Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12801–12900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v.CHARANJEET SINGH
The plaintiff, Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling perfumes under deceptively similar trademarks ('DAVIDOFF'/'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER'). The court found that the defendant's use of the mark caused confusion and injury to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, ordered delivery up of goods, and awarded damages.
Worknest Business Centre Llp & Anr. v.M/S Worknests Through Rajesh Goyal
Worknest Business Centre LLP filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against M/S Worknests, claiming that the defendant's use of 'WORKNESTS' in the co-working space business infringed upon its established mark 'WORKNEST'. While the plaintiff presented evidence of prior domain registration and trademarks, the court found no immediate grounds to grant an interim injunction. The matter was directed to proceed as a full suit for detailed examination.
Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd. v.Culinary Communications Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd., challenging a restraining order issued by the District Judge regarding the use of the 'Culinary Culture' trademark. The appellant argued that the injunction unfairly restricted its business operations in Classes 38 and 42, where it holds registered marks. While the respondents initially sought restraint only in Class-35, the court allowed both parties time to file comprehensive replies and rejoinders before the matter is heard expeditiously by the Trial Court.
Bharat Bhushan Gupta Prop. Bharat Light Machines v.Nitin Mittal Prop. M/S G.K. Trading Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bharat Light Machines regarding its trademark OZOMAX. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deceptively using a similar mark, OZOWAX, and copying the artistic packaging for body massagers. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and the clear imitation of the product packaging.
M/s. M.S.Milk Product v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks Intellectual Property Building, et al.
M/s. M.S. Milk Product filed a Writ Petition seeking an order to expedite the registration process for two trademark applications in Class 29. However, during the hearing before the Madras High Court, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that both trademark applications had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous.
Living Media India Limited & Anr. v.Www.News-Aajtak.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Living Media India Limited, who claimed ownership of the 'AAJ TAK' trademark. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement by various defendants using similar marks in their domain names. Consequently, the court directed the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to immediately block and suspend the infringing websites and take down related content from social media platforms.
Vikas Jain And Anr. v.State Drugs Controller Haryana & Ors.
This petition challenged an order issued by the State Drugs Controller, Haryana, which directed the petitioners to cease using two cosmetic brand names, 'COSMO SILKY' and 'COSMO'. The controller had acted based on the lack of ownership proof in a family dispute pending before the Delhi High Court. The Punjab-Haryana High Court set aside this order, ruling that the regulatory authority overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing a blanket ban while complex trademark disputes were still sub judice.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Indoco Remedies Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to sell approximately 58,000 strips of its generic product APIXABID (Apixaban), which had been manufactured prior to a restrictive injunction being passed by the Single Judge. The court dismissed the application, holding that without a decision on the merits, it could not reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge.
M/S Emco Thr. v.Union Of India Thr.
M/S Emco Thr. approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking intervention against the Trade Marks Registry's inaction regarding a trademark correction application for 'MADHUVAN'. The petitioner argued that due to administrative errors, they were not recognized as the registered owner despite having exclusive rights via an assignment deed and continuous use since 1982. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to adjudicate the pending representation/appeal within a stipulated period of three months.
Capital Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Radiant Indus Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. While the court found that 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' is likely a descriptive and common term, thus denying the injunction against the mark itself, it granted protection for the plaintiff's trade dress/packaging and marketing content. This mixed ruling highlights the distinction between protecting generic product descriptors versus unique visual branding elements in IP law.
Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.
Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
M/s. Cothas Coffee Co. v.Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'Cothas'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Cotha Giri' on coffee products. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit against UPL Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringing its India Patent No. 262428, which covers Boscalid anhydrous Form-II. The court considered affidavits from both parties regarding infringement and R&D activities. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in favor of BASF SE, granting a permanent injunction.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Carneige Institute Of Washington v.Fenix Diamonds Llc
The application sought to execute a Letter Rogatory from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York, requesting deposition testimony, facility inspection, and document production related to patent infringement litigation concerning CVD diamonds. The court partially granted the request by appointing a Principal District Judge in Surat to record witness evidence.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Vision Prime Tech Pvt Ltd
In a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on September 4, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents while also accepting assurances from the defendant. Crucially, the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and provided statements denying the use of the impugned mark in the market. These procedural steps move the case toward a resolution based on the parties' commitments.
