Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 12901–13000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
This appeal challenges a single judge's decision that appellants (Monsanto) were governed by both the Competition Act, 2002, and the Patents Act, 1970. The core dispute revolves around whether competition law proceedings are applicable when patented seeds are involved. The court allowed several applications and issued an interim restraint on the CCI from finalizing its report pending further hearing.
USV Private Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' on pharmaceutical labels. The plaintiff, USV Private Limited, alleged that the defendant's product used emphasized letters ('M', 'V', 'I') in a manner confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered mark. In a significant development, the court accepted the defendant's willingness to modify the label and remove the disputed words, directing them to file an affidavit confirming this commitment.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Anwar Ali
Adidas AG and its Indian subsidiary filed a suit against Mr. Anwar Ali for infringing their registered trademarks ("adidas", "three bars", etc.) and copyrights on shoes and accessories. The court found that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, and selling inferior quality goods using deceptively similar marks, causing damage to Adidas' reputation.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Mr. Anwar Ali
The plaintiff, Nike Innovate C.V., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing identical or deceptively similar 'Nike' trademarks and logos in Delhi. The court found that the defendant was causing confusion and deception among the public by using falsified marks on inferior quality goods.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Ors.
Jagran Prakashan Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Telegram FZ LLC in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that users on Telegram were illegally distributing and downloading copyrighted e-papers of Dainik Jagran through various public channels, causing significant financial loss. The court ruled that Telegram, as an intermediary, must exercise due diligence under IT laws and was directed to immediately block the infringing channels and disclose the identities of the channel owners.
GS1 India v.Barcodes Sl & Ors
GS1 India successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against a competitor operating barcode allocation websites. GS1, the sole licensed body in India for issuing standardized barcodes starting with '890', alleged that Defendant No. 1 was illegally allocating non-compliant and unverifiable codes, causing consumer deception. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of GS1, granting the injunction to protect its trademark rights and prevent irreparable harm to both itself and innocent customers.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh filed a suit against Morepen Laboratories Ltd alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 211300, which covers Rivaroxaban. The defendant admitted to making commercial use before expiry due to a miscommunication regarding the patent's expiration date. Both parties agreed that the suit could be decreed in terms of permanent injunction, leading to the final disposal of the case.
fdc limited v.zodley pharmaceuticals pvt ltd
FDC Limited sued Zodley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its registered trademark ZIPOD (Class 5 - pharmaceuticals) alleging that Zodley was using the deceptively similar mark ZOPOD. FDC claimed ZOPOD had been in use since 2007 and achieved significant sales, while Zodley applied to register ZOPOD later.
Shamoil Ahmad Khan v.Falguni Shah And 3 Ors
The plaintiff, a writer, filed a notice of motion seeking temporary injunction against the defendants for telecasting or adapting their web series titled 'Singardaan', claiming both copyright infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants copied not only the title but also the entire plot and characters from his original story. The court ultimately decided to set aside the request for a full injunction, directing the parties toward trial while imposing interim restraints.
G4S Plc.(Formerly Known As Group 4 Securicor Plc) v.G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and the core claim of trademark infringement brought by G4S Plc against G4 Excellence Management Security Solutions Private Limited. While granting various procedural exemptions, the court specifically dealt with an application seeking an ad interim injunction. The court found that before deciding on the merits of the infringement claim—where G4S alleged deceptive similarity using marks like 'G4EX' and 'G4 Excellence'—the defendant must be granted a full opportunity to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendant for a hearing scheduled in June 2020.
Vidya Mandir Classes Limited v.Swastik Classes Private Ltd &Others
In this intellectual property dispute concerning educational services, the Delhi High Court issued an order addressing interim relief. The defendants committed to ceasing the use of the plaintiff's registered trademark and returning existing course materials. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to refer the ongoing disputes to sole arbitration, while also agreeing to provide a list of affected students to determine their future enrollment.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited v.Competition Commission Of India
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited challenged several orders issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concerning allegations of unfair trade practices related to the 'trait fee' charged for using Bt. Cotton technology. The core dispute revolved around the licensing terms and recurring fees imposed by MMBL, a subsidiary in India. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the CCI's administrative orders, provided they were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp And Anr v.Oceanic Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin and its salts. The plaintiff submitted evidence showing the defendant's online presence advertising and selling infringing Sitagliptin Phosphate API in India. Based on this prima-facie case, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in the infringing product.
