Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12701–12800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Unilever Plc. v.Ashok Kumar (Unknown Person)
The court considered an Interim Application filed by Unilever Plc. against Ashok Kumar regarding patent infringement. The Court granted leave to amend the pleadings, noting that infringing goods were being marketed by a third party (Sunil Garg). Consequently, an ad-interim order was passed under Clause XIV of the Letter Patent.
Yogi Ayurvedic Products Pvt Ltd v.The Yogi And 2 Ors
The Plaintiff, a private limited company, filed an interim application seeking protection for its registered and formative marks under 'YOGI' against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were infringing these marks and attempting to pass off their goods using 'THE YOGI' online. The Court found a prima facie case made out and permitted the plaintiff to proceed with the ad-interim relief application.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Taparia Industries And Anr
The court addressed a Leave Petition filed by Everest Food Products Private Limited seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and infringement. The court directed that since the Defendants were in Jaipur, service must be effected by courier with proof of delivery.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand name OMEZ, Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited and Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Private Limited agreed to pursue settlement. The defendants indicated they had ceased using the disputed mark, leading both parties to agree that mediation was the preferred path forward. Consequently, the Delhi High Court scheduled the parties for mediation at its Conciliation Centre.
Bajaj Electricals Limited v.Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd
Bajaj Electricals Limited filed an Interim Application against Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd for alleged trademark infringement related to the mark "BAJAJ SUPERMART". The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants that they would cease using the infringing mark pending the final disposal of the application and remove all associated signage.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) v.Vishna Foods Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) against Vishna Foods Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing on ISKCON's registered trademark and engaging in passing off by using a deceptively similar mark across various goods and services. This interim relief prevents the defendant from continuing unauthorized use of the mark until the final disposal of the suit.
Societe D Elastographie v.N.W. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 244875 by the defendants. The patent's validity lapsed in February 2020, affecting the need for interim relief.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Times Coaching Centre
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning an existing trademark infringement suit between Triumphant Institute of Management Education and Times Coaching Centre. The core issue revolved around whether the Defendant's subsequent change in its trademark, from 'Times Coaching Centre' to 'Future Times Coaching Centre', constituted wilful disobedience of a prior interim injunction. The court found that the Defendant acted under a genuine misunderstanding of the scope of the injunction, believing the new mark was outside its restraint. Consequently, while dismissing the applications for non-wilful reasons, the court imposed costs on the Defendant due to the continued use of infringing marks.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Rajender Kumar
The plaintiff, adidas AG through its Indian subsidiary, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'adidas', 'three bars', '3-Strips', and 'Trefoil'. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking discovery through interrogatories in a suit alleging infringement of their patent for Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's process description was ambiguous and evasive, hiding the use of immobilized enzymes and specific acids. However, the court dismissed the application, finding it amounted to a roving inquiry and stating that the issues could be addressed through cross-examination.
The Bhor Chemicals And Plastics Private Ltd v.Amol K Patil & Anr
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking protection of its confidential information and proprietary industrial technology/trade secrets, alleging that Defendant No. 1 (a former employee) stole samples and passed on this confidential information to Defendant No. 2. The court heard the interim application for ad-interim reliefs.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akah Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification application concerning a trademark registration. The plaintiff informed the court that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously directed the removal of the defendant's mark from the Trademarks Register. However, the defendants requested an adjournment as they were in the process of challenging the IPAB's decision, leading the court to list the matter for a future date.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Bhcosmetics Llc
The Delhi High Court permitted M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Bhcosmetics Llc. The amendment corrected an inadvertent typographical error, clarifying that the 'BH' logo/label was not yet a registered trademark but rather had a pending application and long-standing user rights since 1986. The court allowed this correction, recognizing it would not alter the core relief sought (permanent injunction for passing off and infringement), and subsequently modified an earlier court order to reflect the accurate status of the mark.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Sukan Raj Jain & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd against Sukan Raj Jain & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'V-GUARD' and associated designs from the use of the deceptively similar mark 'N-GUARD'. Citing a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks and designs. This order sets the stage for the full trial on trademark infringement, design infringement, and passing off.
Grand Tobacco Private Limited v.Abdul Rashid Shaikh Tobaco, A Limited Liability Partnership & Ors.