Sanjay Lalwani v.M/s.Jyostar Enterprises
Sanjay Lalwani filed an Original Application seeking an interim injunction against M/s. Jyostar Enterprises and others to prevent the alienation and telecasting of copyright and satellite rights for the film “PSV GARDA VEGA”. The applicant claimed that a subsequent assignment of these rights was in contravention of his original Deed of Assignment. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the application, holding that disputes concerning copyrights are generally considered non-arbitrable under established Supreme Court precedents.
VELCRO BVBA v.VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning the 'VELCRO' brand, VELCRO BVBA filed an application seeking an urgent hearing due to allegations that the defendant continued infringing its trademark despite existing interim injunctions. The court noted the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and directed notice to be issued to the defendants for a returnable appearance on November 23, 2020.
FMC Corporation v.Modern Insecticides Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its valid Indian Patent (IN 201307) related to the insecticide Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The plaintiffs, who are co-owners of the patent, claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and exporting the compound, thereby violating their intellectual property rights. Based on the prima facie case presented by FMC Corporation, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Makemytrip India Private Limited v.Wing In Travel Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Makemytrip against Wing In Travel Advisory and others. After hearing arguments, the court accepted an assurance from Defendant No. 1 that it would not bid for, adopt, or use Makemytrip's registered trademarks (MakeMyTrip/MMT) or any deceptively similar variants. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on these terms, without awarding damages or costs to the plaintiff. The court noted that the remaining defendants could not be proceeded against in the current form of the suit.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jindal Industries Private Limited against Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr. The court rejected an application seeking to delete a defendant, noting that the defendant was involved in filing the relevant trademark application for 'JINDAL POWER.' Furthermore, the court disposed of another procedural application regarding the plaint's filing requirements and maintained the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction until further orders.
Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Dream11 Team
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Dream11 Team, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendant was slavishly adopting identical trademarks and logos, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark or similar logos, and the court ordered the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend/block the infringing domain name www.dream11team.com.
M/s Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. v.S.D.Containers
M/s Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. filed a suit before the Commercial Court at Indore against S.D.Containers for infringing their registered designs related to rigid plastic packaging lids and containers. The respondent attempted to transfer the civil suit to the Calcutta High Court under Section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that due to the establishment of Commercial Courts at the District level in MP, the Commercial Court at Indore possessed the necessary jurisdiction and was competent to hear the matter.
Harjit Kaur & Ors. v.Jaywantjit Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'CAMPA,' which is registered to Plaintiff No. 2 (Campa Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, despite not being a shareholder or director, was filing numerous new trademark applications using the CAMPA prefix and managing brand operations. While the court allowed an exemption from filing original documents, it primarily focused on procedural steps for the main suit. Crucially, the court established that Defendant No. 1 is bound by his statement that he has not commenced use of the mark until a final decision is rendered in the ongoing litigation.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Amul Franchise.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. against various parties operating fraudulent websites using the 'AMUL' trademark. The court found that these entities were impersonating and deceiving the public by offering fake dealerships, jobs, and distributorships, thereby causing irreparable harm to the brand. Furthermore, the registrars of the infringing domains were directed to immediately suspend or block the sites, while banks holding accounts related to the fraudulent operations were ordered to disclose account holder details.
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. v.MICRO LABS LIMITED
The plaintiff, AstraZeneca, filed a suit alleging infringement of its genus (IN 147) and species (IN 625) patents for the drug DAPAGLIFLOZIN (brand name FORXIGA). The defendant, Micro Labs Limited, was accused of manufacturing, selling, and seeking approval for generic versions. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Kumar Garments
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kumar Garments alleging that the latter was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas's registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys, leading to the decreeing of the suit.
Astrazenca Ab v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
Astrazenca filed a suit alleging that West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. was manufacturing the drug Dapagliflozin, which is protected by Astrazenca's patents (IN '147 and IN '625). The defendant entered an undertaking acknowledging the validity of the patents and agreeing not to infringe them.
M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries v.Pramod Kumar & Anr.
