facie case, the court restrained the defendants from selling or marketing these disparaging products until further hearing, protecting the goodwill of the established brands.
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Silvassa Bottling Co
The dispute involved alleged infringement concerning a registered label used by Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd for its beverage product, JEERU. Following an ad-interim order appointing a Court Receiver, the parties reached an agreement regarding labeling changes and the handling of seized goods.
Procter And Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd v.Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court disposed of an Interim Application filed by Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd against Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court confirmed the continuation of a previous ex parte order and directed that further orders would be passed on the cause of action in passing off.
PFIZER INC v.NATCO PHARMA LIMITED
The plaintiffs (Pfizer Inc) informed the court that the present matter relates to Patent No. 218291 and is connected to several other pending cases involving the same patent. The court directed that the present matter be listed along with these related matters before the Judge In-charge on September 30, 2021.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vansh Cosmatic & Anr
The court heard an interim application regarding a commercial IP suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd against Vansh Cosmatic & Anr. The defendants offered a token amount as damages, but the court noted that the counterfeit HUL goods were being sold at MRP, indicating significant potential damage. Consequently, the court granted further injunctions and allowed the seizure of counterfeit goods.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Aarif Miraj And Anr
The Bombay High Court heard an interim application filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited against Aarif Miraj and others. The court confirmed the execution of previous orders, granted an injunction concerning passing off, and allowed the plaintiff liberty to file a further application for the destruction of counterfeit products.
Loreal S.A. v.Ashok Kumar And Others & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Loreal S.A., a global beauty brand, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing-off. The court found that the defendants were operating a 'rogue website' (www.lorealglobal.in) and using email addresses mimicking L'OREAL's domain to deceive the public. Crucially, the court issued specific directions compelling the domain registrar and telecom service provider to disclose user details and block access to the infringing online assets, establishing a strong precedent for digital IP enforcement.
Mr. Anil Rathi v.Shri Sharma Steeltech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Mr. Anil Rathi concerning the unauthorized use of his trademark 'RATHI'. The plaintiff alleged that a proposed defendant was using the mark in violation of a prior court injunction order. The court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and scheduled the matter for service and completion of pleadings, keeping the litigation active.
Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
In this matter concerning a petition before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed several procedural applications. While certain motions were disposed of, the bench issued a critical direction requiring the petitioner to implead the actual registered proprietors of the trademark in question. This step is necessary because a favorable ruling could lead to the cancellation of their registered mark, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with the core dispute.
Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. v.Victoria Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. and Victoria Foods Private Limited, which centers on the use of the 'RAJDHANI' mark. While the appellants claimed long-standing usage since 1965, the court noted a lack of concrete evidence, such as sales invoices, to establish prima facie commercial use of the trademark on their goods. The Court directed both parties to file the complete record before proceeding further in the litigation.
L.G.Varadarajulu v.M/S.Raj Ganesh Enterprises
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing Patent No. 179607, Design Nos. 163445 and 163446, and copyright in their table top wet grinders. However, the first plaintiff passed away, and the remaining plaintiffs sought to withdraw the suit.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and associated defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' mark 'Blofin-D3 Max' and packaging were identical to the Plaintiff's registered marks ('Bio-D3', 'Bio-D3 Max') used for similar pharmaceutical preparations. Although Defendant No. 1 changed its mark, the injunction was upheld against all parties involved in the collaboration, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Alkem Laboratories Limited against Danish Health Care Pvt Ltd following an amicable settlement reached through court mediation. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Alkem’s registered trademark ‘ALDIGESIC’ in medicinal preparations. Under the terms of the settlement, the Defendants acknowledged Alkem's rights and agreed to cease using the infringing mark and similar trade dress, further agreeing to withdraw their own pending trademark application for 'ALGESIC'.
Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt Ltd v.LN Agency
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Brandzstorm India Marketing Pvt Ltd, the registered proprietor of the 'LUXXUBERANCE' trademark. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, the Defendant continued to use the Plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the court appointed a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver in Jamshedpur to seize and inventory all infringing goods and issue a temporary injunction against the Defendant's further misuse of the trademark.