Kamal Kishore Arora v.Central Public Information Officer, Trade Marks Registry
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking detailed particulars of trade mark registration applications that were unlawfully accepted, withdrawn, and the subsequent disciplinary action taken against concerned Examiners. The CPIO initially denied providing certain information citing exemptions under the RTI Act. The Commission found the CPIO's reply misleading regarding complaints received by the organization and directed a revised response.
Pfizer Inc v.Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging infringement of two Indian Patents, IN 209251 (Sunitinib) and IN 268331 (Tigecycline composition). The defendants agreed to the permanent injunction and offered compensation. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Sungro Seeds Ltd v.Sk Tripathi & Ors
Sungro Seeds Ltd filed a suit alleging that its ex-employees misappropriated confidential information, including parent lines and breeding strategies for its hybrid cauliflower 'Katreena', which was then used by a competitor to market an identical variety named 'Riya'. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of trade secrets and unfair competition. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without prior registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act), the plaintiff could not maintain a suit to restrain infringement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Everest Organics Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Organics Limited for infringing its registered patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was developing and preparing to commercialize an infringing product. Based on the prima facie case presented, the Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Pfizer Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 241773 and 218212, which cover Tofacitinib (XELJANZ(R)). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants were illegally manufacturing and selling generic versions under the brand 'TOFAXEN'.
R.K. Patel And Company, Tobacco Processors v.Jaju Tobacco Company
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a District Court's order that granted a temporary injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the defendant's packaging was sufficiently similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress (yellow colour pouch/packet) to warrant injunctive relief. This ruling reinforces the importance of visual similarity and consumer perception in protecting trademarks within the tobacco industry.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by Kanishk Sinha against the Union of India. The court noted that the petitioner's patent application had been accepted online, substantially addressing his grievance.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, holding patents and licenses for Sitagliptin (under trade names ISTAVEL and ISTAMET), filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling the drug under the brand name TwoTrack, thereby infringing their patent. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction.
Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone & Next Gen Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v.Actial Farmaceutica Srl. (Formerly known as CD Investment Srl.) & Ors.
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership over the 'De Simone Formulation' through patent rights and subsequent Know-How agreements, filed suit against CD Group entities. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff retained proprietary rights (trade secrets) after the initial patent expired in 2015. The court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without a valid patent right in India, the plaintiffs lacked a personal cause of action to restrain the defendants from working or selling the formulation.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Snapdeal Private Limited against M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing and tarnishing Snapdeal's registered trademark, not only through its use but also through false advertising claims. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the phrase "everything cheaper than Snapdeal" across all social media platforms pending further hearings.
D & H India Ltd v.Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned a suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd against D & H India Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'SUPERON'. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the respondent could amend its plaint to establish prior user rights for 'SUPERON' since 1994. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the appellant, who had ample opportunity to contest the claim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Triveni Interchem Private Limited, was selling and advertising various compositions of Sitagliptin without taking any license. The plaintiff holds a valid patent for Sitagliptin.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
Bharat Bhogilal Patel v.Nokia Corporations & Ors
The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal against a judgment decreeing the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. The original suit declared that the processes and machinery used by the plaintiff did not infringe the appellant's patents (189027 and 188787) and granted permanent injunction restraining the appellant from threatening infringement proceedings. The appeal was dismissed primarily due to the failure of the appellant to prove sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay.
Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Office of the Trade Marks Registry
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd against various IP authorities, including The Controller General of Patents and Designs. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the case, which was subsequently granted by the court. This dismissal allows the petitioner to pursue their rights through other appropriate legal channels.