The plaintiff, Grand Tobacco Private Limited, filed an application seeking interim protection against the defendant for infringement of its registered trademark and passing off. The court found a prima facie case existed, noting that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('A.R.S Chand Tara Marka') and color combination on tobacco products compared to the plaintiff's mark ('Super Chand Tara Marka').
Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd v.Laxmikanta Nayak
The court heard an interim application filed by Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd against Laxmikanta Nayak regarding passing off related to drinking water bottles. The parties suggested a settlement, but the court noted undertakings from the defendant regarding not possessing specific moulds or manufacturing depicted bottles.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, sought to amend their suit against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the petition under Clause XIV to combine the cause of action in passing off with that in infringement, and also permitted the Interim Application for amendments. Consequently, a further ad-interim order was granted regarding the passing off claim.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd v.Deepak Bhatia And Anr
The court heard an interim application and a leave petition filed by Godrej Consumer Products Ltd against Deepak Bhatia and Anr. The court granted the Leave Petition absolute and issued an additional ad-interim order concerning the cause of action in passing off.
M/S. Vipul v.Akshar Sweets And Namkeen
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning the non-granting of ad-interim injunction by a lower civil court in a trademark infringement dispute. The appellants, M/S. Vipul, argued that their prima facie case for trademark infringement was strong and continued prejudice was occurring due to the respondent's unauthorized use of a similar brand name after contract termination. Recognizing the urgency and the merits presented, the High Court disposed of the appeal while directing the trial court to expedite the decision on the injunction application within three months, ensuring the existing restraining order remains in effect until then.
Bharat Balar and White Lion Trading Private Ltd. v.Rajendra Distributors and Sha Mahendra Kumar Asuram & Sha Asuram Madaji
This case involved a suit filed by Bharat Balar and White Lion Trading Private Ltd. against Rajendra Distributors, alleging infringement of their registered design for Unitary Multilayer Containers and idly plates. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages based on the design's shape and configuration. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the civil suit.
C.V. Radhakrishnan v.Registrar of Trademarks
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed a writ petition filed by C.V. Radhakrishnan concerning the undue delay in issuing a trademark registration certificate for 'RIVER VALLEY.' Despite all procedural requirements being completed and publication occurring as early as December 2019, the petitioner had not received the final certificate. The court recognized the grievance regarding administrative delays and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation within two months.
Roland Corporation v.Sandeep Jain
Roland Corporation sued Sandeep Jain and others for passing off their trademark BOSS in relation to electronic musical instruments. Despite initially finding the plaintiff guilty of laches and acquiescence, the court ultimately balanced commercial interests against consumer protection. The judgment resulted in a decree restraining the defendant from using the mark 'BOSS' unless it was prefixed with 'Hi-Tone,' thereby limiting the scope of use while protecting consumers from confusion.
Lakme Lever Pvt Ltd v.Annapurna Enterprises And Anr
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Lakme Lever Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of Hindustan Unilever Limited. The court found that despite the termination of a franchise agreement, the respondents continued unlawfully using Lakme's brand name, logo, uniforms, and associated trade materials. Consequently, the court issued an injunction and appointed a Court Receiver to take possession of all branded assets from the respondent's premises, preventing further unauthorized use.
Unilever Plc v.Pawan Saini
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered trademarks (SURF/SURF EXCEL) and copyrights related to detergent packaging by the defendant. The plaintiffs presented evidence of counterfeit goods bearing slavish imitations of their marks and artworks.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar (Unknown Person)
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against the defendant, Ashok Kumar (an unknown person), for infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrights, combined with an action for passing off. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was marketing and selling counterfeit goods using pirated artworks of SURF EXCEL detergent preparations.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Visat Beverages (Od)
The plaintiff, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd., filed an interim application alleging that the defendant, Visat Beverages (Od), was infringing its registered trademarks and copyright related to its popular fruit drink 'JEERU'. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's product bore a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's mark and label. The court granted temporary relief in the form of an injunction and appointed a Court Receiver.
Pharmacyclics Llc. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a commercial suit filed by Pharmacyclics Llc. against Alkem Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Patent IN 262968. The court noted that the plaintiffs had other related suits pending before different benches regarding the same patent. Consequently, the court ordered the listing of the current suit for further consideration.
