Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12501–12600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenges a single judge's decision that invalidated the Appellant's patent (IN240893). The Appellant argues that the ground of Section 64(1)(h) was not pleaded or evidenced, while the Respondent seeks to uphold the revocation based on various sections of the Patents Act.
M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v.ROHIT MARKETING Incense & Allied Products
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the registered trademark owner, M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, against Rohit Marketing. The court granted permanent injunctions, preventing the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Tri Cycle 3-in-1' for incense sticks and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff withdrew claims for accounting and destruction of stock, the core infringement and passing off allegations were upheld.
M/s.THALAPPAKATTI NAIDU ANANDHA VILAS BIRIYANI HOTEL v.M/s.THALAPPAKATTU BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, granting a permanent injunction against M/s.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food for trademark infringement and passing off. Although the defendant later changed its name to 'AL RAHMAN BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD,' the court found that the initial use of the offending mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to distinctive trade names in the competitive food service industry.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited & Anr v.Micky Metals Limited
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim application seeking protection for their trademark 'LUX'. Despite presenting evidence of long-standing use, massive sales figures, and international presence, the court found insufficient grounds to grant relief at the interim stage. The judgment noted that the mark 'LUX' has been used by various entities and pointed to prior legal challenges regarding its registration, ultimately finding no compelling reason to favor the plaintiffs.
Hasmukhrai And Co. v.Nishi Enterprises
The Bombay High Court disposed of the interim application after both parties reached an agreement. The Defendants submitted to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, and agreed to destroy all infringing labels and materials within three weeks.
Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd v.M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favor of Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd against M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics, halting the defendants from using the trademark 'DOCTOR PILLOW' or any deceptively similar mark. Recognizing the need to prevent the removal of evidence, the court further appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' premises and seize all infringing products, including packaging materials. This order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand while the suit proceeds.
Yonex Co., Ltd. v.Sumit Girdhar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd. against Sumit Girdhar and others regarding counterfeit goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case showing that defendants were dealing in counterfeit badminton equipment using the protected YONEX mark. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from selling or advertising any products bearing the YONEX mark or similar variations, pending further proceedings.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite procedural objections raised by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the 'trinity test' (prior user, reputation, and likelihood of deception) at the trial level. Crucially, the court noted that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was based on potentially forged documents provided to the trial court, leading the High Court to grant interim relief.
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v.REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court issued several directions in this trademark dispute involving the 'AMUL' brand. The court allowed an application seeking to implead a specific applicant as a respondent, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to file an affidavit detailing the current status of advertisements related to the mark. This ongoing litigation focuses on clarifying the scope and validity of the registered trademark.
Sagacious Research Private Limited v.Vivek Dahiya & Ors.
In this matter concerning the 'SAGACIOUS' mark, the parties agreed to pursue an amicable resolution rather than immediate litigation. The court facilitated this by directing both the plaintiff and defendants to attend mediation and conciliation proceedings on August 23, 2021. While some interlocutory applications were allowed subject to exceptions, the primary focus shifted towards resolving the trademark and domain name disputes outside of court.
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited v.Ms Yum Yum Chi
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited successfully sought an ex parte injunction against Ms Yum Yum Chi in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, which operates restaurants under registered trademarks like 'Yum Yum Cha,' alleged that the defendant's use of 'Yum Yum Chi' was deceptively similar to its established brand. The court granted the interim relief, restraining the defendants from selling or advertising services under the disputed name pending further proceedings.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company v.Micro Labs Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Micro Labs Limited for infringing their registered patent (No. 247381) related to Apixaban, an anticoagulant drug. The court considered the prior history of similar cases and granted an ex-parte ad- interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling generic Apixaban under any brand name, including 'APIVAS'.
Atotech Deutschland GmbH v.Grauer & Well (India) Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial appeal filed by Atotech Deutschland GmbH seeking urgent interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'TRICHROME' mark. The initial refusal of the injunction was based partly on procedural delays. However, the Appellate Bench clarified that under the statutory scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, immediate protection for registered trademarks should be prioritized over minor delays. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with directions allowing Atotech to request an early hearing and have its ad-interim relief application reconsidered on its merits.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Honda Motor Co. appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 380/CHE/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs on grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the original order was flawed due to a deprivation of fair opportunity regarding sufficiency of disclosure, and lacked proper justification for concluding lack of inventive step.