In a significant resolution for brand owners, M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries successfully secured a decree against Pramod Kumar & Anr. through a comprehensive mutual settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'ROBOTOUCH' trademarks and agreed to cease all use of the mark or deceptively similar marks in relation to wellness products. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing existing trademark registrations and opposition filings related to ROBOTOUCH, ensuring peaceful conduct of the plaintiff's business.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs sought revival of an earlier interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations comprising 'Ceritinib'. The court noted that the initial order was suspended due to the suit patent being revoked. However, since the IPAB subsequently stayed the revocation order, the court revived the original ad interim relief.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Shiv Chetna Hosiery
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Shiv Chetna Hosiery was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas' registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash certain respondent orders and obtain a declaration that patent IN 235625 has lapsed. The court noted the contention regarding delay and latches, which needs to be decided first.
Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning trademark infringement between Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. and Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors. The dispute centered on the use of similar trade names like 'Road Faster' and 'Milan Road Master.' Through a settlement, the respondents agreed to cease using the disputed marks and withdraw their applications for registration. Consequently, the court disposed of the appeal, allowing the appellant to proceed with seeking a decree in the underlying suit.
McDonalds Corporation And Anr v.National Internet Exchange Of India And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of McDonald's Corporation against various defendants accused of fraudulent activities. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiffs, recognizing that the defendants were misusing the 'McDonald's' trademark, Golden Arches Logo, and associated domain names to offer fake franchise opportunities. This crucial order restrained the defendants from infringing on McDonald's intellectual property rights and directed them to freeze relevant bank accounts.
M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal v.Evergreen International (Through Its Proprietor)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal against Evergreen International. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that despite no phonetic similarity between 'GOPAL' and 'KRISHNA', there was clear conceptual similarity and deceptive trade dress. This ruling temporarily halts the defendant's sale of similar chewing tobacco products until the full trial.
Montblanc Simplo Gmbh v.Montblancindia.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued crucial interim directions in favor of Montblanc Simplo Gmbh against alleged counterfeiters. Recognizing ongoing illegal activities, including the sale of fake products using the registered trademark and the use of an infringing website, the court ordered the immediate freezing of specific bank accounts linked to the defendants. Furthermore, it directed the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend the problematic website, www.virtuindia.co.in, protecting public interest while the main litigation proceeds.
Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. v.M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction favoring Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. against M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's distinctive trademark (FK/) and associated artistic logo/trade dress for manufacturing and selling bearings. Given that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in its favor, the court issued a restraining order against all defendants from dealing in the infringing goods until further hearing.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.M/S. Mobil House
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation against M/S. Mobil House, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark 'Mobil' for lubricant oils, while the defendant was using it in their trade name, causing market confusion. Consequently, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the disputed mark across all platforms until further hearing.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which rejected its Patent Application. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked reasoning, failed to consider foreign patent grants for the same invention, and did not properly analyze the prior art cited against the claimed invention. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Cleanchem Laboratories Llp
The plaintiffs, owners of Indian Suit Patent IN 209816 for SITAGLIPTIN, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was selling and dealing in SITAGLIPTIN without a license. The court found prima facie evidence of violation and granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. v.Alexi Pharmicia & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. against Alexi Pharmicia & Anr. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Danone's proprietary rights, including its registered trademark 'PROTINEX,' trade dress, and associated copyrights, by the defendants who were selling a deceptively similar product under the mark 'PROTILEX.' The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Network18 Media & Investments Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, Tv Today Network Limited alleged that Network18 Media & Investments Limited was slavishly copying its marks, including "DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI" and "AGENDA AAJ TAK." While the court allowed procedural applications for both parties, it also noted disputes regarding the abandonment of certain marks. Crucially, the defendant provided an undertaking to refrain from using the registered mark 'DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI' pending further judicial review.
ABP Private Limited & Anr. v.Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata & Ors.
The petitioners challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks for allegedly treating several trade mark applications as 'abandoned' without following the prescribed statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the procedure laid down in Section 132 and Rule 38(4) and (5) was not followed, despite the petitioner sending a reply to the objection.
