Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12601–12700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. v.Tex Tech Industries (India) Private Limited
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking injunction against Tex Tech Industries for alleged infringement of its registered trademark and Patent No. IN 324406. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party had a principal place of business in Delhi and that the transaction was merely a one-time trap purchase. However, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, noting that since the goods were delivered and the contract completed in Delhi, the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
A.R.Safiullah v.Daniel
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for infringing his registered patent (No. 198079) related to food grade laminated paper and for passing off their products as the plaintiff's. The dispute was subsequently resolved between the parties.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Musky Couture
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. to proceed with its suit against Musky Couture, which alleges infringement of the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark and copyright in unique artistic garments. The Plaintiff detailed how the Defendant was allegedly manufacturing and selling identical, low-budget imitations while falsely claiming association with the original designer. Crucially, the Court issued a significant interim order allowing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of the Defendant's premises in Mumbai to gather evidence of infringement.
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals v.Arunachala Industries
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals filed a civil suit against Arunachala Industries alleging infringement of its 'GOODLUCK' trademark, passing off, and copyright violation related to the distinctive blue and yellow color scheme and container design used for paints. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages. However, the matter was resolved when the defendant provided an undertaking confirming they had ceased using the label and returned unused materials.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Nova Indus Pharmaceuticals And Anr
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed a commercial IP suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Nova Indus Pharmaceuticals. The court examined the extreme phonetic and structural similarity between the marks PANTOCID and PANZOCID, finding that there was a sufficient prima facie case.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Mhs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Centaur Pharmaceuticals filed an Interim Application against MHS Pharmaceuticals. The court noted that the dispute was complex and did not meet the criteria for an immediate ad-interim order, requiring a final hearing after both parties submitted additional evidence.
Fmc Corporation v.Best Crop Science Llp
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding one of the suit patents. Another related suit is pending before a different bench.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Food Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions, restoring an interim trademark injunction previously vacated by the lower court. The dispute centered on whether the petitioner had complied with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC after receiving the initial injunction. The High Court found that the delay in filing the compliance affidavit was excusable due to logistical constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby interfering with and setting aside the order that vacated the injunction.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court restrained the defendants from pursuing a related civil action before the U.S. District Court at Southern District of Texas, as well as preventing them from manufacturing or selling goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to UNOCAL and UNOCAL 76 in India. This decision protected the plaintiff's established rights derived from its licensing agreement with UNOCAL.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.D S Foods & Ors.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd challenged an order that referred its trademark dispute against D S Foods & Ors. to arbitration. The petitioner asserted ownership of the trademarks "SAGAR," "RATNA," and "SAGAR RATNA" and alleged infringement by the respondents, who were franchisees. Despite arguments for arbitrability based on the franchise agreement, the Delhi High Court ultimately intervened, finding that the core dispute concerning trademark rights was not amenable to arbitration due to inherent jurisdictional limitations.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Greypixy Udyog
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd against Greypixy Udyog was settled on April 21, 2021. The parties agreed to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, leading to the disposal of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Greypixy Udyog
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IP Suit between Hindustan Unilever Limited and Greypixy Udyog. The parties reached a settlement, with the Defendants agreeing to submit to the decree in terms of the plaint's prayer clauses.
Unilever Plc v.Hemakesh Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd
The parties, Unilever Plc and Hemakesh Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd, settled their dispute in this Commercial IP Suit. The defendant submitted to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, leading the plaintiff to drop its claim for damages.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Greypixy Udyog
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 3761 of 2021 after both parties reached a settlement. The Defendants agreed to submit to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, and the Plaintiffs waived their claim for damages.
Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd v.Achla Sabharwal
The dispute concerns the ownership of the copyright in the 1987 Hindi film 'Sheela' between Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd and Achla Sabharwal. Both parties claim to be the true assignee of the rights from the original producer, Dwarakish. Goldmines sought an interim injunction preventing Sabharwal from exploiting or claiming ownership of the copyright.
Cutis Biotech Thr.Its Sole Prop. v.Serum Institute of India Private
This Bombay High Court appeal addressed a dispute over the trademark 'Covishield' between Cutis Biotech and Serum Institute of India. Although both parties had pending applications for the mark, Cutis Biotech sought an interim injunction based on passing off. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the balance of convenience did not favor the appellant, especially given the critical public health role of the 'Covishield' vaccine in ongoing vaccination drives.