Yennes Infotech (P) Ltd. v.The Managing Director, eNoah Solution Pvt. Ltd.
Yennes Infotech appealed an order rejecting its plaint, which sought permanent injunctions and damages for alleged copyright infringement related to customized Tally Software. The court upheld the rejection, finding that the first defendant acted as an authorized agent and the second defendant was a licensee with a valid right to use the software.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Novartis AG, seeks to restrain the defendant from manufacturing Pazopanib Hydrochloride, claiming it infringes their Indian patent. The defendant has obtained approval to manufacture the product, raising concerns of imminent patent infringement.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
This litigation involves Communication Components Antenna Inc. challenging Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.'s alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. IN240893, which relates to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' in wireless communication systems. The core dispute revolves around the validity of this patent, as raised by the defendant through a counterclaim. While the court analyzed grounds of revocation under Sections 64(d), (e), and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970, it ultimately decided to list the suit for further consideration, indicating that the matter remains unresolved.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Matrix Laboratories Limited for infringing Indian Patent No.196774, which relates to a pharmaceutical or chemical compound product. The court ultimately disposed of the suit as no further orders were necessary due to the rejection of leave to institute the suit by the Division Bench.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
Jolen Inc. filed two civil suits in the Madras High Court against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trade marks (JOLEN) and copyright in its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to deceptive imitation and passing off. However, on August 9, 2021, the court dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff had failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
This case involved Jolen Inc. filing multiple suits against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trademarks (JOLEN) and copyright in the artistic work and trade dress of its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks and designs. However, the court ultimately dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
The petitioner (Nokia Technologies Oy) filed an application seeking temporary injunction and disclosure of assets against the respondent (Guangdong Oppo Mobile). The court, while addressing various interlocutory applications, granted a direction for the defendants to furnish specific disclosures regarding their sales and revenues related to the alleged infringing devices.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis Ag & Anr. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant their Indian Patent Application No. 10611/DELNP/2015. The court allowed an interlocutory application regarding document filing and issued notice to the Defendant, setting the matter for further hearing.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.P Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp against P Singh & Ors. The Plaintiff, a prior user of the Ayurvedic joint pain relief oil 'SANDHI SUDHA', successfully argued that the Defendants' use of similar marks and imitation of packaging constituted passing off and copyright infringement. The court recognized the Plaintiff's established market presence and sales history to protect consumers from potential confusion.
Krown Biscuit Private Limited v.Richfield Industries Private Limited
Krown Biscuit Private Limited filed a suit against Richfield Industries Private Limited alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WHITE MAGIK' and associated trade dress for biscuits, confusing consumers who were familiar with the plaintiff's established brand, 'BLACK MAGIC.' Based on the prima facie case presented by the plaintiffs regarding the similarity of the marks and packaging, the court granted an interim injunction.
Mr.T.G.Arumugam v.Mr.T.G.Harigopal & Mr.T.S.Ganesan
This Madras High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the registered trademark 'UMBRELLA BRAND' between family members. Initially filed seeking to invalidate an assignment deed and secure exclusive proprietorship, the parties ultimately reached a compromise. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit based on the Memo of Compromise, which allows all involved parties to coexist in the business and share the use of the trademark.
M/s.Kwik Patch Ltd. v.Mr.N.R.Rajagopalan
M/s. Kwik Patch Ltd. filed a civil suit in the Madras High Court alleging infringement and passing off against Mr. N.R. Rajagopalan, claiming that his use of the label 'KOOL BOND' violated their trademark 'KWIK'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act. However, due to the suit having been pending for over 20 years and a lack of inclination from both parties to pursue the matter further, the court dismissed the case.
Yoshida Kenji v.The Asst.Controller Of Patents
This writ petition challenged the deemed abandonment of a Japanese national's patent application. The core dispute revolved around whether the 12-month statutory period for responding to the examination report should be calculated from the date the report was issued or the date it was actually received by the petitioner. The court ruled that the time limit must be counted from the date of receipt, finding that the petitioner had submitted a valid response within the extended timeframe.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
The suit alleged infringement of Plaintiff's patent (IN'429) related to a novel agricultural composition used as a fertilizer. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No.1 was manufacturing and selling infringing products under brand names 'SUFFAR 90' and 'COZY WET 90 WDG'.