Sahil City Sports v.Cricket Academy Of Pathans Pvt. Ltd
Sahil City Sports filed a petition to set aside an ex parte arbitral award passed against it. The original award directed Sahil City Sports to pay damages and permanently restrain it from using the respondent's brand name 'Cricket Academy of Pathans'.
Lalit Babbar & anr. v.Remson Prime Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others
The court heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the suit. The plaintif argued that since the relief was an injunction valued at Rs. 130/-, it should be transferred to the District Judge (Central) as the commercial court lacked minimum pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the court found that the dispute related to a trademark ('REMSON PRIME') and thus fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
H Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drug Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their patent (IN 227963) by manufacturing and exporting substantial quantities of the anti-depressant drug Vortioxetine. The court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, considering the allegations of export and potential use under Section 107 of the Patents Act.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The commercial suit for patent infringement regarding the drug Sitagliptin was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Plaintiffs) and Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1). The court accepted the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited v.Ram Dev Industries And Anr.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to initiate a civil suit against Ram Dev Industries & Anr. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were infringing upon their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court examined the petition, noting the combined cause of action for infringement and passing off. Consequently, the court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, allowing the petitioner to proceed with the suit.
Browns and More India Pvt. Ltd. v.Brown Wall Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The applicant/plaintiff filed an interim application against the defendants. The court heard arguments and accepted a statement from the counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 3 that the FIR registered on their behalf, which formed the basis of the suit invoking Section 60 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 read with 106 of Patents Act, would not be pursued.
M/S Sami -Sabinsa Group Limited v.Union Of India
M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited filed a writ petition seeking an interim order to stay the execution of a notice and requesting that respondents refrain from opposing their pending patent applications. The court subsequently granted leave for the petitioners to withdraw the petition.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the procedural actions taken by various respondents, including the delayed service of Counter Statement and taking on record evidence in an opposition proceeding (Opposition No. 969651). The petitioner sought directions to reject the opposing evidence and register their trademark application.
Mr. Hemant Bandodkar v.Vertellus Speciality Materials (India) Pvt.Ltd.
The court disposed of two interim applications by consent. The primary order mandated the appointment of a Local Commissioner, appointed by IIT Bombay, to inspect Defendant No.1's plant and document its manufacturing process layout and machinery, which is claimed to be confidential proprietary information/trade secret. Additionally, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing a Written Statement was allowed.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
Interdigital Technology Corporation sued Xiaomi alleging infringement of several Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The current judgment addresses an interlocutory application regarding the establishment and structure of a Confidentiality Club necessary for handling commercially sensitive documents during the patent infringement proceedings. The Court constituted the club, accommodating Xiaomi's objection to a 'two-tier' system.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Balaji Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an Interim Application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Balaji Enterprises for alleged trade mark infringement and passing off related to flour products. The court found a sufficient prima facie case, noting that both marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally indistinguishable, leading to inevitable consumer confusion.
Essdee Industries Through Proprietor v.Esbee Electrotech LLP
This writ petition challenged an order by the District Court that allowed the plaintiff to withdraw a composite suit involving claims of trademark/passing-off infringement and registered design infringement. The defendant argued that raising a defense under Section 19 of the Designs Act mandated the transfer of the entire suit to the High Court. However, the Bombay High Court held that since the plaintiff sought withdrawal—not further prosecution—the District Court retained its jurisdiction to permit the split. The court clarified that while Section 22(4) governs the continuation of the suit upon raising a cancellation defense, it does not prevent the court from allowing the plaintiff to withdraw and file separate suits for distinct causes of action.