Perenniala Health Care India Private Limited v.S.Samsen Papli
Perenniala Health Care India Private Limited filed a suit seeking declarations of exclusive rights over the FRANCH trademarks and associated artistic works, along with permanent injunctions against alleged infringement. The plaintiff sought to nullify certain assignment deeds executed by the defendants. However, due to the plaintiff failing to appear or prosecute the case despite court notices, the Madras High Court dismissed the entire suit.
Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd v.S.Khaja Mohideen
The appeals arose out of common final interlocutory orders concerning two actions for copyright infringement. The first suit involved musical works in 17 films, while the second concerned music from the film 'Citizen'. The court addressed issues related to prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting interim relief.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr.
This order addressed a review petition filed by Defendant No. 2 (Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd.) challenging the denial of framing issues regarding its application for patent revocation. The court noted that the pending revocation proceedings before IPAB were effectively being handled by the High Court's jurisdiction post-IPAB abolition. To resolve this, the court permitted the defendant to withdraw the IPAB revocation petition and file a counterclaim in the suit.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Godaddycom Llc And Ors
Snapdeal Private Limited filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Godaddycom and others, alleging widespread infringement of its registered 'SNAPDEAL' trademark through the registration and offering of infringing domain names. The court examined the feasibility of granting such a broad injunction, particularly concerning the ability to prevent the registration of any domain name containing the mark. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims of infringement, the judge required further clarification from the defendant regarding the practical implementability of the requested relief before making a final decision on the interim order.
The Himalaya Drug Company & Ors v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued interim protective orders in favor of The Himalaya Drug Company against Ashok Kumar & Ors regarding trademark infringement. The court restrained the defendants from using Himalaya's registered logos, trademarks (including 'Himalaya Pure Herbs'), specific domain names like <himalayawelness.com>, and associated email IDs. Furthermore, the court directed the freezing of certain websites and domain names to prevent further unauthorized capitalization on the plaintiff's goodwill.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
This interim application sought relief concerning the alleged infringement of a trademark (STIMULIV) by the defendant (Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd), which was using the mark IMMULIV. The defendant, through its director, provided assurances that they would cease manufacturing and using the impugned marks.
Monsanto Technology Llc v.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd
The parties, Monsanto Technology Llc and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd, filed joint applications to withdraw the suit and counter claim. They stated that they had amicably resolved their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2021.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
This interim application was filed regarding a trademark dispute between Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The defendant, through its director Mr Abhinav, stated that they had stopped manufacturing products with the impugned mark IMMULIV and would remove them from e-commerce websites within two weeks.
M/S MATHSTRAMAN MANUFACTURES AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Kerala High Court granted an interim order in favor of M/S Mathstraman Manufactures and Traders Private Limited. The court directed that the petitioner's registered trademark numbers (1326035 and 1326036) shall not be removed from the register while the Writ Petition is pending final disposal. This stay provides immediate protection to the petitioner against administrative action by the Controller General of Patents.
M/S Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's interim injunction against Morepen Laboratories Ltd. The court found that the marks used by the appellants were deceptively similar to those of the respondents, particularly considering the pharmaceutical context and potential for consumer confusion. This judgment reinforces the strict application of trademark principles in the highly regulated pharma sector.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Amul-Franchise.in & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL) in its ongoing trademark infringement suit. The court allowed AMUL to implead new parties, including the domain registrar and Google LLC, to pursue fraudulent activities related to their brand. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com and directed the freezing of a specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement.
Franco-Indian Remedies Pvt Ltd v.Unihelix Biotech Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its mark FINATE used in cholesterol control formulations. The Defendant was using the mark FERINATE XT. The Court found a prima facie case due to the confusing similarity between the marks, leading to an interim injunction favoring the Plaintiff.
Fdc Limited v.Shripal Mangalchand Jain
Fdc Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shripal Mangalchand Jain regarding trademark infringement. The dispute centers on FDC's mark PYRIMON (used for anti-bacterial isolation) versus the Defendant's mark PRIMON-N (used for birth control pills and menopausal hormone therapy).