Anuj Singhal v.Anupreet Kaur
This Delhi High Court case involving a trademark dispute between Anuj Singhal and Anupreet Kaur was successfully settled through mediation. The settlement agreement mandates that the respondent cease using specific trademarks, including 'NANDINI BLACK SALT,' and refrain from copying the petitioner's packaging and color schemes. Furthermore, the respondent agreed to withdraw all related trademark applications, leading the court to dispose of the suit in terms of the binding agreement.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech alleging infringement and passing off related to their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('113 GOLD COINS') and trade dress, infringing both the registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and the associated copyright in the packaging art. Although the suit involved multiple claims for injunctions and account of profits, the parties ultimately reached an amicable compromise.
Pcm Stresscon Overseas Ventures v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Private
The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendant for allegedly infringing their technology and making threats regarding Patent No. 219099. The defendant agreed not to communicate against the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement suit against Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by reaching a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The defendants formally acknowledged Cadila's absolute proprietary rights in the 'AMLODAC' trademark and committed to ceasing all use of the mark, including recalling existing stock and destroying promotional materials. This resolution allows the suit to be disposed of with a decree reflecting the agreed-upon terms.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited & Ors. v.P. P. Jewellers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Court's directions regarding the use of trademarks in a family business dispute. While initially restraining P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited from using the plaintiff's marks, the court granted a stay on these injunctions, acknowledging the appellants' long-standing and acknowledged use of the trademarks within the family structure. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory the stock at the shared showroom premises, ensuring proper accounting between the competing entities.
ICEBERG WALNUT FOODS (I) Pvt Ltd. v.Iceberg Icecreams Regus, Tower D, Rmz Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bangalore – 560016
This case involved a civil suit filed by Iceberg Walnut Foods Pvt Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ICEBERG'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the defendant, claiming unauthorized use of their registered mark and artistic work. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the actual registered proprietor of the relevant trademark ('ICEBERG ICECREAM') was M/s. Anjani Diary Foods Private Limited, not the named sole defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit for proceeding against a wrong person.
Castrol Limited v.Goel Traders
This case involved Castrol Limited filing a suit against Goel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the use of similar graphic labels and color schemes on their gear oil packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for unauthorized use of their brand identity. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. v.M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. against M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar pizza names, proprietary products, and controlling the plaintiff's official social media accounts while the main suit proceeds. This order protects the brand integrity of LA PINO'Z PIZZA against unauthorized commercial use by the franchisee.
Abhishek Kumar v.Union Of India Through Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors.
Abhishek Kumar filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking to expunge the copyright registration of the 'Turbo Plus' label, which was registered as an artistic work. The petitioner also sought the suspension of this registration's effect to protect against potential infringement threats. Given the ongoing proceedings before the Trademark Registry regarding the cancellation of a search certificate, the court renotified the matter for further hearing.
Sandeep Pandey v.Union Of India And 4 Others
The petitioner filed a PIL seeking directions for the vaccination of citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, and also sought directions under the Patents Act, 1970, to acquire necessary patents for vaccine manufacturing. The court dismissed the petition as the issue was pending before the Apex Court.
Moonshine Technology Private Limited v.Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Moonshine Technology Private Limited (Baazi Group) against Tictok Skill Games Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was attempting to piggyback on the goodwill and reputation of Baazi by using confusingly similar marks, such as 'WinZo Baazi'. Given the plaintiff's established presence and registered trademarks in the gaming industry, the court ruled that this usage amounted to infringement and passing off, directing the defendants to immediately cease all use of the infringing brand.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited for infringing its patent on Sitagliptin, an anti-diabetic drug. The court initially granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Merck. However, upon considering the defendant's request under Section 107A (Bolar exemption), the court modified the injunction to allow limited export of the API for research and development purposes.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Micro Labs Limited, MSN Laboratories Private Limited, Eris Lifesciences Limited, USV Private Limited, Ajanta Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by AstraZeneca seeking interim relief to restrain various pharmaceutical companies from infringing its patents. The core issue revolved around whether AstraZeneca was entitled to an immediate injunction while the underlying suits for permanent injunction were pending. The court ultimately dismissed all nine appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' claims.
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd v.Pushpendra Yadav
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1's product infringes its registered design for a water purifier. The plaintiff asserted that the shape and configuration of the defendant's product imitated their protected design, citing Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. The defense challenged this claim, arguing that novelty resided only in specific portions of the design. To properly assess the complex issue of design infringement, the court permitted both parties to submit comparative charts detailing the similarities and differences between the designs.