M/s Purva Metal Sections Pvt.Ltd. v.Sri. K. Bhoopathi
The plaintiff, M/s Purva Metal Sections Pvt.Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Sri. K. Bhoopathi, alleging that the defendant was interfering with its lawful business of manufacturing and selling steel tubes (175mm and 180mm OD). The dispute centered on the defendant's claim of exclusive copyright over the drawings/technology used for these specific steel tubes.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the validity of a patent by questioning the vires of Section 64 of the Patents Act. The Union of India admitted the stand taken by the petitioner in its affidavit-in-opposition, leading the Calcutta High Court to dispose of the writ petition.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Harish Chaudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv against Harish Chaudhary & Anr. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its 'IKEA' trademark, along with its trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar marks, and were also ordered to suspend specific domain names and social media accounts until further orders.
Coffee Board, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India v.Trade Marks Registry
The Coffee Board filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious consideration and registration of specific trademark applications. The Trade Marks Registry responded by confirming that the applications had already been accepted, advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, and would proceed to registration subject to standard legal provisions. Given this confirmation from the Respondent, the High Court found no further order necessary and dismissed the writ petition.
Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
V Guard Industries Ltd. v.Taisong Chong And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd., preventing the defendants from transferring or registering the disputed domain name, www.vguard.com. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the defendant was acting as a cyber squatter to exploit the plaintiff's established trademark rights. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that administrative decisions under ICANN dispute resolution mechanisms are not binding adjudications and do not prevent civil litigation.
Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Emami Limited
This order sheet details an application filed by Emami Limited seeking the transfer of a title suit from the Additional District Judge to the Calcutta High Court. The original suit involved allegations of infringement concerning trademark, passing off, copyright, and design against Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. Citing Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, the court allowed the transfer application.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya v.A. Hafsabi & Anr.
The plaintiff, Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against A. Hafsabi & Anr. for infringement and passing off related to his brand KIMIA (wet dates). The plaintiff holds registered rights in the word mark KIMIA and its original artistic label. The court found that the defendants' use of 'KIMAA' and 'KEEMA' under pirated artwork was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion.
Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan v.Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic
The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order in this trademark dispute, allowing the matter to proceed toward final disposal. The petitioner secured a stay on the previous trial court's injunction order, while simultaneously receiving assurances from the defendant that they would comply with the interim injunction and cease using the disputed trademark during the pendency of the case.
Japan Tobacco v.D.Jhamnadas
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex dispute between Japan Tobacco and D.Jhamnadas, involving multiple IP claims. While the defendant relies on their registered trademark 'CAMEL,' the plaintiff asserts claims based on copyright and passing off. The court allowed the suit to proceed despite the pending Supreme Court appeal regarding the trademark registration, directing both parties to file detailed written submissions.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
This case involves an application by Defendant No. 3 seeking to restrict the participation of the plaintiffs' internal expert, Dr. Samir Sagitrao, in the inspection of confidential clinical and pre-clinical test data related to a biosimilar drug. The court ultimately dismissed the applicant's request, emphasizing that defendants have a right to defend the suit without being deprived of opportunity due to non-disclosure.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Union Of India & Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the exclusive use of the geographical name 'GOA' in relation to gin. Following a partial rectification by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which limited exclusivity only to the label mark, Radico Khaitan Limited challenged this decision. The court issued an interim order staying the IPAB's judgment, clarifying that the partial rectification does not grant public domain status to the word 'GOA,' thereby protecting the petitioner's statutory rights against third-party misuse.
Vishnu Kant & Ors v.Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark infringement suit, Vishnu Kant & Ors vs Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors. The court settled several key issues, including whether the plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark 'CURRIMAKERS' and their entitlement to injunctions and rendition of accounts. The parties were directed to file witness lists and affidavits within specified timelines, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial.
Shemford Schools Private Limited & Anr. v.R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Shemford Schools Private Limited against R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off of the registered trademark 'SHEMFORD' by the defendants, who were operating schools under similar names like 'SHAMFORD'. Given the virtual identity between the marks and the potential for consumer confusion in the educational sector, the court found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss without immediate protection.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a patent infringement suit concerning several Ericsson patents related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G technology. The court framed issues regarding whether the patents are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), whether there is infringement by Gionee, and whether the plaintiff complied with FRAND commitments.