M/s Bharat Salt Company v.M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd
M/s Bharat Salt Company filed a suit against M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd seeking injunction and enforcement of its rights under the Patent Act, 1970. The defendant challenged the plaint by arguing that the plaintiff firm was unregistered, making the suit non-maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. However, the High Court dismissed this plea, noting that the firm was subsequently found to be registered and citing Supreme Court precedents which held that the bar under Section 69(2) does not apply to IP infringement suits.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Ganesh Department Stores
Ganesh Grains Ltd. filed a suit against Ganesh Department Stores seeking urgent interim relief under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny and granted leave for interim protection in the infringement and passing off suit.
Swatch AG v.Suresh Kumar
Swatch AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Suresh Kumar for infringing its well-known trademark 'SWATCH' by adopting the domain name www.swatchclub.in to sell similar goods. The court found that the impugned domain name was identical and deceptively similar, leading to huge losses for the plaintiff.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Uniray Life Sciences
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application alleging that Uniray Life Sciences was using the competing mark ACNO GEL, which infringed upon Ajanta's registered trademarks (ACNO and ACNO-C) used for acne treatment. The court found a sufficient prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Pfizer Products Inc v.Unichem Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patents. The parties reached a settlement and withdrew the suit and counter-claim.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Controller's order rejecting its pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, which led to the grant of a patent in favor of the respondent. The court addressed arguments regarding whether a writ petition is an efficacious remedy against such rejection.
Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachin Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sachin Gupta, preventing the use of similar marks and trade dress for spices. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of passing off based on long-standing prior use (since 1969) and significant goodwill associated with the 'GAI CHAAP' mark and 'COW' device. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating continuous, bona fide usage when asserting trademark rights in the FMCG sector.
Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd v.Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging trade mark infringement and passing off against the Defendants, Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd. The dispute centers on the use of identical or confusingly similar marks (GLIMET, GLIMET-1, GLIMET-2) for pharmaceutical products used in treating diabetes. The Court found a prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v.Union Of India And Ors
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe challenged the refusal of its trademark registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Registrar to treat the matter as a representation and reconsider the registration issue. This interim order allows Sony to address the concerns raised under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act without immediately litigating the merits in court.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Private Limited v.Prakash Distillery And Chemical Co Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the court's territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendant in a trademark dispute. While acknowledging that the cause of action is not strictly necessary under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Court required both parties to clarify their business presence across various locations (Delhi, Kolkata, Siliguri). The court directed the filing of specific affidavits detailing office locations and sales activities before reserving judgment on interim relief.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed a suit against Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to their bathing soap packaging. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used an identical colour scheme, trade dress, and deceptively similar artistic work on its product 'ISIE', mimicking the successful brand 'IVA'. After examining the evidence, the Madras High Court found that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Ashique Exports, granting permanent injunctions and directing the destruction of infringing stock.
Dr.S.Vijaya Bharati (Deceased) v.Mr.T.S.Ramalingam (Deceased)
The suit was filed by Dr.S.Vijaya Bharati (Deceased) against Mr.T.S.Ramalingam (Deceased) and others for infringement of copyright concerning the literary work "Amaran Kadhai". After nearly a decade, the parties entered into a compromise agreement.
Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v.Beton Tile Company, Iqbal, Nazmuddin, Mr. Huzaiffa Zoeb, Mrs. Bani Mufaddal, Mr. Kuzema Zainuddin, Indian Ceramic Company, Ali Akbar
The plaintiff, Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against a trial court judgment after losing a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. The suit alleged that the defendants were passing off their imitation tiles under the name 'Diana', confusing the public regarding the plaintiff's unique tile 'MONALISA'.
M/s.Bahwan Cyber Tek Pvt. Ltd. v.Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Private Limited
The Madras High Court formally accepted a Joint Memo of Compromise between M/s.Bahwan Cyber Tek Pvt. Ltd. and its defendants regarding trademark infringement concerning 'ASYMMETRIX EARLY WARNING SYSTEM'. The parties agreed that the defendants would cease all use, display, or advertising of the disputed mark in relation to software products. In exchange, the plaintiff waived most other reliefs sought in the suit, leading the court to decree the case based on the terms of the compromise.
Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation v.Sarine Technologies Limited
This writ petition challenged a Case Management Order passed by the Commercial Court, which fixed the trial schedule and mandated proceedings through Video Conferencing. The original suit involved allegations of copyright infringement concerning advisory software. The High Court upheld the lower court's order, noting that it appropriately considered guidelines from the Supreme Court regarding expeditious trials during the pandemic, thereby dismissing the petition.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Novartis AG claims that Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd is infringing on their Indian Patent No. 229051 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising Sacubitril + Valsartan. The court has previously issued an interim order restraining the defendants from using the infringing product.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Novartis AG claims that Eris Lifesciences Limited is infringing on their Indian Patent No. 229051 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising Sacubitril + Valsartan.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
The suit sought an injunction against Hetero Drugs Limited concerning Indian Patent 227963 for Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. The parties reached a settlement regarding IA No. 2333/2021, allowing the defendant to export products under Section 107A of the Patents Act, provided strict conditions are met.
Aap Ki Pasand & Anr v.New Direction Exports & Crafts
In this trademark dispute, the defendant sought to establish a prior right by claiming they purchased the 'ANDEES' trademark and logo from a third party in 2018. The court accepted the defendant's temporary commitment to cease using the disputed packaging pending further proceedings. This order indicates that the matter is still actively litigating, with both parties encouraged to attempt an out-of-court resolution.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd
The plaintiff, an insurance consultant operating under various names including Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy, sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, a private limited company, for using a deceptively similar domain name (www.katariainsurance.co.in) to his established mark. The court found that the similarity was too great and ruled in favor of granting immediate injunctive relief.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Indilina Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking an injunction against Indilina Pharmaceuticals (Defendant) for infringing their patent (IN'816) covering the compound Sitagliptin. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was offering tablets of Sitagliptin for sale in tenders. The Court granted interim relief restraining the Defendant from any infringing activities and directed disclosure of profits.
Diva Enterprises (P) Ltd v.Institute Of Medico Legal Publication (P) Ltd.
The appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellant argued that the contractual dispute, seeking damages and injunction, was arbitrable. However, the High Court held that since the reliefs sought were primarily based upon Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the dispute was non-arbitrable.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Eros International Media Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the release of a feature film, 'Haathi Mere Saathi,' alleging that its brand mark 'DRL' was being used in a derogatory manner within the movie plot. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that Dr. Reddy's failed to meet the three-pronged test for granting an injunction. The court held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants due to their substantial investment in the film production.
The Polo/Lauren Company L. P v.Reekha Bhati
The suit was filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L. P against Reekha Bhati for permanent injunction, alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks (POLO, POLO Ralph Lauren) on apparel and clothing goods. The court found that the defendant used identical/deceptively similar marks in relation to impugned goods, causing confusion and deception.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling a pharmaceutical composition that allegedly infringes their patent.
Rajendra Kumar Nanda & Ors. v.Dinesh Chandra Khimji Nandha & Ors.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions related to business operations, trade name usage, and trademark registration. While the court noted the plaintiffs' claims regarding family rights and potential infringement of their 'Khimji Jewels' mark, it also considered the defendants' counter-arguments, including challenges to existing agreements. The court ultimately issued an interim restraint order preventing the defendants from publishing any defamatory or disparaging advertisements against the plaintiffs until further hearing.
Good Life Industries v.J R J Foods Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by J R J Foods Pvt Ltd against an earlier order that granted interim injunction to Good Life Industries. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off, where Good Life claimed its mark 'MICHI'S' was being imitated by J R J Foods' mark 'MISHI'S'. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that in a passing-off action, the likelihood of confusion among an ordinary purchaser is key, regardless of actual damage or intent.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
The dispute involves H. Lundbeck A/S challenging Hetero Drugs Limited's export activities, which are claimed by the defendants to be permissible under Section 107A of the Patents Act for R&D purposes. The court issued an interim order allowing the defendants to continue exports to seven specified entities while addressing objections raised by the plaintiff.