Amit Kumar Mishra v.State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Mishra regarding alleged large-scale trademark violation. The petitioner sought an omnibus direction from the State authorities to prohibit unauthorized use of his trademark. However, the court held that such broad directives are inappropriate and directed the petitioner to identify specific violators and pursue civil or criminal proceedings against them.
Pepsico Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark dispute between Pepsico Inc. and Parle Agro Private Limited. The court granted certain exemptions while noting that the defendant intended to file an application seeking rectification under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The matter was subsequently renotified for further hearing on August 5, 2021.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.S.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against S.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company alleging multiple infringements, including trademark misuse and copyright violation concerning the design of snuff pouches. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memo of Compromise.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Foods Private Limited
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited filed a Transfer Application seeking to move its trademark infringement suit from the Principal District Court, Erode, to the specialized Commercial Court. The core dispute revolved around whether the nature of the intellectual property right—trademark infringement—automatically classified the case as commercial, irrespective of its low valuation (Rs. 12,000/-). The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer application, holding that while IP disputes are defined as commercial under Section 2(xvii), a suit must still meet the 'Specified Value' criteria to fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, thereby validating its original filing in the District Court.
FMC Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed applications seeking interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited and Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly infringing its patents related to Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court examined claims of infringement and challenges to the validity of the patents. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunctions, emphasizing that in patent infringement cases involving agrochemicals, public interest dictates preventing the perpetuation of an invention that is prima facie infringing.
Dhanam Textiles v.N.Varadaiah Trading as Ganesh Lungi Company
Dhanam Textiles filed a suit against N.Varadaiah for alleged infringement of its registered trademark '360 BRAND,' copyright violation, and passing off concerning textile goods (lungies). The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of deceptively similar labels like '3600, 361, 369 BRAND.' Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise memo which was accepted by the court, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that settlement.
Control Print Limited v.Anmol Chugh Trading As Shavias Enterprises and Ors.
In a mixed IP dispute involving copyright infringement and passing off related to 'The Mask Lab,' the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Control Print Limited. The court issued injunctions restraining the defendants from using designs substantially similar to the plaintiff's copyrighted artistic work, and from passing off their products as those of 'The Mask Lab.' Additionally, the order directed the removal of malicious reviews posted on the plaintiff's Google page, providing immediate protection pending final disposal of the suit.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting that the plaintiff holds a registered mark 'FLY HIGH' and claims extensive usage rights. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing names or registering similar domain names until further hearing.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries alleging infringement of its distinctive original artwork, 'Elle 18 face,' used on nail polish packaging. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of similar artistic designs and potential passing off. Both parties amicably settled the matter before the Bombay High Court.
Yasmin Khalique And Ors. v.Mukhtar Alam
This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses an appeal concerning a partnership dissolution and the associated registered trademark, 'Musa ka gul'. While the core dispute involves the validity of the arbitration award dissolving the firm, the court specifically addressed the use of the valuable trademark. The court clarified that ownership rights are not its immediate concern but issued a crucial interim order preventing either party from transferring or assigning any rights related to the mark until the appeal is finally decided.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe and agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
Rpg Enterprises Limited v.RPG Location Through Rajendra Gupta
The suit involved Rpg Enterprises Limited alleging infringement and passing off against RPG Location. The defendant, Rajendra Gupta, stated he had no intention to infringe but agreed to remove the disputed logo and stop using the stylized mark 'RPG'.
Ms. Mallika Singh Daughter Of Mr. Narendra Singh and Mr. Parth Pareek Son Of Mr. Prem Prakash Pareek v.Union Of India, State Of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan
Petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the respondents to ascertain if any vaccine is covered by patents, issue compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, share manufacturing trade secrets, and increase vaccine production capacity. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the issues involved relate to policy decisions to be taken by the respondents.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.M/S Electro International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited and its affiliates against a defendant operating the domain www.tatacliqsmart.com. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was infringing on their registered trademark 'TATA' and associated e-commerce brand, tatacliq.com, by using a similar name to sell products, including those belonging to the Tata Group. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunction, noting the apparent link between the defendant's activities and the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
M/s.Allied Business Solutions Private Limited v.M/s.Avan-Tec Medical Systems (P) Ltd
M/s. Allied Business Solutions Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Avan-Tec Medical Systems (P) Ltd, alleging infringement of its copyrighted computer software 'MEDIVEIW' and associated trademarks. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials. However, the plaintiff subsequently informed the court that the defendants were no longer using the program and requested to withdraw the suit.
