Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13001–13100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Dystar Colours Distribution Gmbh v.Jay Chemical Industries Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking interim protection for infringement of a patent. The court noted that the defendant had already filed its written statement and decided to expedite the hearing process.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation related to edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Sun O Gold' on their product, mimicking the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and its associated trade dress. Although the suit initially sought various permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
M/s.Murugan Metal Industries v.Murugan Metal
M/s. Murugan Metal Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal alleging infringement and passing off related to their registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and its associated artistic label. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum of compromise.
M/s.Aarumugaa Industries Partnership Firm v.Murugan Metal
M/s.Aarumugaa Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, surrender of infringing stocks, and accounting of profits due to deceptive similarity in branding. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
M/s.Murugan Metal Industries v.Murugan Metal
M/s.Murugan Metal Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and its associated copyrighted artistic label. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions to stop the infringing activities and demanded surrender of stocks and accounts of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
M/s.Aarumgaa Industries v.Murugan Metal
M/s. Aarumgaa Industries filed a civil suit against Murugan Metal and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'MURUGAN' and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks and claims for damages related to passing off. Ultimately, both parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum of compromise.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
The Delhi High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding trademark infringement. The core issue was that the Single Judge incorrectly compared the plaintiff's mark ('A') with a new defendant mark ('C'), instead of comparing it with the original relevant mark ('B'). Recognizing this procedural error, the Chief Justice granted a stay on the challenged order, preserving the status quo until the appeal is finally disposed of.
M/s.Titan Paints & Chemicals Ltd. v.Mr. Mylsamy Ranga Ramanujam
M/s.Titan Paints & Chemicals Ltd. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking cancellation of Design Registration No. 188332. However, during the consideration of the matter, the counsel for the Appellant submitted that the relief sought had become infructuous.
Karthikeyan And Company v.M/s.New Brilliant Publications
Karthikeyan And Company filed a civil suit against M/s.New Brilliant Publications alleging both copyright infringement and passing off related to their Tamil notes. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, surrender of infringing copies, and damages for the unauthorized reproduction and use of their work. However, the plaintiffs subsequently moved the court seeking permission to withdraw the suit due to changes in school syllabus and the defendant discontinuing active business.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
The suit was filed under the Patent Act, 1970, seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for alleged infringement. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' applications (Exh.167 and Exh.169) requesting the court to decide objections regarding document admissibility during evidence recording could be entertained after the evidence was completed.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Union Of India And Ors.
This petition challenged the Controller's decision allowing an opponent to file additional evidence during a pending post-grant opposition. The petitioner argued that such late filings violated procedural timelines and prejudiced their case. While acknowledging the need for timely disposal of oppositions, the Court ultimately held that since the petitioner had already responded to the new evidence, it was appropriate for the Controller to consider all pleadings and documents when rendering the final decision.
M/S.Earth And Air Films Private Limited v.M.T.Vasudevan Nair
This case involves a dispute over the rights to the classic Malayalam novel 'Randamoozham'. The plaintiff, the author M.T. Vasudevan Nair, entered into an MOU with Earth And Air Films Private Limited for film production based on his work. When the defendants failed to fulfill their payment obligations and other terms, the suit was filed seeking termination of the agreement and return of scripts. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether a valid arbitrable dispute existed, which ultimately led to the setting aside of the lower appellate court's conclusion.
M/S Parle Products Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.M/S B&B Bake Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court overturned an injunction restraining the appellant from using 'AMERICANA' for butter cookies. The court held that since 'AMERICANA' is a common dictionary word, its legal protectability is lesser, especially when it is not registered exclusively by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court found no prima facie case of passing off because the products (cookies vs. burger buns) had distinct looks and packaging, making consumer confusion unlikely. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 for the drug Sitagliptin by manufacturing and selling a product named 'Swizglipt' containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (SPM). The dispute centered on whether manufacture solely for export fell under patent infringement, and the court ultimately confirmed the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
M/s Elofic Industries (India) v.Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Elofic Industries (India), a long-standing partnership concern dealing in filters, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was infringing its trademark ELOFIC and passing off goods under similar names. The court found that the plaintiff successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding infringement.
Arun Chopra v.Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court modified an existing interim injunction in the trademark infringement suit filed by Arun Chopra against Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's prior use and reputation in Delhi, the court balanced this against the Defendants' established presence in Nashik. The final order permits the Defendants to continue operating their existing outlets under certain names but strictly prohibits them from opening new branches or using the name 'Kaka-Ka Hotel', ensuring a status quo while the main suit proceeds.