Anhueser Busch Llc v.Rishav Sharma & Ors
Anhueser Busch LLC successfully obtained an ad interim injunction against Rishav Sharma and others in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory videos published on social media platforms were infringing its registered 'Budweiser' trademark and causing commercial disparagement by falsely depicting employees urinating in the beer. The court found a prima facie case existed, granting immediate relief to prevent further harm until the final hearing.
Raf Stationery Mfg Co. v.Ms Goel Trading Co Through Its Proprietor Mr Ankur Goel & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Raf Stationery Mfg Co. against Ms Goel Trading Co. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was infringing on the plaintiff's common law trademark rights by using deceptively similar marks, specifically 'DIGITAL PLUS+' and 'GTC DIGITAL PLUS+'. Given the extensive use of the plaintiff's marks and the potential for irreparable harm to its commercial interests, the defendants were immediately restrained from manufacturing or selling the disputed products.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against the defendants, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks and logos (like STANDARD, STANGUARD, and HOMESAFE) by the respondents for electrical products. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess common law rights in these brands due to long-term usage. Consequently, the defendants were directed to suspend exports and disclose their manufacturing sources pending further hearings.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. v.Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in the Delhi High Court against Hexalac Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding the use of a similar mark for infant food products. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark DEXOLAC, alleged that former employees were manufacturing and selling competing products under the name HEXALAC. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss while the suit proceeds.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.T.V.S.Motor Company Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant was infringing his Patent No.182682, which covered a specific four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the TVS Flame -125cc. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit due to his severe health conditions.
M/s.Puravankara Projects Limited v.Saurabh Singh
M/s.Puravankara Projects Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against defendants, including Saurabh Singh, Godaddy India, Google India, M/s.Godaddy.com LLC, and Google Inc. The suit alleged trademark infringement (under No.1185286) and copyright infringement related to the name 'PURAVANKARA' and its artistic label, primarily concerning deceptive use of domain names and websites. Although the initial claims sought damages and injunctions, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their authorized signatory to withdraw the suit as the principal claim had been redressed.
New Bharat Overseas v.Kian Agro Processing Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'TAJ MAHAL' used for rice. While the plaintiff holds Indian registration, the court noted that a Saudi Arabian entity also possesses similar trademark rights in its country of origin. The court allowed both parties time to file detailed written statements and granted an undertaking from the defendant not to sell or distribute the product outside India and Saudi Arabia. Crucially, the court directed the plaintiff to array the foreign entity as a party, indicating that the matter requires further examination regarding international trademark rights.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
This order from the Delhi High Court addresses procedural matters in the dispute between Indoco Remedies Ltd. and Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company regarding the trademark 'APIXABID'. The court allowed certain exemption applications while also granting time to the respondents to file a reply concerning objections raised against the sale of 58,000 strips under the brand name.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
The plaintiff, BASF SE, filed a suit claiming infringement of its patent (IN-262428) covering the superior anhydrous-II form of the fungicide BOSCALID. The defendant, UPL Limited, appeared and submitted that no valid patent existed for the specific anhydrous-II form at the time they applied for licenses, asserting their use was limited to R&D.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This case involved multiple Commercial Arbitration Petitions challenging arbitral awards related to a licensing agreement for transgenic Bt. cotton seeds. The petitioner claimed rights to royalty fees and technology transfer, while the respondent defended the award which allowed monetary claims made by them. The Court dismissed all arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality in the impugned award.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioners challenged several arbitral awards related to licensing agreements for Bt. cotton seeds, arguing that the respondent failed to transfer technology and was liable to pay royalties. The Bombay High Court dismissed all commercial arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Union Of India
Astrazeneca challenged an order from the Patent Office that directed immediate publication of its granted patent (IN 235625) due to a clerical error. The petitioner argued that this belated direction, after 11 years, would prejudice them by effectively extending the statutory limitation period for post-grant opposition beyond one year as stipulated in Section 25(2).