Mrs.S.Radharani Prop. of Sadharani Tex (represented by Mr.S.Sadhasivam) v.Master Lungies
This suit involved a claim by Sadharani Tex against Master Lungies for infringement of trademark and copyright related to the 'KABUTTAR CHAAP label' used on lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and an accounting of profits due to alleged passing off and unauthorized use of the artistic work. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiff was unable to provide instructions regarding whether the defendants were actively continuing the infringement after an interim order had been issued.
Emami Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Handsome' and 'Glow and Handsome,' Emami Limited sought an injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) in the Calcutta High Court. However, Emami decided to withdraw its current application (GA No.3/2021), stating that it had filed a substantially similar application earlier (GA No.2/2020). The court granted leave for withdrawal and directed that the original, pending application (GA No.2/2020) be taken up for hearing on July 5, 2021.
Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Indo-Swiss Chemicals Ltd & Anr.
The defendants filed an application seeking permission from the court to sell their existing stock of a fungicidal composition, which was previously restrained by an ex-parte injunction. The plaintiff strongly opposed this request, arguing that the defendants had continued manufacturing and selling the infringing product despite being aware of the patent rights and prior objections. The court dismissed the application.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Q-Chem Sealers Pvt Ltd
Pidilite Industries Ltd filed a suit seeking protection against infringement and passing off concerning its various marks, labels, and the unique design of its DR FIXIT storage containers. The court addressed an interim application regarding service of notice and combined the causes of action.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Healthyraj Wellness Enterprises & Anr
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendants for using the competing mark DIABIT. The court found that the Defendants' mark was structurally, visually, and phonetically almost indistinguishable from the Plaintiff's registered mark DIAVIT, leading to a significant likelihood of confusion.
Rajalakshmi Match Works v.Satpal Sindhi
The plaintiff, Rajalakshmi Match Works, filed a civil suit against several defendants seeking permanent injunctions to restrain them from passing off their safety matches as the plaintiff's by using the 'RAJHA'S SHRIFAL' trade mark and infringing the associated copyright. During the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel submitted that the Civil Suit had become infructuous.
Liberty Oil Mills Limited v.N. M. Oil Enterprises
The petitioner, Liberty Oil Mills Limited, filed an interim application regarding a Commercial IP Suit. The court noted that the initial service of notice was insufficient as it did not specify a particular date for the ad-interim hearing. Consequently, the Court issued an order setting a specific date and requiring the plaintiff to provide detailed notice.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.M/S Frankfinn Creations & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., restraining M/s Frankfinn Creations from using the trademark 'FRANKFINN'. The court found a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff has long-standing goodwill associated with its registered mark for aviation and training services. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' premises, inventory infringing materials, and examine their financial records.
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd v.Imperial Heritage School
Enlearn Education Pvt Ltd successfully secured an interim injunction against Imperial Heritage School in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs, who operate a well-established school under the name 'The Heritage School,' alleged that the defendants were attempting to register and use the deceptively similar mark 'IMPERIAL HERITAGE SCHOOL.' The court found that a prima facie case was made out, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm and confusion in the market.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Symed Labs Limited
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 227963 by Symed Labs Limited regarding Vortioxetine/Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. The parties amicably resolved the matter, leading to a decree in terms of the settlement agreement.
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited v.M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited
M/S. Golden Tobie Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against M/S. Golden Tobacco Limited, alleging wrongful cancellation of an exclusive trademark license agreement. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation and validity of the termination notices issued by the defendant. However, the court ultimately ruled that since the controversy primarily arose from contractual terms rather than statutory infringement, the matter was subject to arbitration as per the existing clause in the agreements.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Amoli Organics Private Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Amoli Organics Private Limited for allegedly making, selling, or dealing in products that infringe its Indian Patent No 209816. The dispute centered on the Sitagliptin API and its salts.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.M/S Jbmr Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against M/S JBMR Enterprises. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical marks ('KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT') and copying the entire trade dress and packaging of the plaintiff's eco-friendly paints. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling infringing products and directed to take down associated online presence.