Larsen & Toubro Limited v.Radheshyam Singh
The plaintiffs (Larsen & Toubro Limited and General Industrial Controls Private Limited) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were infringing their trademarks (including Larsen & Toubro, L&T, LT, etc., and GIC/GIC) and violating copyrights related to their product labeling. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement and passing off.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Snapdealluckydraws.Org.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Snapdeal Private Limited's application to implead numerous rogue websites as defendants in its ongoing infringement suit. The court extended existing interim orders, restraining these newly added parties from passing off the 'SNAPDEAL' trademark. Furthermore, it issued specific directions compelling certain defendants and registrars to suspend domain name registrations and notify internet service providers to block access to the infringing sites.
Jagmohan Ratra v.Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Jagmohan Ratra against Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd., finding that the latter was engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant was illegally using the identical mark 'AMPA' and a deceptively similar logo to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill, which had been built over nearly three decades. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trademarks under common law principles of passing off.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Amman Trader
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark dispute where M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited sought permanent injunctions against M/s.Amman Trader for infringing its registered mark 'DHEEPAM' by using 'SRI DEEPAM' on edible oil products, and for passing off inferior goods as the plaintiff's. The parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo, which was accepted and decreed by the court. This settlement ensures that the defendant will cease all infringing activities related to the plaintiff's brand.
N Dinesh Kumar v.Shweta Khandelwal
This appeal challenged a lower court's temporary injunction that restrained the appellant from using his trademark 'Matruveda' due to alleged deceptive similarity with the respondent's registered mark, 'Matru Ayurveda'. The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal test—considering the marks through the eyes of the 'quintessential common man.' Consequently, the High Court set aside the injunction order and directed the lower court to rehear the matter afresh.
Unilever Plc v.Radhe Cosmetics
The Bombay High Court passed an interim application order, confirming a previous order and granting a temporary injunction. The injunction restrains Radhe Cosmetics from manufacturing or trading cosmetic preparations using marks or trade dress deceptively similar to Unilever's registered trademarks (like LAKME NINE TO FIVE) and copyrighted artistic works.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.BRD Medilabs & Anr
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against BRD Medilabs & Anr regarding trademark infringement. The court decreed the suit in specific terms, requiring the defendants to apply for the cancellation of their registered mark 'Sanaret Labs' and withdraw their service mark application within four weeks.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
H. Lundbeck A/S filed a suit against Hetero Drugs Limited regarding alleged infringement of Patent IN227963, which covers Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. During the hearing, the defendants asserted that they were not commercially launching any product and were using the substance solely for regulatory and R&D purposes.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Mhs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Centaur Pharmaceuticals filed a Leave Petition against MHS Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged infringement of its long-standing pharmaceutical trademark, SINAREST, by the Defendant's mark, SINARITE. The court granted the leave petition and directed both parties to file affidavits in reply and rejoinder within specified timelines.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The dispute involved allegations that the Defendant was illicitly using the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, including trademarks, trade dress, and copyright in label artwork. The Defendant claimed a license from a proprietor in Saudi Arabia.
B4U Television Network India Limited v.Jay Shree Praveen Enterprises And Ors
The Bombay High Court addressed an Interim Application filed by B4U Television Network India Limited concerning the pending Commercial IP Suit. The court noted that some defendants had not yet been served and directed the plaintiff to complete service at the earliest.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The Plaintiff (Unilever Plc) filed suit alleging that the Defendant was illicitly using its trademark, trade dress, and copyrighted artwork on rival products. The court found prima facie evidence of violation, noting that the defendant's claim of an international license did not negate infringement rights in India.
Unilever PLC v.Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics
Unilever PLC filed an IP suit against Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics alleging infringement of its trademark, copyright, and common law rights related to product labeling and trade dress. The defendant claimed they were operating under a license in Saudi Arabia. The court found the use illicit but allowed the defendant to proceed by accepting their submission regarding the prayer clause.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Yc Electric Vehicle & Ors.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Bajaj Auto Limited sought compliance regarding the use of its 'CHETAK' brand. The Delhi High Court noted that the defendants claimed no E-rickshaws under the 'CHETAK' trademark had been sold since a previous interim order was issued. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit addressing these claims within three weeks, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking an injunction against Actis Generics Pvt Ltd for infringing Patent No. IN'816, which covers the compound Sitagliptin. The court examined the prima facie case and found that the Defendant was distributing and selling infringing Sitagliptin API without authorization.