M/s.Ambika Appalam Company v.Nandi Food Products
M/s. Ambika Appalam Company filed a civil suit against Nandi Food Products, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AMBIKA APPLAM' and copyright over the associated artistic work and trade dress. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of similar labels like 'AMBUJA APPALAM'. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors. v.Usha International Limited
In this trademark dispute, Shambhu Nath & Brothers successfully secured a favorable outcome against Usha International Limited. The respondent company voluntarily agreed to withdraw its application for the trademark 'TOOFAN' and provided an affidavit undertaking that it would neither use nor register the mark, or any similar mark, in the future. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit based on this binding commitment.
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s Anitha Marketing
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s Anitha Marketing alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'The Gold Drops' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v.Sangeetha Food Corner
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP against Sangeetha Food Corner for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SANGEETHA FOOD CORNER' was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark 'SANGEETHA'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse of the mark.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt.Ltd. v.Crazy Concepts & Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Bluechip Amusements, granting a perpetual injunction against Crazy Concepts & Mazes. The dispute centered on the use of the terms 'HORROR HOUSE' and 'HOUSE OF HORRORS' in the amusement industry. Despite the defendant claiming prior rights and trademark registration, the court found that the plaintiff had established continuous business operations under these names since 2008. Consequently, the court held that the defendant's caution notice was unjustified and groundless, protecting the plaintiff's business interests.
M/s. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed a civil suit against Bajaj Auto Limited seeking permanent injunction, accounts of profits, and damages for infringing Patent No.195904 related to 2/3 wheelers. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the Civil Suit.
N.Sathish Proprietor Om Tech Plastics v.Mr.C.Murali Kannan
N.Sathish filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr.C.Murali Kannan and others, initially alleging passing off related to plastic taps under the mark 'SIVA'. However, the judgment ultimately focused on copyright infringement claims regarding compilations. The court found that the plaintiff himself had copied material from earlier books, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.Fermat Education and Ors
The appeal challenged a judgment that dismissed applications filed by Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited to vacate an interim injunction granted to Fermat Education and Ors. The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that the plaintiffs failed to file a complete transcript of the alleged copyrighted content in the plaint.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Modi Mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited
In this interim application, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sought clarification regarding a previous court order concerning the use of the trademark 'CANDID'. The Bombay High Court addressed the request by formalizing an undertaking from Defendant No. 1. This ruling reinforces the immediate injunctive relief against the defendant, requiring them to cease importing or distributing goods under the disputed mark while the main litigation proceeds.
Nippon Life Sciences Private Limited v.S. R. Life Science And Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'EPILIGHT'. While the court noted that previous orders needed extension, it confirmed that the existing restraining order against the defendants for using deceptively similar marks would continue to operate until November 18, 2019. The matter was subsequently scheduled for further hearing.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
The plaintiff, Marico Limited, filed a Notice of Motion seeking various reliefs against the defendant, Chandrakant Gholap. The court granted leave to the Plaintiff and further granted prayer clause (d) of the Notice of Motion, which sought an injunction against the Defendant for using counterfeit PARACHUTE trade marks or trade dress in relation to edible oil preparations and other FMCG goods.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
Marico Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave and an interim injunction against Chandrakant Gholap regarding the use of the PARACHUTE trade mark and trade dress. The Court granted the leave sought by the Plaintiff and further granted the prayer for an interim injunction, restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or distributing packaging materials bearing the infringing trademark/trade dress.
M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd v.Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed disputes concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off between Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. The core dispute revolved around the similarity of trademarks 'AROKYA' and 'AAROGYA', particularly in relation to biscuit products. While the lower court had vacated an interim injunction, the appellate court focused on the procedural aspect of a Summary Judgment application filed by the defendants. Finding that the Single Judge dismissed the summary judgment request without sufficient reasons under commercial courts law, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.Bajaj Auto Limited
Mr. P. Radhakrishnan filed a civil suit alleging that Bajaj Auto Limited infringed his Patent No. 182682, which covers a four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the Pulsar series. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v.Kotak LLC
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Kotak LLC alleging infringement and passing off concerning the registered trademark 'KOTAK'. The court granted temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the Defendant from using similar marks, names (like KOTAK LLC), apps (App KOTAK), and domain names (www.kotakapp.com) that are deceptive or identical to the Plaintiff's mark.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringed their patent. The court issued an injunction and required the defendants to deposit a percentage of sales during the pendency of the suit.
Ifrs Foundation v.Rammohan Bhave & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of IFRS Foundation against Rammohan Bhave & Ors following a comprehensive settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'IFRS' trademark and its copyrighted standards. Key terms included the payment of ₹11 lakhs, the surrender of multiple domain names, the withdrawal of related trademark applications, and an undertaking to cease unauthorized use of the IFRS mark in training materials or goods.