El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A. v.Arsalan Wahid Gilkar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A., a popular restaurant chain, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were using the 'ALBAIK' trademarks and logos to fraudulently offer unauthorized franchises across India. Recognizing both the trademark rights and the artistic nature of the logos, the judge restrained the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or offering fake franchise opportunities until the final hearing.
Anil Rathi v.Barhi Concast Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anil Rathi against Barhi Concast LLP and others. The court found that the defendants were attempting to circumvent a previous injunction by adopting the deceptively similar mark 'BCLLPRATHI' while dealing in TMT bars and steel products, which are identical to the goods covered under Mr. Rathi's registered trademark 'RATHI'. This interim order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under this contested mark until the final hearing of the suit.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed for an ex-parte injunction against the defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Stanley Switchgear Products v.Sunil Agarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal filed by Stanley Switchgear Products challenging a Commercial Court order regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'STANLEY' mark used for wires and cables. The core dispute centered on conflicting claims of prior usage dates. Ultimately, the court facilitated an amicable resolution, with the respondents agreeing not to seek interim injunctions against the appellant's use of the mark. Furthermore, the court suggested a permanent settlement where both parties could distinguish their products by adding unique house marks.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN. They seek an injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing products.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning Omeprazole capsules, the Delhi High Court addressed a request for ex parte ad interim relief. While the plaintiff presented an arguable case regarding the deceptive similarity between 'OMEZ' and 'OMES', the court ultimately refused immediate injunction. The judge emphasized that mere prima facie evidence is insufficient; the balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and public interest must be weighed, leading to a decision to allow the defendant a chance to respond.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging the procedural approach of the Patent Controller, arguing that its application for cross-examination of expert witnesses had not been decided. The court observed the long pendency and directed the Controller to first dispose of Natco's cross-examination application before proceeding with the merits of Novartis' patent application.
C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited v.Deepali Company Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited, which sought to overturn a trial court's rejection of interim injunctions. The core issue was whether the appellant had established a prima facie case for trademark protection in the ongoing family dispute. The court held that because the suit/appeal lacked proper authorization (Board Resolution) and involved conflicting interests among equal shareholders, no prima facie case could be made out, thus justifying the trial court's refusal of temporary injunctions.
UPL Limited v.Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd was manufacturing and intending to launch a product comprising Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP, infringing UPL's registered patents (IN 194211 and IN 211250). The court decreed the suit in favor of UPL Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant for the validity period of the patents.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
SAP SE v.SAP HANA SERVER ACCESS HYDERABAD AND ORS
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of SAP SE against the defendants. The court found merit in SAP's claims regarding its proprietary software and trademarks ('SAP', 'SAP HANA'). Consequently, the court directed the immediate de-activation of multiple infringing websites and social media accounts, as well as freezing a specific bank account linked to the alleged pirated activities.
Mohalla Tech Priavte Limited v.Lagdhir Jugaldip Bharatkumar
The Gujarat High Court heard an appeal challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in a trademark suit. While the appellant argued the initial order failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the court chose not to interfere with the interim order at that stage. Instead, it directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with hearing the Injunction Application on its merits, ensuring both parties are given a full opportunity to be heard.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Innovation Meditech Private Limited
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs (Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors.) and the Defendant (Innovation Meditech Private Limited) have reached a mutual understanding. The court noted that the parties were actively engaged in drawing up a settlement agreement to resolve the ongoing litigation. This indicates a cooperative approach toward resolving commercial disputes outside of full trial.
Bennett Coleman Co Ltd v.Whatsappinc & Ors.
Bennett Coleman Co Ltd filed a suit against Whatsappinc and others alleging widespread unauthorized circulation and distribution of its proprietary e-newspapers. The plaintiff asserted that their published news articles, available through subscription on their websites, constitute original literary works protected under copyright law. Given the evidence presented regarding illegal dissemination via platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bennett Coleman Co Ltd.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products, the Delhi High Court addressed the plaintiff's request for immediate interim injunction. The court declined to grant an ex parte order, emphasizing that the defendants had claimed prior use of the mark since 2018 and that public interest required them to be given a chance to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants, allowing the litigation process to proceed with due consideration for all parties.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed suits alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the product Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR), protected under Indian Patents IN 307 and IN 332. The core dispute revolved around whether these specific patents remained valid, especially since CTPR was covered by an expired genus patent (IN 978). While FMC argued for a permanent injunction against the launch of CTPR, Natco contended that the validity of the suit patents was questionable due to the prior coverage by IN 978. The court disposed of the interim applications but scheduled further hearings to conclude the complex arguments on the merits.