Khaitan India Limited v.Khaitar Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of its distinctive trade mark 'Khaitan' and passing off against the defendants, who used the similar mark 'Khaitar'. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that since the defendant also possessed a registered trademark, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court ultimately dismissed the interlocutory application seeking dismissal.
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Kishan Hirji Gothi Sole Proprietor Of Bubalus Beverages
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Kishan Hirji Gothi for alleged infringement. The Defendant submitted to the decree terms, leading the Court to dispose of the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Emami Ltd v.Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking modification of a previous interim order. The court observed that the suit involved infringement and passing off and was valued in excess of the specified limit. Consequently, the case (IN EOS/4/2020) and the associated application (IA GA 1 of 2021) were transferred to the Commercial Division.
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v.Dag Creative Media Pvt. Ltd.
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition in the Bombay High Court against Dag Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. The court initially granted leave for the petition. Furthermore, the petitioner sought permission to amend their plaint to accurately describe the nature of the commercial suit. The bench allowed this amendment, allowing the litigation to proceed with corrected pleadings.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited
This case involved a dispute between Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited and Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement of the 'Hero' trademark on electric bikes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks. However, the core legal battle revolved around whether the contractual disputes arising from the Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) and Trade Mark and Name Agreement (TMNA) were subject to arbitration.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. challenging a lower court's refusal to grant an ad interim injunction. While noting the appellant's claims of prior use of its trademark and copyright registration on its packaging, the Court ultimately decided not to interdict proceedings at that stage. Instead, it directed the District Judge to expedite the hearing of the interlocutory application, ensuring the matter moves forward promptly.
Vimal Dairy Limited v.Gujarat Tea Depot Company
The Gujarat High Court upheld the interim injunction granted in favor of Gujarat Tea Depot Company against Vimal Dairy Limited. The court found that allowing Vimal Dairy to market its product could cause confusion among the public due to substantial similarities between the brands and labels, despite differences in trade products. This decision reinforces the principle that courts must look at prima facie similarity to prevent consumer deception in trademark and copyright disputes.
Johnson & Johnson v.Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr
In a trademark infringement dispute, Johnson & Johnson sought permission from the Delhi High Court to amend its original plaint. The plaintiff argued that evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner revealed additional trademark infringements by the defendant concerning 'LIGACLIP,' which needed to be incorporated into the suit. Satisfied that these amendments were necessary for determining the real issues between the parties, the court allowed the application, allowing J&J to update its claims and proceed with the litigation.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Uniza Healthcare Llp. & Anr.
Cadila Healthcare Limited sought an ad-interim injunction against Uniza Healthcare LLP, alleging that the defendant's trademark 'ZACLEAR' was deceptively similar to Cadila's mark 'ZYCLEAR'. The Delhi High Court declined to grant the immediate injunction, primarily noting discrepancies in the plaintiff's claim regarding the date of adoption and registration of 'ZYCLEAR'. Instead, the court directed both parties to complete their pleadings, file written statements, and proceed with the suit for a final determination.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
This case involved a suit for alleged patent infringement. The defendants filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements, citing difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and general disruptions to legal processes. The court allowed these applications, condoning the delay.
Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited v.The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Ors.
Astrazeneca challenged several orders and notifications issued by NPPA regarding overcharging on its drug, OSIMERTINIB (TAGRISSO). The petitioner argued that the drug is patented and qualifies for a five-year exemption from price controls under DPCO, 2013. The Court directed NPPA to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the data supplied by the petitioner.
Praveen Murarka v.Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a dispute over registered designs of water bottles. The appellant, Praveen Murarka, sought an injunction against the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered design ('Kool Kommandar') with their product ('Cool Cutie'). The core legal issue revolved around whether the Commercial Court correctly applied the test of 'exact similitude' or if the proper standard under the Designs Act, 2000, was the 'look alike' factor. The High Court ultimately found that the designs were substantially similar and set aside the lower court's order, allowing the injunction.
A.R.Safiullah v.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts
A.R.Safiullah filed a civil suit against Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts and others, alleging infringement of his intellectual property rights. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions based on Patent No. 198079 (for food-grade laminated paper) and Design No. 182931 (for artificial laminated banana leaves). Furthermore, the suit claimed passing off related to trade dress imitation. However, before a final judgment could be delivered, the plaintiff formally withdrew the civil suit.