Chutraram Nemaram Gehlot v.Rajaram Magharam Tak
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking ad-interim relief against the Defendant for infringement of registered Trade Marks ('Prem Dulhan') and copyrighted artistic work ('PREM DULHAN GREEN LABEL'). The court found prima facie evidence establishing that the Defendant's use of 'DABANG DULHAN' is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks. Consequently, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Dexpo Intelectual Properties Services Ltd. v.Nilesh Patel
The dispute between Dexpo Intelectual Properties Services Ltd. and Nilesh Patel was amicably settled through Consent Terms dated 26th November, 2020. Both parties agreed to the terms, leading the court to allow the Leave Petition (L) No.9822 of 2020.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Saphnix Life Science
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application seeking relief against Saphnix Life Science for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark, ARTEFAN. The court examined the evidence showing that the defendant was using an identical trade mark on similar pharmaceutical preparations. Based on the prima facie case established by the plaintiff, the ad-interim injunction was granted.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Nitin Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute where the AMUL Federation alleged that videos produced by Defendant No. 1 were scandalous, disparaging, and specifically targeted their brand using trademark elements like the 'AMUL Girl' mascot. The core issue revolved around whether the content constituted fair use or targeted defamation against the Plaintiffs. While the Plaintiff argued the targeting was evident through specific advertisements shown in the video, the Court directed the Defendant to provide detailed affidavits regarding the sources of their investigative journalism, allowing the Plaintiffs to adequately address the allegations.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Vintage Distillers Ltd.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Vintage Distillers Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning alcoholic beverages. The dispute arose from Vintage Distillers' adoption of the mark 'VINTAGE MOMENTS,' which Radico Khaitan argued was confusingly similar to its established and widely used brand, 'MAGIC MOMENTS.' The Delhi High Court found that Radico Khaitan had made out a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an interim injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The core dispute revolved around procedural violations in Opposition No. 969651 concerning Trademark Application No. 3017984, specifically regarding the delay in serving documents and taking on record evidence.
S.D. Containers Indore v.M/S. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal challenged a High Court order that had directed the transfer of a design infringement and cancellation suit from Indore to Calcutta. The suit involved registered designs for containers and lids, where the defendant sought cancellation based on lack of originality. The core legal question was whether the Commercial Court in Indore or the High Court held jurisdiction over such matters. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court's order, holding that since the entire cause of action arose within Madhya Pradesh, the suit must be heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, affirming the competence of the local court.
International House Of Pancakes LLC. v.IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International House Of Pancakes LLC. (Plaintiff) against IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors. (Defendants). The plaintiff, a global brand owner of 'IHOP', sought protection against the defendants' use of the identical mark. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss, thereby protecting the established reputation of the trademark.
Inkpot Films Private Limited v.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Inkpot Films Private Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against various telecom and cable companies for infringing the copyright of its cinematographic film, "Is Love Enough? SIR". The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the entire suit and connected applications before the Madras High Court.
RB Health (Us) Llc v.Dabur India Limited
RB Health (US) LLC filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, alleging infringement of their registered soap bar design (No. 271671) and the tort of passing off through similar trade dress and taglines. The plaintiffs sought to prevent Dabur from manufacturing or selling a competing soap bar under the brand 'SANITIZE'. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for an injunction, noting that such cases heavily depend on specific facts rather than merely analogical precedents.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Xiaomi Inc & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents concerning UMTS enhancement (HSPA, HSPA+) and LTE technologies used in mobile phones by Xiaomi Inc & Ors. The court issued several orders regarding interim applications, including granting an ad-interim injunction request and directing the defendants to maintain Rs. 1000 crores in bank accounts.
Anil Rathi v.Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the dispute concerning the 'RATHI' trademark. The court restrained Defendant No. 4 from granting new licenses related to the mark until further hearing, providing immediate relief to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court mandated that certain defendants maintain and file detailed accounts of sales made under the 'RATHI' trademark during a specified period, while also allowing for the impleadment of proposed parties.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order passed during Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act. The respondent argued that the patent was already registered and other remedies, including Post-Grant Opposition, were available.
Starbucks Corporation v.Mr.Sunil & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Starbucks Corporation against Defendant No. 5 following a joint settlement agreement. The settlement confirmed that Starbucks owns registered trademarks (STARBUCKS, FRAPPUCCINO) and copyrights in its logos and artistic works. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 37,500/-, the defendant agreed to permanent injunctions restraining them from infringing or misusing these marks and copyrights, including ceasing the sale of counterfeit products.
Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt Ltd v.Cocosath Health Products
This original petition challenged an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, which restrained Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt Ltd from appointing exclusive global marketers and transferring confidential product know-how. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioners had not shown reason for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it would not interfere with the lower court's order.
Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. v.Aniruddha Malpani
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. against Aniruddha Malpani, who was accused of defamation and trademark infringement via social media posts. The court found that the plaintiff faced irreparable loss due to the defendant's derogatory tweets regarding its brand 'WHITE HAT JR'. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to immediately cease posting such content and take down a list of specific offending tweets within 48 hours.
Karan Bajaj & Anr. v.Pradeep Poonia
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Karan Bajaj & Anr. against Pradeep Poonia, addressing allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, defamation, and unauthorized access to confidential business data. The court restrained the defendant from using similar marks like 'WhiteHat Sr' and prohibited him from hacking or circulating the plaintiffs' proprietary curriculum. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of multiple defamatory tweets and YouTube content posted by the respondent.
Sopariwala Exports & Anr. v.Mr.Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Anr. against Mr. Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. The plaintiffs, who hold extensive trademark rights for 'AFZAL' related to tobacco products, successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement by the defendants selling similar goods under infringing marks like 'AFZAL BIDI No. 90.' This interim order protects the plaintiffs from irreparable loss while the main suit proceeds.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Park Pharmaceuticals
Glaxo Group Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement litigation against Park Pharmaceuticals through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit based on the compromise, which required Park Pharmaceuticals to cease using deceptively similar marks like AQUAMENTIN and CETUM, acknowledge Glaxo's ownership of AUGMENTIN and CEFTUM, change product branding (to CLAVPARK and PARXETIL), destroy all infringing materials, and pay a settlement amount of Rs. 1,50,000.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Micro Labs Limited, Zydus Healthcare Ltd., ERIS Lifesciences Ltd., USV Pvt. Ltd., MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought permanent and temporary injunctions against various defendants for infringing their patents related to Dapagliflozin. The court found that the defendants had laid a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, leading the court to decline the grant of interim injunction.
ASTRAZENCA AB & ANR v.AJANTA PHARMA LTD.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent IN '625. The present order addressed the defendant's request for an early hearing, noting that in connected suits, the court had previously declined interim injunctions.
Sap Se v.Chetan Maini& Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Sap Se following an amicable settlement reached with Chetan Maini. The settlement agreement established that the defendant admitted ownership of the SAP trademark and logo. Key terms included a permanent injunction against using the mark for educational services, destruction of infringing materials, cessation of providing pirated software, and payment of INR 100,000 in costs.
Adj Utility Apps Private Limited & Kyte Technologies Inc. v.Mr. Sumit Rajendra Shaha, Growthpond Technologies Private Limited, Risemetric Inc., & Rankz Inc.
This Karnataka High Court judgment records an amicable settlement between the parties involved in a copyright dispute concerning the 'Dukaan' application source code. The complex litigation, which included interim injunctions and technical evaluations by the Indian Institute of Science, was resolved through a Joint Compromise Memo. Key terms include a payment of USD 80,000 to Petitioner No. 2, an allotment of 1% common stock in Respondent No. 2-Company to one of the Petitioners, and mutual waivers of claims regarding both 'Disputed' and 'New Sourcecode'.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr. v.Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Microsoft against Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. and associated parties. The suit alleged that the defendants were using various domain names and impersonating Microsoft's authorized technical support staff to defraud customers. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence, noting that the defendants were infringing on Microsoft's registered trademarks, domain names, and copyrights while engaging in fraudulent activities.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others regarding alleged patent infringement (Patent No.282429). The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the suit fell within the court's territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the state. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the revocation of leave to sue was incorrect due to jurisdictional concerns.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others for alleged infringement of Patent No. 282429. The core issue revolved around whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the local limits. The Madras High Court allowed the appeals, restoring the suit to the Commercial Division.
Havells India Limited v.Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd.
Havells India Limited filed a suit against Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its design and passing off. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the court.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Ashok Kumar (unknown person/s)
Unilever Plc. filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against an unknown defendant for the infringement of its registered trade marks (including LAKME and U-Logo), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to its FMCG products. The court granted immediate relief, empowering Additional Special Receivers to seize and seal all infringing goods.