UPL Limited v.Modern Insecticides Limited
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its statutory rights by exporting and intending to manufacture a product covered by patent IN 244551. The composition in question is a synergistic herbicide comprising Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a Sub-Licence Agreement related to the use of transgenic cotton seeds with Bt. traits. The petitioner claims that the respondent has not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and has charged excessive trait values. The petitioner and respondent entered into a Special License Agreement for the sale of Bt. cotton seeds. The respondent alleged patent infringement and sought recovery of trait fees, while the petitioner challenged the validity of the SLA under competition law. The petitioner entered into a Sub-Licence Agreement with the respondent for the use of technology and payment of trait fees. Disputes arose regarding the payment of these fees, leading to arbitration proceedings. The respondent claimed unpaid trait fees from the petitioner under a 2015 service level agreement. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing the monetary claims.
M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Mr. Roger Aoun
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash against Mr. Roger Aoun regarding the use of the trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND'. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of cosmetics and mehandi products, alleged that the defendant was deceptively adopting their registered mark. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the disputed mark until further hearing.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Amber Confectionery Pvt Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a civil suit concerning trademark infringement related to the 'TANGY TWIST' tag line and accompanying trade dress. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court formally accepted and decreed. Crucially, the judgment noted that this settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by the defendants and will not bind any third party.
M/S Aman Engineering Works v.Registrar, Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi & Anr.
M/S Aman Engineering Works challenged the Trade Mark Registry's decision to allow review applications filed years after trademark applications were allegedly abandoned due to non-attendance at hearings. The Petitioner argued that the Senior Examiner lacked jurisdiction to condone delays far exceeding statutory limits, citing Supreme Court precedent. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner and granted an interim stay on the impugned orders while further legal issues regarding the condonation of over 16 years of delay are examined.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an application by the Plaintiff, Rajkumar Sabu, allowing for the appointment of Local Commissioners. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'SACHAMOTI' by the Defendants, who continued to sell products bearing the registration symbol (®) despite prior court orders prohibiting such usage. The commissioners were authorized to inspect premises, seize infringing goods and packaging, and take related documentation.
Fmc Corporation & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited of their Indian Patents IN 201307 and IN 213332, covering the molecule Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The defendant challenged the plaint through various applications. This order addressed these interim applications.
Gallup Inc. v.Impetus Research Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Gallup Inc. against Impetus Research Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized Gallup's well-known status and extensive global trademark registrations, noting that the defendant's use of 'GALLUP' could cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff's goodwill. This order allows the suit to proceed with immediate protection for the brand.
Mount Everest Breweries Limited v.State of Madhya Pradesh
Mount Everest Breweries Limited and United Breweries Limited filed a Writ Petition challenging the inaction of the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the infringement of their IP rights. The petitioners alleged that unauthorized breweries were illegally using their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrighted artistic features on bottles, often replacing them with products from other manufacturers. This practice was causing significant losses and consumer risk due to faulty bottling. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the State authorities to take appropriate action and provide a reasoned response to the petitioners' prior representations within sixty days.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Brainlink International, Inc. & Anr.
In a dispute concerning the domain name www.hindustan.com, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between Ht Media Limited and Brainlink International. The court suggested that if the defendants agree to pay an agreed lump sum in costs, they will withdraw all oppositions filed against the plaintiff's trademarks and also drop their suit in the USA. This arrangement aims to bring a definitive end to the ongoing disputes between both parties.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH & Anr. v.Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and its associates filed a suit alleging that Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on their patented compound, Rivaroxaban (IN 211300). The plaintiff contended that the defendant was exporting finished pharmaceutical products containing Rivaroxaban to foreign entities in commercial quantities. Despite the lack of domestic launch by the defendant, the court held that such exports constituted 'use in India' under the Patents Act. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bayer.
USV Private Limited v.Martin And Brown Bio Sciences
In this Delhi High Court order, USV Private Limited sought relief against Martin And Brown Bio Sciences regarding alleged trademark infringement. While the court allowed both parties to submit further documentation and cure deficiencies, it also issued a temporary restraint on the defendant from using the disputed or similar trademarks. The proceedings were set for further action, including a potential joint application to dispose of the suit.
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
USV Private Limited v.Paksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of USV Private Limited against Paksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark for 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' could mislead consumers into believing the product originated from the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing trademark until further hearing.