Lupin Ltd. v.Union Of India And Ors.
Lupin Ltd. challenged the NPPA's stance that it should have sought prior permission before launching an FDC drug (Empagliflozin and Metformin Hydrochloride), relying on a product patent exemption under Para 32(i) of DPCO, 2013. The court recognized the legal ambiguity regarding whether prior approval or mere intimation is required to avail this exemption.
M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D S Foods And Ors.
The plaintiff, M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunction and recovery against its franchisees (defendants) for unauthorized use of the 'Sagar Ratna' trademark after termination of the franchise agreement. The defendants argued that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause in the original agreement, making the court suit non-maintainable.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited infringed upon its registered trademarks and committed passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'EDREAM 11' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'DREAM 11', especially given that both platforms offered identical paid fantasy sports services online. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark.
Tulsyan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. v.R.R. Enterprises & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement related to rice products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. The court directed the defendants (D1 and D2) to provide a detailed reply affidavit within three weeks regarding the supply chain of the impugned goods. Additionally, an application by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking permission to sell non-infringing packaging was dismissed as withdrawn. The suit remains listed for issue settlement on April 28, 2020.
Cde Asia Limited v.Jaideep Shekhar & Anr.
Cde Asia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Jaideep Shekhar and others for infringing its patent (No. 307249) and registered design (No. 262629) related to material classification systems used in mining and sand aggregate production. The defendant challenged the plaint, arguing that the suit was premature as it was filed before the one-year period required for post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act had lapsed. Additionally, the defense contested the court's territorial jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the application challenging the plaint, allowing the infringement suit to proceed.
Roche Products (India) Private Limited v.Cadila Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs, including Roche Products and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, challenged the validity of drug approvals granted by the DCGI and DoB to Cadila Healthcare Ltd. for its biosimilar product 'Trastuzumab'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given the regulatory framework, specifically concerning appeal provisions under the Drugs Rules.
M/s.ADD PRINT [INDIA] ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v.M/S.LAMBA MARKETING SYSTEMS AND M/S.LAMBA STAMPS AND SIGNS
This civil suit was filed alleging infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks ('SUN STAMPER') and designs (Box type pre inked rubber Stamp, Reg. No. 207586) by the defendants using 'STAMP ONE'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages against the alleged infringers. However, despite multiple opportunities to depose its witness over a period of nearly twelve years, the plaintiff failed to appear in court.
Novartis Ag v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
The plaintiffs own the patent for the compound 'NILOTINIB', which is valid until July 4, 2023. The defendant announced the launch of a product based on NILOTINIB, which the plaintiffs claim infringes their patent.
Izhar Ali & Anr. v.M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar, Palri Bagh, Bahraich & Anr.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a civil revision filed by Izhar Ali & Anr. against M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar. The defendants argued that since 'Sikka Namkin' was not registered as a trademark, the suit seeking injunction was barred by law. However, the court clarified that under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a claim for passing off action can be maintained even in respect of an unregistered trademark. Consequently, the challenge to the lower court's rejection of the application failed.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Provident Housing Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking a three-month adjournment under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. The court emphasized that for this provision to apply, the defendant must explicitly plead in their formal pleadings that the plaintiff's trade mark is invalid. Despite the defendant raising indirect challenges to validity in other documents, the court held that the absence of a direct plea meant the statutory requirements were not met, thus denying the request for time to file a rectification petition.
Trulines Technologies Through Ashish Kuashikbhai Patel v.State Of Gujarat
Trulines Technologies challenged the investigation process, arguing that the machines were not analyzed by a government-recognized expert qualified under the Patent Act. The court examined the validity of the existing report and the expertise of the person who conducted the examination.