Ms Gip Development Sarl v.Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Ms Gip Development Sarl, the owner of the 'Blaupunkt' trademark. The petitioner sought relief after terminating a license agreement with Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited due to non-payment of minimum license fees. Given that the respondent had not challenged the termination and failed to pay outstanding dues, the court ruled that the respondent lacked authority to use the mark, thereby restraining them from manufacturing or selling products under 'Blaupunkt' until the final disposal of the case.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd And Anr v.Dilip Kumar Shukla & Ors.
In this ongoing commercial suit concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to Kent RO's products, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding one of the defendants. The defendant argued that the design right relevant to their involvement had expired, prompting the plaintiff to consider removing them from the case. While no final judgment was reached, the court issued several directions for the completion of pleadings and document exchange.
Dhaval Diyora v.Union of India And Ors
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had directed the Controller to issue a patent to Pfizer Products Inc. The petitioner argued that this order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard regarding his pre-grant opposition. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioner's conduct questionable and holding that the pre-grant opposition was not maintainable in law.
Unilever Plc & Anr. v.Vikas Sachdeva
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc & Anr., filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs in a suit for infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrights. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was clandestinely marketing and selling cosmetic preparations bearing counterfeit marks (LAKME, LAKME 9 to 5, LAKME EYECONIC) and infringing artworks. The court granted an interim order appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca sued Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited regarding two patents, IN 147 (genus) and IN 625 (species), covering the SGLT2 inhibitor Dapagliflozin (DAPA). The core dispute was whether DAPA, which is used to treat type-II diabetes, falls within the scope of the genus patent. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' applications.
Unilever Plc. v.Ranbir Narang
Unilever Plc. filed an Interim Application concerning the counterfeiting of its goods, which bear multiple registered trade marks (like POND'S, HUL) and copyrighted artistic containers. The court granted ad-interim injunctions against both defendants to prevent further infringement and directed a receiver to seize all infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Rahul Goyal
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc (and its subsidiary Plaintiff no.2), filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Rahul Goyal for infringement of their trademarks (LAKME, U-Logo, etc.), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to cosmetic preparations. The court granted the interim relief, appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. v.Sarfaraz Khan
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' while operating in the same trade channel as Tata's registered trademarks. Based on the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm to Tata's goodwill, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Qliktech International Ab v.DCIT (International Taxation)
The assessee, Qliktech International AB (a Swedish company), was assessed income from the sale of its software products (Qlikview) as 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) and Article 12 of the India-Sweden DTAA. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the mere transfer of a copyrighted article does not constitute a transfer of copyright or payment for use/acquisition of rights, and thus is not taxable as royalty.
Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L v.Ntc Industries Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Philip Morris Brands S.A.R.L challenged Ntc Industries Limited regarding the use of its stylized 'Maypole' mark and packaging devices. During the proceedings on October 20, 2020, the court noted that the defendants would place advertisements showing the use of the 'Maypole' mark since 1994 on record. Furthermore, the defendants assured the court they would not use the specific roof device integral to the plaintiff’s trademark packaging, leading the matter to be listed for further hearing.
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Floris Biotech LLP
The dispute involved Shalina Laboratories Private Limited challenging Floris Biotech LLP regarding the use of the trademark FLOCLAV. The parties reached a settlement, with defendants providing undertakings and submitting new labels that were deemed distinctly different from the plaintiffs' artwork/trade dress.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, regarding delays in proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3017984 (Opposition No. 969651). The petition sought a writ of mandamus to reject certain evidence and register the mark.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use and copying of the registered trademark 'OMEZ' for the medicinal preparation OMEPRAZOLE. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting both trademark infringement ('OMZES') and copying of packaging, thereby preventing irreparable loss to Dr. Reddys.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction favoring Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited in its trademark infringement suit against R S Chauhan Proprietor Of Fern Biotech & Mediva Lifecare. The dispute centered on the use of 'RAZO' by the plaintiff and 'RAPRAZO' by the defendant for the drug Rabeprazole. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case, noting similarities in both the marks and the packaging design (blue and white color combination), leading to the grant of immediate injunctive relief.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Agribiotech Industries Limited (Abil)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd against Agribiotech Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing on its registered trademarks ('Officers Choice') and copyrighted trade dress associated with its IMFL products, specifically by using a deceptively similar label for its 'Chetak Whisky'. The court found that there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion, satisfying both the 'average intelligence' test and the 'triple identity' test. This interim order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation pending final disposal of the suit.