A.R.Safiullah v.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts
A.R.Safiullah filed a civil suit against Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts and others, alleging infringement of his intellectual property rights. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions based on Patent No. 198079 (for food-grade laminated paper) and Design No. 182931 (for artificial laminated banana leaves), as well as claims of passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff formally withdrew the civil suit.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
R X Infotech Private Limited v.Jalpa Rajesh Kumar Jain
The Delhi High Court dismissed a defendant's application seeking to reject the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that even if the suit was primarily based on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC allow for jurisdiction where any part of the cause of action arose. Specifically, the court found that online transactions related to the defendant's website could reasonably be considered to have occurred within Delhi, thus validating the plaintiff's choice of forum.
Plaintiff No. 1 v.Defendants
The plaintiffs, owners of two patents covering the compound LINAGLIPTIN and its derivatives, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing LINAGLIPTIN tablets under the brand name BRLENTA-5 without consent. The court found a prima facie case for injunction.
JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.JK Shian Cement Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between JK Lakshmi Cement Limited and JK Shian Cement Private Limited. The court allowed a defendant's application to condone a 90-day delay in filing its written statement, noting that negotiations regarding settlement had taken place. Additionally, while acknowledging ongoing disputes over interim orders, the court granted time for defendants to file their replies, setting a future hearing date.
M/S. B.R.Industries v.State Of Meghalaya & 2 Ors.
The Meghalaya High Court addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by respondents in a trademark infringement case involving 'Megha' cashew nuts. The court clarified that under the specific administrative rules governing tribal areas like Nongpoh, courts presided over by Deputy Commissioners and Additional Deputy Commissioners function as Principal Civil Courts of Original Jurisdiction. Consequently, these courts are deemed competent to try suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thereby upholding the petitioner's right to pursue the infringement claim.
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd and E9 Intrakt v.Harshini Movies
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd filed a suit against Harshini Movies seeking permanent injunctions under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the defendant from using the title 'Vidathu Karuppu' or any deceptively similar title for their motion picture. However, subsequent developments revealed that the defendant had changed the name of their film to 'Shenbaga Kottai', leading the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit.
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd v.Harshini Movies
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd filed a suit against Harshini Movies seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of the title 'Vidathu Karuppu' or any deceptively similar title for its motion picture. The plaintiffs had previously secured an interim injunction regarding this matter. However, subsequent developments revealed that the defendant had changed the name of their film to 'Shenbaga Kottai'. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a memo stating that they were not pressing the suit further, leading the court to dismiss the case as not prosecuted.
M/s.Kumbhat Holographics v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
The appellants challenged the tender terms set by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd for producing polyester based hologram excise labels. They argued that the technical specifications favored a specific patented technology, leading to limited participation and vitiating the public tendering process. The High Court found merit in this challenge, quashing the tender but allowing Uflex (the awarded vendor) to continue work temporarily.
R.Ravindran v.M.Anandan
R.Ravindran appealed against an order concerning his rights as assignee of the copyright in a story related to the film 'Chakra'. The court dismissed both appeals, noting that while the primary finding regarding his arbitration application was accepted, the dismissal did not preclude him from asserting other legal causes of action.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor used to treat Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The court issued an order granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products until further hearing.
M/S Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd. against Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd and associated sellers. The plaintiff alleged that unauthorized third-party sellers were using the registered 'BOYA' trademark to sell counterfeit microphones on the platform, causing reputational damage and fraud. The court recognized a prima facie case and granted the injunction, compelling the e-commerce platform to take steps to remove listings of fake products.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Mankind Pharma Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement combined with passing off. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that since both parties had offices in Delhi, the Bombay High Court lacked competence to hear the common law claim. The court rejected this submission, affirmed its jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and made the Clause XIV Petition absolute.
Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. v.Jafar Ali
This appeal was filed by Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. challenging an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in a suit for patent infringement. The appellants argued that the Commercial Court had incorrectly applied parameters suitable for trademark infringement, constituting a jurisdictional error. They also raised concerns regarding procedural lapses and prior litigation history which prejudiced their case. Despite finding merit in the contentions, the High Court decided to allow the matter to proceed before the Commercial Court to ensure a fair hearing on the interim relief application.