Kinjal Ramesh Savla v.Euphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit between Kinjal Ramesh Savla and Euphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd., recognizing the complexity arising from conflicting trademarks ('Buckaroo' vs 'Walkaroo'). The court granted both parties leave to apply for rectification of their respective trademarks before the Appellate Board, ensuring that the underlying validity issues are addressed first. Furthermore, the defendant's application regarding perjury was adjourned until the main suit hearing.
Kanishk Sinha v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a title suit seeking accounts, delivery of products, and permanent/mandatory injunction against defendants for infringing his patent rights related to eco-friendly e-rikshaws. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction and failure to comply with Section 80(2) CPC. This appeal challenged the impugned order.
S K Cosmetics v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge filed by S K Cosmetics against the Trademark Registry's changes in online records. The core issue was whether filing Forms TM-33 or TM-34 could unilaterally change the ownership of a registered trademark. The court clarified that these forms are strictly for changing descriptions or addresses, not for transferring proprietary rights. Any change in ownership must be processed through the appropriate assignment form (TM-P), ensuring due process and allowing interested parties to object.
Essdee Industries Through Proprietor Sridhar Velangi v.Esbee Electrotech LLP
This Civil Writ Petition was filed by Essdee Industries against Esbee Electrotech LLP, challenging a previous court order. The impugned order allowed the respondent/plaintiff to conditionally withdraw their composite suit, granting them the liberty to file two separate suits concerning alleged trademark and design infringement of their rights. The Bombay High Court proceeded with issuing notice in this appeal.
M/S Hi-Tech Products Private Limited v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an erroneous order passed by the Trademark Registry that had treated trademark assignment applications as disposed of due to alleged non-response. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated, using online registry records, that their replies were indeed filed and uploaded within the stipulated time. The court emphasized the need for the Examiner to properly check digital records before making administrative decisions, directing the Registry to process the assignments afresh.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. And 2 Others v.Prashant Goenka And 11 Others
The Bombay High Court addressed a contempt petition alleging breach of an interim order concerning the use of 'INDIAN EXPRESS' trademarks and Ramnath Goenka's copyrighted photographs. After the respondents unconditionally apologized for the inadvertent breaches, the court directed digital platforms (YouTube and Facebook) to remove specified infringing URLs. The primary contempt petition was thus disposed of, while a separate application seeking rejection of the plaint against one defendant was remanded for further hearing.
Unilever Plc. v.Deepak Talreja
The petitioner, Unilever Plc., filed an interim application seeking various reliefs. The court granted leave for the plaintiff to combine the cause of action of passing off with that of infringement. Ad-interim orders were continued, including a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using trade dress or marks deceptively similar to 'BROOKE BOND RED LABEL and the U-Logo' in the tea industry.
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited v.Dsp Realty
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited filed an interim application alleging passing off against Dsp Realty, citing the use of the similar word 'DSP'. The Plaintiff, a major player in financial services, claimed substantial goodwill associated with its marks. Given that the Defendant failed to appear and provide a defense, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction. This order restricts the Defendant from using the mark containing 'DSP' in related financial sectors, protecting the Plaintiff's market reputation.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The plaintiffs, owners of Patent IN-381 covering the molecule APIXABAN (Eliquis®), filed a suit against Bdr Pharmaceuticals for allegedly manufacturing and intending to supply generic versions of this patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding infringement and the validity of the patent based on prior art documents submitted by the defendant.
M/s.Taranga Technologies v.M/s.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The appeal was filed against an order dismissing an application seeking to revoke leave granted in a suit for infringement of registered design and passing off. The core dispute revolved around whether the appellant's involvement in a national tender, which included supply within Chennai jurisdiction, provided sufficient grounds for the court to exercise territorial jurisdiction.
Galatea Ltd. v.Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited
Galatea Ltd. filed an application arguing that the trial court failed to appoint a local commissioner to inspect premises and inventory alleged infringing evidence related to patent infringement. The petitioners contended that notice alone risked the destruction or removal of evidence. The High Court agreed, granting the application for the appointment of seven commissioners.