Minda Corporation Ltd. v.Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Minda Corporation Ltd. against Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's adoption of the 'STAR MINDA' mark was deceptively similar to their registered device marks, leading to a risk of consumer confusion and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Refread Solutions Private Limited v.Scientific E-Resource
The plaintiff, a company providing digital online libraries (Refread), sued the defendant for infringing its copyright and engaging in unfair competition. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was promoting a similar product ('Read Smart Digital') using the plaintiff's tagline and had copied 87% of the website content and 100% of the product. The court found infringement and granted relief.
Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited v.Voltronic India Lubricants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited, to appoint two more Local Commissioners in its ongoing infringement suit. The court recognized that new entities were using the registered trademark 'GULF PRIDE 4T PLUS' and employing deceptively similar trade dress for their engine oil products. This order allows the plaintiff to further investigate and seize infringing goods from newly identified parties, reinforcing the court's initial finding of widespread infringement.
Giani S Foods Private Limited v.Mr. Keshav Aggarwal, Trading As M/S Keshav Foods & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Giani S Foods Private Limited against Mr. Keshav Aggarwal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, noting irreparable harm to its commercial interests due to the unauthorized use of the 'GIANI'S' mark and associated trade features by the defendant. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the protected trademark or similar marks on their products and from utilizing any distinctive store layouts or fixtures belonging to Giani S Foods.
Astral Poly Technik Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee Through Its Proprietor Ms Pooja Surendra Ayre & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Astral Poly Technik against Astralglee, concerning the use of 'Astral' and 'Astralglee' in Class 3 goods. The court noted conflicting arguments regarding prior use, consumer confusion, and the scope of statutory rights conferred by registration. Given the complex factual matrix and competing legal precedents cited by both sides, the judge decided to proceed with a detailed examination of the issues.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an application before the Delhi High Court challenging an anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, which sought to restrain them from prosecuting their SEP royalty rate suit in India. The court found a clear case for granting ad interim relief.
Pm Diesels Pvt Ltd v.Thukral Mechanical Works And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an IPAB order that rejected its request to implead the original trademark assignor. The court held that since the petitioner was questioning both the initial registration and the subsequent assignment as potentially fraudulent, the assignor (M/s Jain Industries) should have been included from the outset. Given the passage of time, the High Court found it inappropriate to allow impleadment at this late stage, thereby upholding the IPAB's decision.
Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Gepl) v.Gadham Ramesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (GEPL) against Gadham Ramesh regarding alleged trademark infringement. GEPL, claiming extensive use and registration of the 'GMR' mark across various sectors since 1978, sought protection against the defendant who was using a similar mark for a news channel on YouTube. The court found that GEPL had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable damage to its goodwill.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's product infringes their patent for a pharmaceutical composition consisting of sacubitril and valsartan. The defendant claims their product is different and has filed for revocation of the suit patent.
Ascot Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Prashant Sharma & Dikshant Sharma
The Delhi High Court addressed an execution petition concerning a prior settlement where the judgment debtor had agreed to cease using the trademarks 'SAVOY SUITES' and 'SAVOY'. The court found that the judgment debtor was violating this undertaking by advertising their property in Mumbai under the same name, thereby leveraging the goodwill of the decree holder. Consequently, the Court issued strict directions compelling the defendant to immediately remove all references to the trademark from websites and third-party platforms, including major booking sites.
Company v.State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)
The petitioner company filed a writ petition seeking protection for its patent related to the manufacturing process of hazardous waste materials (SPL). The petitioner argued that the SPCB's planned review of criteria could negatively impact its patented process and lead to closure due to insufficient raw material sanction. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the SPCB and CPCB to consider the pending representations and grant a hearing to the petitioner.
Sarla Holdings Private Limited v.Pathways School Gurugram Parents Association
Sarla Holdings Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the 'PATHWAYS' mark, sought to restrain a parents' association from using its trademark. The Delhi High Court mediated a settlement where the Defendants agreed to modify their association's name and remove all references to 'PATHWAYS' or 'PSG' from their communications and social media platforms. This order allows the Plaintiff to protect its brand identity while accommodating the community interest.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The case involves requests for injunctions against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.