Delhivery Private Limited v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Private Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of the deceptively similar mark 'DELIVERE' by the defendant, which closely resembles Delhivery's registered trademark 'DELHIVERY'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from using the infringing mark across its goods and services until further proceedings.
USV Private Limited v.Akme Biotec
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of USV Private Limited against Akme Biotec. The court found that USV had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, noting that the defendant was attempting to capitalize on the goodwill associated with USV's registered marks (VI-SYNERAL/VISYNERAL). Consequently, the defendant and its associates were restrained from using any deceptively similar trademarks until further orders.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Mahadev Confectionery & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters concerning trademark disputes between Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. and Mahadev Confectionery & Ors. In the main suit, the matter was adjourned to allow further negotiation regarding a proposed change of trademark by the defendants. Separately, the court issued notice for an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, setting a date for the defendant's reply.
Astrazenca Ab v.Ajanta Pharma Ltd.
The court heard an application seeking condonation of a 6-day delay by the defendant, which was granted. The court also directed the parties regarding the filing of written statements and clarified the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) held by Astrazenca Ab.
Astrazenca Ab & Anr v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard the matter concerning suit patents held by Astrazenca Ab & Anr against West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. The court addressed the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) and accepted an undertaking from the defendant that they do not manufacture or sell infringing products related to Dapagliflozin.
Condor Footwear Limited v.Rajesh Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Condor Footwear Limited against Rajesh Jain, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant's proposed trademark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'AEROWALK' and was being used for the same goods (footwear). Given the potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff's established business interests, the court issued an immediate stay on the use of the disputed marks.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Volvo, granting permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing and passing off the 'VOLVO' trademark. The court also ordered the transfer of specific domain names held by other defendants to Volvo. Furthermore, substantial damages were awarded to Volvo against those who willfully used the mark while evading legal proceedings, reinforcing the principle that evasion does not shield commercial gain.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Honour Lab Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Honour Lab Limited was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN (an API for diabetes treatment). The plaintiffs sought interim relief against the defendant's alleged commercial supply of the patented API.
Ms Industries And Spirits P Ltd v.M/S. Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt ...
This appeal challenged the orders passed by the City Civil Court that granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in a suit concerning alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The plaintiff claimed their 'Officer's Choice' brand was being copied by the defendant's 'Manjeera Classic No.1 Whisky'. However, the Telangana High Court set aside these initial injunction orders, finding that the lower court failed to provide adequate reasons for granting the ex parte relief as mandated by law. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh and balanced adjudication.
Ms Industries And Spirits P Ltd v.M/S. Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt ...
This appeal challenged the grant of ex parte ad interim injunctions by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The original suit involved allegations of trademark and copyright infringement (passing off) concerning alcoholic beverages, specifically comparing 'Officer's Choice' with 'Manjeera Classic No.1 Whisky'. However, the Telangana High Court ultimately set aside these injunction orders, finding that the lower court failed to provide reasons for granting the ex parte relief as mandated by law.
Ms Industries And Spirits P Ltd v.M/S. Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt ...
This appeal challenged the grant of ex parte ad interim injunctions by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The original suit involved allegations of trademark and copyright infringement (passing off) concerning alcoholic beverages, specifically comparing 'Officer's Choice' with 'Manjeera Classic No.1 Whisky'. However, the Telangana High Court did not rule on the merits of the IP dispute but instead focused on procedural lapses. The court found that the lower court failed to record reasons for granting the ex parte injunctions as mandated by law, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the orders.
M/s Audioplus v.Manoj Nagar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s Audioplus against Manoj Nagar regarding trademark infringement. Audioplus, owner of the registered mark 'STUDIOMASTER' for audio equipment, alleged that Nagar was attempting to capitalize on its reputation using deceptively similar marks like 'STUDIOMIN' and 'STUDIOMAN'. The court found that Audioplus had established a prima facie case and granted immediate relief, restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademarks pending the full trial.
Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico, S. De R.L. de C.V. v.Whiskin Spirits Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico regarding its registered trademark 'CORONA'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using social media advertisements that disparaged its product by likening it to Coronavirus. The court found a prima facie case for disparagement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff's statutory and commercial interests, temporarily halting the offending advertisement.