Galatea Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Saira Rana v.M. Kantilal Exports
Galatea Ltd. filed an application seeking the appointment of a court commissioner for local inspection and inventory regarding alleged patent infringement, arguing that issuing notice would lead to the removal or destruction of evidence. The Court agreed with the petitioners' apprehension and granted the application.
M/s.Diabliss Consumers Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Diabliss Consumers Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. alleging copyright infringement regarding the artistic design used on its 'Diabliss Diabetic Friendly Sugar' pouches. The plaintiff demonstrated prior creation and use of the unique artistic design since 2015, which was subsequently copied by the defendant for their product, Diabeat. The Madras High Court found that the background, color, and overall get-up of the defendant's pouch were identically similar to the plaintiff's protected design.
Mohtimbas Engineering Pvt.Ltd. v.Machine N Tools And 4 Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' notice of motion in a commercial IP suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants were selling identical goods in an identical trade dress, constituting not just passing off but dealing in counterfeit goods. Given the clear prima facie case presented by the Plaintiffs regarding their registered mark KYK, the court granted interim protection.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Captain Tractors Private Limited
Ashok Leyland Limited filed a suit alleging that Captain Tractors Private Limited was using the mark 'CAPTAIN' to pass off its goods. The dispute centered on whether the use of the mark constituted passing off, given that Ashok Leyland manufactures heavy vehicles while the respondent holds a registration for mini tractors.
Murickens Marketing System Llp v.Alex G. Muricken
The Kerala High Court addressed an appeal challenging a preliminary injunction granted against Alex G. Muricken for using names similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks, such as 'M.G and Murickens Group'. While acknowledging that the lower court had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on the similarity of marks and logos, the High Court recognized the appellant's claim regarding his long-standing use of the name 'Muricken Trading Company'. To balance competing interests and ensure substantial justice, the court remanded the matter back to the trial court, granting both parties a further opportunity to present evidence before deciding the injunction.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Natco Pharma
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma for infringing Indian Patent No.IN247381 (APIXABAN). The defendant sought a stay under Section 10 CPC, citing a previously instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning patent validity and infringement. The High Court dismissed the stay application.
K.M.Ahmed Ansari / M/S Oriental Metals India Pvt Ltd v.K.S.Mohammed Ali / M/S Hero Plywoods and Boards
This appeal before the Kerala High Court challenged a lower court's dismissal of an interim injunction request concerning the trademark 'Oralium'. The appellants argued that the lower court's findings prejudiced the ongoing lawsuit. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the previous observations were merely tentative and did not preclude a fair trial. Given that the main suit was already scheduled for trial, the court deemed an interim injunction unnecessary and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v.Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. filed a commercial IP suit alleging that Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on its registered designs for snack food products. The core dispute centered on whether the Defendant's product, 'Rumbles', utilized an identical or substantially similar design to Frito-Lay's protected ridge design. The court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting interim relief.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v.Tanmed Pharma India Private Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sued Tanmed Pharma for infringing its patents related to the medicinal product Linagliptin. The court conducted an inspection and found that the defendant had neither manufactured nor marketed the drug, having surrendered its manufacturing license.
M/S Jai Hind Chemicals And Another v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Jai Hind Chemicals seeking an early decision on an application to rectify a trademark registration. The petitioners alleged that the respondent's registered trademark was similar to their trade name, necessitating rectification. However, after considering arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the Trademark Registry (Respondent No. 2) was actively processing the matter and not deliberately delaying it. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition while urging the Registry to expedite its decision.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited and MSN Laboratories Limited for infringing their patents related to the pharmaceutical compound TICAGRELOR, marketed as BRILINTA. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants' generic versions (TICAPLAT and TIARE).
Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited v.Shailputri Media Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted interim protection to Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited in a passing off suit against Shailputri Media Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Republic Hindi,' coupled with similar font and color schemes, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'Republic TV.' Despite arguments regarding the generic nature of the word 'Republic,' the court prioritized the visual similarity and prior usage by the plaintiff, granting the requested injunction.