RICA S.P.A. v.JATIN HEMENDRABHAI VORA TRADING AS M/S PARUL MARKETING & ANR.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, RICA S.P.A., to file a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages related to trademark infringement and passing off. The core dispute involves the defendant's attempt to register the similar mark "REAL RICA Wax" for identical cosmetic products used by the plaintiff under the registered trademark RICA. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark until the suit is fully adjudicated.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Hetero Labs Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent for Baricitinib by manufacturing and selling it without a license. The case involves a request for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing this activity.
STANLEY BLACK AND DECKER, INC. v.STANLEY SWITCHGEAR PRODUCTS
The Delhi High Court addressed the initial proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Stanley Black and Decker against Stanley Switchgear Products. While allowing procedural applications for filing additional documents, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit seeking permanent injunction based on an alleged violation of a 1975 undertaking regarding the use of the 'Stanley' trademark. Crucially, the court denied the plaintiff's request for an immediate ex-parte interim injunction, noting that there was no apparent evidence of goods being marketed beyond the scope of the original agreement.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. v.Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe & Ors.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against Mr Ishant Kashiwal Trading As The Hogwarts Kafe in a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court recognized Warner Bros' status as a global leader and prior proprietor of the well-known 'Hogwarts' trademarks. Crucially, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the infringing mark 'The Hogwarts Kafe' at their restaurant premises and directed to remove all related advertisements and listings online.
Emami Ltd. v.Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Emami Ltd. vs Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. saw its multi-faceted IP litigation reach a conclusion through settlement in the Calcutta High Court. The original suit, which involved claims of infringement across trademark, copyright, design, and passing off, was formally withdrawn by both parties. The court accepted the Terms of Settlement, decreeing the parent suit and disposing of all connected applications. This resolution allows both companies to move forward without further legal entanglement.
M/S Gulab Oil And Food (Ahmedabad) Pvt. Ltd. v.Smt. Madhu Gupta
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Gulab Oil And Food, upholding the District Judge's interim order that prohibited the appellant from trading and selling 'Gulab' Namkeen products. The court found a prima facie case for confusion between the marks, noting that consumers identify the plaintiff's products solely by asking for 'Gulab.' Furthermore, it held that since namkeen is an allied product to the registered goods (Gajak/Rewari), Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act was attracted, thus justifying the interim protection.
Om Logistics Ltd v.Sh Mahendra Pandey
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of Om Logistics Ltd, restraining Sh Mahendra Pandey and his associates from using the deceptively similar trade mark 'OM EXPRESS LOGISTICS'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given the long-standing reputation of 'OM LOGISTICS LTD.' and the similarity in the marks used by the defendant. This order allows the suit to proceed while protecting the established brand identity.
Pfizer Inc v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its Indian Patent No. 218291 related to Palbociclib, marketed under the brand name 'Palbace'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement but noted the timeline of alleged infringement was unclear.
New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess v.New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess - Nunpahal Unavagam LLP
This case involved a dispute over the use of the trade name 'New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess' between two entities. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off, along with damages. However, both parties mutually agreed to resolve all existing disputes, including those related to the trademark claims, through arbitration.
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center & Ors.
Sotefin Sa filed a suit for patent infringement against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others, alleging that the 'smart dollies' installed by Defendant No. 4 infringed Plaintiff's Patent No. 4214088. Both parties agreed to the appointment of a Scientific Advisor from IIT Delhi to conduct an expert examination and report on whether the Defendants' product falls within the scope of the patent claims.
Wako India Kickboxing Federation v.Wako India Kickboxing Federation & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from certain procedural requirements, while simultaneously registering the main plaint as a formal civil suit. The suit was filed under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal and rectification of specific trademarks registered in the defendant's name. The court issued detailed directions for serving summons and ensuring timely filing of written statements and rejoinders by both parties.