Darshan Singh & Sons (Huf) v.Baldev Singh Trading As M/S Madaan Plastic Industry & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Darshan Singh & Sons (Huf) challenging an injunction preventing them from using the trademark 'House of Madaan'. The court found that the respondent, Baldev Singh Trading As M/S Madaan Plastic Industry, was the prior and exclusive owner of the similar mark 'MADAAN' since 2003. Although the appeal was dismissed, the parties reached a settlement where the injunction was modified into a comprehensive undertaking by the appellant to cease using the disputed trademark until the final disposal of the suit.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The petitioner seeks to quash an interim order by the IPAB that stayed the revocation of a patent. The case involves a post-grant opposition filed by the petitioner against the patent granted to respondent No.3.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought the discovery of two sets of documents from the defendant: those concerning the manufacturing process of optical fibre and sales data. The court allowed the discovery of sales documents, requiring the defendant to file its audited balance sheet. However, the court denied the immediate necessity of discovering the manufacturing process documents, stating that the initial burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling fruit candies under a phonetically similar mark ('PULLS') and using deceptively similar packaging to the registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and granted relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the Plaintiff was granted a permanent injunction and compensation for loss of profits. The Defendants were directed to render accounts of profits and pay a specified amount to the Plaintiff.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking action under Contempt of Court because defendant No.1 submitted a tender offering for the sale of Apixaban, despite a prior interim injunction restraining them from dealing in any infringing product covered by Indian Patent No. IN 247381. The court issued show cause notices to the Chairman and Director of defendant No.1 regarding potential contempt proceedings.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Mega Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a copyright infringement suit filed by Triumphant Institute of Management against Mega Limited. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's claims regarding its registered trademark 'TIME' and copyrighted study materials. However, recognizing the intermediary status of the defendant, the court issued an interim order stipulating that the defendant must take down infringing content only upon receiving specific notice (URLs) from the plaintiff, aligning with safe harbor provisions under the IT Act.
M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
Yanka Industries Inc. v.Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd.
In a settlement order issued by the Delhi High Court, Yanka Industries Inc. and Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd. reached an agreement regarding trademark infringement concerns. The defendant agreed to change its trademark and logo from 'Master School' to 'Celebrity School' within two weeks. Furthermore, Starnet Masterschool committed to transferring the domain name www.masterschool.in to Yanka Industries, disclosing subscriber details, and removing infringing content from social media platforms.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
The suit was originally filed by Shogun Organics Ltd seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its process patent (IN236630) related to D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The current application sought permission to sell existing manufactured stock prior to the final judgment. The court allowed the sale but directed the defendants to pay 5% of the sales value and deposit costs.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd v.Chetan Gupta
In a trademark infringement suit concerning confectionery products, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('PLUSS+') and trade dress for their fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the registered 'PULSE' brand. Citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendant from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. against Jayesh Pahilajrai Ramani &Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a phonetically and visually similar mark ('PLUSS') and trade dress to sell fruit candies, causing consumer confusion with the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that granting relief was necessary to protect its commercial interests.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Angels Pharma India Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Angels Pharma India Private Limited was attempting to manufacture and infringe its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted interim relief.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Healing Pharma India. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's trademark and trade dress were deceptively similar, specifically mimicking the plaintiff's 'rising sun' motif. While the court allowed procedural applications for document filing and curing deficiencies, it also moved forward with the litigation by ordering summons to be issued in the main suit.
Sun Mobility Private Limited v.Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu
The appeal challenged an order that appointed a Scientific Advisor to adjudicate a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff claimed his patents covered specific EV battery charging systems, while defendants were accused of infringing with 'quick interchange station' technology. The High Court confirmed the single judge's order appointing the Scientific Advisor and dismissed the appeal.
SAP SE v.ERP TRAINING INDIA & ORS.
SAP SE successfully secured a comprehensive interim injunction against ERP Training India and associated parties in the Delhi High Court. The court found prima facie evidence of trademark and copyright infringement related to unauthorized online SAP training courses. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to immediately deactivate websites, domains, email addresses, block specific IP access points, and freeze bank accounts linked to the infringing activities.