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Maxwell Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing interim injunctions granted to Shalina Laboratories against Maxwell Life Science. The dispute centered on trademark infringement ('SUPER APETI' vs 'SUPER PEPTI'), copyright infringement related to packaging/trade dress, and passing-off concerning pharmaceutical preparations. By confirming these orders, the court maintained the status quo, ensuring the Plaintiff's rights were protected while the main commercial IP suit proceeds.
M/S.Fun World And Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Nimil K.K.
The appeal challenged the lower court's order granting a temporary injunction, which restrained M/S.Fun World And Resorts (India) from using its 'Tunnel Aquarium' design due to alleged copyright infringement by Nimil K.K.'s client. The appellant argued that the design was not original and could not be registered under the Designs Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that a prima facie case for copyright existed.
Tripti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust
The Gujarat High Court rejected a Civil Revision Application filed by Tripti Grover, upholding the dismissal of her application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The court clarified that an application under O.7 R.11 must be decided based solely on the averments and documents presented in the plaint, without considering external claims or pleas from related parties (like a daughter claiming rights). The judgment affirmed that multiple parties can have competing claims to a trademark, and one party's claim of prior use cannot be precluded by another claimant.
All India Patent Officers Welfare Association v.Union Of India & Ors
The All India Patent Officers Welfare Association filed a petition alleging that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) unlawfully provided access to sensitive, unpublished trademark and patent application data to a private multinational company. The petitioner argued this access lacked necessary checks and balances. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and directed an investigation into the matter, setting a timeline for the respondents to file their reply.
Alfa Ica (India) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Alfa Ica (India) Limited challenged the removal of its trademark registration from the register before The Registrar of Trade Marks in the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner argued that the ten-year renewal period should commence from November 2009, not March 2009, based on when they were communicated the certificate. Furthermore, they contended that the procedure for removal was flawed and unreasoned. The court granted interim relief while setting a date for further hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against a lower court order that denied an interim injunction. Sun Pharma sought protection for its registered trademark 'BEVETEX' against Intas Pharmaceuticals' use of 'BEVATAS,' alleging infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found no prima facie case for infringement, noting that while both drugs are cancer treatments, their trade dress and administration methods were not remotely similar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Narendra Singh v.Ashendra Mishra
Narendra Singh filed an application seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against Ashendra Mishra regarding disputes arising from their partnership firm, M/s. Kautilya Academy. The applicant alleged misuse of the trade mark and siphoning of funds by the respondents. However, the court dismissed the application, holding that since there were serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and dispute over the very execution of the partnership deed, the matter was not fit for arbitration. The proper remedy was directed to be sought in a civil court.
Deepak Nitrite Limited v.Sara Chemicals & Consultants
Deepak Nitrite Limited sought an urgent ad-interim injunction against Sara Chemicals & Consultants, alleging that Sara Chemicals had unilaterally filed five patent applications based on a proprietary process developed by Deepak Nitrite. The Petitioner argued that the relevant data and technology belonged exclusively to them, and there was a risk of third-party disclosure.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited. v.Global India Entertainment Production
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application seeking a temporary injunction against the unauthorized use of 'Miss India' and 'Mr. India' by defendants organizing similar beauty pageants. The court found that while the words themselves are generic, their combination with other elements creates distinctiveness, supporting the plaintiffs' claim of trademark infringement and passing off. Although the initial relief was not granted immediately, the court allowed the defendants to propose concrete modifications to their titles for future consideration.
Mr Imran Aman Sharieff (IAS Enterprises) v.M/s Sathwika Traders; M/s Sri Tarakarama Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court remanded an appeal concerning a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement. The appellant, Mr. Imran Aman Sharieff, sought to overturn the trial court's rejection of his application for a temporary injunction. Crucially, he introduced a new document—an order rejecting the respondents' trade mark registration application—at the appellate stage. The High Court ruled that since this new evidence was not available during the initial proceedings, it could only be used by directing the trial court to reconsider its decision based on the newly produced material.