Bajaj Finance Limited v.Registrant Of Www.Bajaj-Finserve.Org & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Bajaj Finance Limited against the registrant of infringing domains. The court found that three specific domain names were clearly violating the petitioner's trademark. Consequently, the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) were directed to lock these illegal domains, and the Department of Telecommunications/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (DOT/MEITY) was mandated to block access to them.
Dharmendra Kumar Aggarwal v.Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Secretary & Anr.
This petition addressed the critical issue of supply and availability of the drug Tocilizumab 400 MG (Actemra) for COVID-19 patients in Delhi. The court examined submissions from Roche India, which indicated that global demand far exceeded current manufacturing capabilities. While Roche mentioned partnerships with other entities to meet demand, they provided no clear assurance regarding further supply to India. Consequently, the court issued detailed directions to both Roche and the Union of India to provide comprehensive affidavits on supply chain status, patent details, and potential alternatives.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd.
Kamdhenu Limited sued Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered design for steel bars featuring a double-ribbed surface pattern. The defendant challenged the validity of this registration, arguing that the design was merely a common feature found in industry standards and prior publications. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's design lacked novelty because it reflected established industry practices and known standards.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Vaishali Travels & Anr.
In a case concerning the use of the 'VOLVO' trademark, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between the plaintiffs (Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors) and defendant No. 2. The court ordered that the settlement, wherein the defendant agrees not to use the registered trademark 'VOLVO', must be placed on record within two weeks. This order confirms an earlier interim decision and keeps the litigation moving toward resolution.
Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v.Rajendra Mahadev Dakare
In this trademark infringement suit, Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. sought a temporary injunction against Rajendra Mahadev Dakare regarding the use of the mark 'RENAISSANCE'. The plaintiff argued that their established global hospitality brand was being threatened by the defendant's application for a similar mark. The Delhi High Court allowed the necessary applications and issued notice to the defendant, allowing the suit to proceed while granting interim relief pending further hearings.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Vishal Products
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Vishal Products alleging infringement of copyright and passing off concerning the distinctive artistic label and trade dress of its 'WHEEL' detergent. The parties reached a consent order before the Bombay High Court, settling the dispute without pressing for damages or costs. Under the settlement, Vishal Products acknowledged HUL's proprietary rights, agreed to cease using the similar packaging, and committed to destroying all existing infringing stock.
Lupin Limited v.Celon Laboraatories Private Limited
Lupin Limited sought an urgent interim injunction in the Bombay High Court against Celon Laboraatories Private Limited for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the mark BIVASSA by the defendant, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered anti-cancer drug mark BEVAZZA. The court found a sufficient prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. v.Monsendeep Kaur
The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction to Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. against Monsendeep Kaur regarding the trademark 'Pamoist'. The plaintiffs established that they were prior adopters and users of the mark, which was used by their charitable trust before being transferred to Pamoist International. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using the disputed mark or similar variants until the matter is further heard, while clarifying that the Trademark Registry retains full authority over the opposition proceedings.
Mahaan Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Calpro Specialities Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning trademark disputes, the court observed significant procedural difficulties on the part of the respondent. Despite being notified about the termination of key trademark license agreements, the respondent failed to provide a formal response and instead changed legal counsel without adequate instructions. Given these compounding issues, the bench decided to stay the operation of the impugned orders in the appeals, allowing time for the matter to be properly addressed.
Anil Rathi v.Shree Sidhbali Steels Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Rathi' in manufacturing steel items. The plaintiff, Anil Rathi, challenged the defendants' use of the mark, alleging that a lease agreement was merely a camouflage for unauthorized production. While the defendants claimed they were operating under a valid license, the court allowed the plaintiff to file an additional affidavit and documents regarding a guarantee provided by Defendant No.1 to secure loans for Defendant No.2. The interim injunction remains in place pending further arguments.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Xiaomi Corporation
Interdigital Technology Corporation filed an application seeking an injunction against Xiaomi Corporation and others, restraining them from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used in cellular handsets. The court allowed the application, making the ad interim injunction absolute.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Salud Care (India) Private Limited
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed an interim application alleging that Salud Care (India) Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a pharmaceutical preparation under the mark PROLOMEK, which was confusingly similar to Sun Pharma's registered trademark PROLOMET. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.