M/s Store N Move Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Olog Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Store N Move Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against M/s Olog Logistics Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunctions against alleged infringement of its copyrighted computer application, 'OLOG', and its associated trademark. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from reproducing or passing off services using similar applications or marks. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to pursue the matter in a pending case before the NCLT.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 294424 concerning Alectinib. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions and noted that while the defendant could use the drug for research under Section 107A, any commercial launch would require prior permission from the court.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
Dfm Foods Ltd v.Ishvi Food Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed a trademark infringement suit between Dfm Foods Ltd and Ishvi Food Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement. The settlement agreement confirmed that the defendant violated the plaintiff's 'CURLS' trademark rights by passing off their corn-based snacks as originating from Dfm Foods. In exchange for the defendants agreeing to cease all infringing activities, destroy existing goods, and acknowledge the plaintiff's ownership, the plaintiff waived claims for damages and costs.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered design, trademark, and copyright by M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the unauthorized use of their branded bottles. However, the court noted that the sole defendant had passed away prior to the hearing date. Given that the cause of action was in persona (personal), the suit was ultimately dismissed.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered design, logo, and trademark by M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting for sales made using the protected bottle designs. However, during the proceedings, it was reported that the sole defendant had passed away. Given that the cause of action was in persona (personal to the individual), the court dismissed the suit.
Wheelseye Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v.Zinka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Wheelseye Technology filed a suit alleging that its competitor, Zinka Logistics Solutions, along with several former WheelsEye employees, conspired to disrupt the business. The Defendants allegedly misappropriated Confidential Information, solicited employees through en masse poaching, and induced breaches of contractual obligations.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Rishabh Kaushal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd concerning the misuse of its 'AMUL' brand on social media. While initial injunctions were granted, the court examined the claims for damages against Defendants No. 1 and No. 4. Recognizing that both defendants had taken remedial steps, including removing the infringing content, the Court dismissed the claim for damages due to a lack of evidence of loss suffered by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was closed against these two defendants, while proceedings remain pending against Defendant No. 5.
Sap Se v.Sanjay Kumar Goel & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning the names 'SAP' and 'SAPPY', the Delhi High Court took two key actions. First, it confirmed an existing interim injunction after the defendants withdrew their trademark applications, thereby protecting the plaintiff's interests temporarily. Second, recognizing the parties' willingness to resolve the conflict amicably, the court directed both sides to participate in mediation, signaling a move towards settlement for the ongoing commercial suit.
Murlidhar Gyanchandani v.The State of Jharkhand
This petition before the Jharkhand High Court addresses allegations made by R.S.P.L. Health Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Vedanta Tea Agro Industries regarding the misuse of the 'Ghari' Trademark and Copyright. The controversy stems from an ex parte ad interim injunction passed by the District Court, which led to a contempt reference in Delhi. After reviewing the record, the High Court noted that pending proceedings before the Delhi Courts would have far-reaching effects on these cases.
L.G. Varadarajulu v.Minit Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing various IP rights, including Patent No. 179607 (related to table top wet grinders), Designs Nos. 163445/163446, and copyright in an injunction manual. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the suit.
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v.SUKAN RAJ JAIN & ANR.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, both parties expressed interest in reaching an amicable resolution. Consequently, the court referred the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre for settlement discussions. The court also listed the case for reporting any settlement on November 9, 2021, while maintaining existing interim orders.
Huntington Alloys Corporation v.Union Of India And 3 Ors
The petitioner challenged the rejection orders passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 regarding its patent application for "Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation". The petitioner argued that these orders were passed without hearing them, making the 'prima facie' satisfaction perverse. The court directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
T.S.J.Media Private Limited v.Boston Analytics Private Limited
T.S.J.Media Private Limited filed a suit alleging that Boston Analytics Private Limited illegally harvested substantial portions of information from its proprietary database, which tracks investments made by Private Equity and Venture Capitalists in India. The plaintiff claimed this infringement occurred after the defendant gained access under false pretenses. The court found that the defendant's act of publishing the data without permission constituted a clear violation of copyright.
HT MEDIA LIMITED v.BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit between HT Media Limited and Brainlink International, Inc. The court provided procedural directions regarding the continuation of interim orders, setting deadlines for parties to file replies to various applications (including those seeking anti-suit injunctions and condonation of delay), and scheduled further hearings for pleading completion.