Anand S/o Nanabhau Embadwar v.Union of India, Through Ministry of Agricultural & Farmers Welfare
This case involved a Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petition challenging the manufacturing and marketing of Soil Testing Fertilizer Recommendation (STFR) technology developed by ICAR and IARI. The petitioner, Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., sought to restrain its marketing while simultaneously benefiting from the technology. The court found the litigation frivolous and vexatious.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited v.Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr.
This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Shyam Steel Industries Limited against Shyam Sel And Power Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were exploiting its reputation by using 'Shyam' on their TMT bar packaging, despite previous agreements to phase out the mark. However, the court noted the defendant's claim of honest adoption and the common nature of the word 'Shyam'. Consequently, the court declined to grant an immediate injunction but allowed the defendants time to file a detailed affidavit-in-opposition.
Tamil Nadu Liquor Manufacturers Welfare Association v.Dijit Kumar, Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., The Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh State Excise Department
The Tamil Nadu Liquor Manufacturers Welfare Association filed a civil suit against several defendants, including Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off of their trademarked logos such as “UB”, “SNJ”, “KALS”, “APPOLLO”, and “AM”. The plaintiffs sought damages and permanent injunctions to protect the goodwill associated with these marks. However, before the court could proceed further, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
M/s Genentech Inc. v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Genentech Inc. appealed an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court which had altered the protective conditions previously set by the Single Judge concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug 'TrastuRel' (manufactured by Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.). The dispute centered on Genentech's patent rights over the monoclonal antibody drug 'Trastuzumab'.
S.Sudhakar / Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods P Ltd. v.Priya Krishnakumar / Krishnakumar
This Madras High Court case addresses a complex dispute involving alleged infringement of registered trademarks and copyright in the food product sector. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks ('UDAYA MASALA' vs 'UDHAIYAM') and infringing on the artistic work/logo associated with their masala powders. While the suit sought various injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits, the judgment provided a preliminary decree addressing these claims.
Deepa Jayakumar v.A.L. Vijay
Deepa Jayakumar filed an appeal seeking an interim injunction to prevent respondents (film producers) from making, releasing, or promoting films/web series about the life of Dr. J. Jayalalitha without her consent, citing concerns over privacy and reputation. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order.
Ferid Allani v.Union Of India & Ors
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his patent application (IN/PCT/2002/00705/DEL), which covered a method and device for accessing web information. The Patent Office rejected it under Section 3(k) as a non-patentable computer program per se, and the IPAB dismissed the appeal citing lack of technical effect. The High Court allowed the petition and directed re-examination.
M/s.Rui Boutique v.Nidhi Arora
The Bombay High Court disposed of a commercial IP suit between Rui Boutique and Nidhi Arora based on mutually agreed-upon consent terms. The settlement allowed the defendant to change her existing trademark and trade name, which the plaintiff accepted. This resolution brought an end to the litigation concerning the intellectual property dispute.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
Hindustan Unilever Limited appealed an order that allowed Sree Annapoorna Foods to amend its plaint to include a claim for rendition of accounts. The appellant argued that this amendment changed the nature of the suit and was contrary to Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the single judge's finding that the amendment did not fundamentally alter the character of the original infringement and passing off suit.
Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. v.M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trade mark infringement suit filed by Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. against M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. The court held that since the plaintiff had not obtained a registered trademark, but only pending applications, the claim for infringement was premature and lacked cause of action. Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued that neither party was the registered proprietor of their respective marks, leading to the suit's dismissal.
Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited v.AIA Engineering Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a second stay on civil suit proceedings before the Commercial Court, arguing that since they had challenged the patent's validity (IN.248740) under Section 64 of the Patents Act, the commercial court proceedings should be stayed to prevent conflicting orders. The respondent argued against this, citing legal precedents that restrict simultaneous remedies and emphasizing the petitioner's delay in challenging the patent.
Dubai Islamic Bank v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of trademark registration for 'Dubai Islamic Bank - The Better Way To Bank'. The court found that the Senior Examiner had incorrectly applied a foreign judgment, failing to consider the composite nature of the mark (including the slogan) and established Indian legal principles. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner's arguments regarding existing registrations and global use are properly evaluated.