Anay Kumar Gupta v.Jagmeet Singh Bhatia
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim application filed by Anay Kumar Gupta against Jagmeet Singh Bhatia in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court granted an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture and sell whisky using the 'EVERSHINE PREMIUM CLASSIC WHISKY' label, bottle shape, or logo AWB. This order was issued after the plaintiff demonstrated that the agreements allowing the use of the mark had expired, leading to alleged unauthorized continued use by the defendant.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its derivatives. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting the defendant to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act, but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
Dimple Madhulal Bhatia v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Dimple Madhulal Bhatia against the Union of India regarding delays in processing trademark applications. The petitioner sought an urgent direction for the Registrar of Trademarks to schedule hearings and expedite the examination of her pending trademarks. While the respondent argued that matters were being processed according to seniority, the court intervened, directing the concerned authority to deal with the petitioner's applications preferably within four months.
Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Pawan Kumar
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd against Pawan Kumar. The dispute centered on the registered trademark 'MONICA GOLD'. Following successful mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement which the court upheld. Under the terms, the defendant committed to cease all use of the protected mark and any deceptively similar marks, effectively resolving the litigation in favor of the plaintiffs.
Kake Di Hatti v.Shree Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kake Di Hatti, who owns registered trademarks 'Kake Di Hatti' and 'KDH'. The case stemmed from a terminated franchise agreement where the Respondents allegedly breached terms, including non-payment of royalties. Given the breach and the risk of irreparable harm to the Petitioner's goodwill, the court ordered Shree Foods & Ors. to immediately cease operating the business and stop using the Petitioner's trademarks until further hearing.
M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.S.D. Containers
This judgment addresses a complex jurisdictional dispute arising from a civil suit filed by M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited against S.D. Containers regarding disputed designs. The core issue was whether the High Court had the authority to entertain the defendant's counterclaim seeking cancellation of the design registration, alongside the plaintiff's declaration and injunction suit. The court affirmed its jurisdiction, interpreting the Design Act, 2000, to allow a defendant to raise all grounds for cancellation (under Section 19) in their written statement/counterclaim.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd filed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of opposition proceedings against Patent No. 257402, which was granted to Novo Nordisk A/S. The court addressed the procedural delay and directed the respondents to furnish the Opposition Board's recommendations within one week, subsequently rescheduling the hearing.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Union Of India & Ors.
Novo Nordisk A/S filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent Authorities (No. 1 through No. 3) to decide on its request for the cross-examination of witnesses in a pending post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The court, after considering arguments from both sides, directed that Respondent No. 2 fix the date for the cross-examination and complete it expeditiously.
A.Mani v.S.Suresh Trading as Flash Beauty Saloon
A.Mani appealed a judgment and decree that had been passed against him regarding the use of the mark 'FLASH'. The appeal challenged the trial court's decision, which was based on the alleged violation of an interim order by the appellant (defendant in the suit). The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, stating that the trial court failed to conduct proper adjudication on merits.
Uday Prakash v.Anand Pandit And Another
Uday Prakash appealed against the rejection of his application for a temporary injunction in a suit claiming infringement of his registered copyright ('Highway-39') by defendants who were producing a feature film titled 'Chehre'. The High Court found prima facie that there was no distinctive plagiarism, but directed the trial to be expedited and mandated an acknowledgment if the plaintiff succeeds.
Arun Kumar Murarka v.Rajesh Sultania & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Arun Kumar Murarka concerning the trademark dispute against Rajesh Sultania & Anr. The core issue involves a petition seeking rectification/cancellation of the 'KAILASA' trademark (Reg. No. 4701472) due to its alleged deceptive similarity to the petitioner's mark, 'KAILASHA'. While an exemption application was allowed, the court proceeded by issuing notice to the defendant and listing the matter for further hearing on October 12, 2021.
M/s.Fast Products v.G.G.Aqua Industries
M/s.Fast Products filed a suit against G.G.Aqua Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AQUA FAST' and copyright violation concerning the associated trade dress and artistic label design. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, and damages. However, on the date of judgment (26.08.2021), the plaintiff failed to appear before the court despite previous proceedings, leading the High Court to dismiss the suit for default.