K.P.Selvah @ Panner Selvam v.Atlee
K.P.Selvah filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Atlee and M/s. AGS Entertainment Pvt., Ltd., claiming copyright infringement over his story 'Kalki', which was registered with the South Indian Film Writers' Association. After facing procedural hurdles in the trial court, Selvah sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Madras High Court intervened via revision petition, holding that the trial court erred by allowing withdrawal but denying the crucial liberty to institute a new suit on the same subject matter.
Meto Polymers Private Limited v.Hindustan Healthcare Products
The civil suit was filed by Meto Polymers Private Limited against Hindustan Healthcare Products seeking a permanent injunction and damages for infringing a registered patent related to 'water beds'. However, the court noted that the plaintiffs had repeatedly indicated their intention to withdraw the suit but failed to prosecute it.
Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the alleged abandonment of a registered trademark due to non-renewal. The petitioner argued that the mandatory O-3 notice for renewal was improperly backdated and uploaded using an outdated form (RG-3), making it invalid. The court recognized serious inconsistencies in the Trademark Registry's process, directing senior officials and the concerned Examiner to appear in court with explanations and documentation regarding the improper uploading of notices. Crucially, the court granted interim relief, ensuring the trademark would not be treated as abandoned pending a full inquiry.
M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals, sought a writ of mandamus compelling the State of Andhra Pradesh to implement instructions mandating the use of its patented anti-corrosion admixture inhibitor liquid, CONCARE, in RCC structures. The state argued that it only recommended 'CONCARE or equivalent products' and was not bound to procure from the petitioner alone. The court ruled that while policy decisions are generally beyond judicial interference, the respondents must ensure that if they choose to use an anti-corrosion agent, it must be a licensed product.
M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Sai Agrotech, F.M.D. (Farm Machinery Division)
M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. filed applications for review against a previous judgment that had allowed a license request for Light Trap Equipment to be rejected by NCIPM. The court reviewed the matter, considering the involvement of the review applicant in an earlier agreement with ICAR regarding the licensed technology.
Trustees, Jesus Redeems Ministries v.The Bible Society of India
The plaintiff Trust printed the Holy Bible in Tamil language. The defendant sent a Cease and Desist notice alleging copyright infringement. The plaintiff argued that no existing copyright subsists in the joint authorship work (Bower Version) after the statutory period, and the threat was groundless. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) IP Limited; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) Trading Limited; Smithkline Beecham Limited
Steer Engineering Private Limited (appellant) filed a commercial appeal seeking an interim injunction against Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (respondents). The appellant claimed infringement of its copyright and trade secrets related to proprietary extrusion technology used for nutritional beverages. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for granting temporary relief.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Raisen Marketing Private Limited
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed an interim application alleging that Raisen Marketing Private Limited was infringing its registered trade mark and copyrighted artistic design used on its country liquor bottles. The court found a strong prima facie case for infringement.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Akshay Singhal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited, declaring its candy brand 'PULSE' a well-known trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established extensive goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally through significant promotion and unique trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling similar products under deceptively similar marks like 'PLUSS', protecting the integrity of the PULSE brand.
M/s.Radiant Cash Management Services v.All in Pictures
M/s. Radiant Cash Management Services filed a suit against All in Pictures alleging infringement of its exclusive trademark, 'Radiant,' related to the screening of the film 'GORRILA.' The plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages for the alleged misuse of the mark. However, during the hearing, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that the matter had been settled out of court.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr
The petitioner challenged the refusal of trade mark registration applications due to non-speaking orders passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that Section 18(5) mandates the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal in writing. Consequently, Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with the statute.
M/s.Cool Planet (Pvt) Ltd. v.M/s.Cool Planet
This case involved M/s. Cool Planet (Pvt) Ltd. filing a civil suit against various entities, including another entity named M/s. Cool Planet and Paramount Apparels and Exports. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of the mark 'Cool Planet', alleging infringement of both trade marks and copyright, as well as passing off. Despite the initial claims for damages and delivery up of materials, the parties ultimately reached a settlement.
Satish Kumar v.Khushboo Singh & Ors.
Satish Kumar filed a suit against Khushboo Singh and others, alleging the misappropriation of confidential information, trade secrets, and clientage belonging to his company, Plasma Impex Inc. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages, claiming that the defendants used proprietary data obtained during their employment. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors v.Shogun Organics Ltd
The appeal was filed by the original defendants against a decree that found them infringing the plaintiff's patent for the process of manufacturing d-trans Allethrin. The appellants argued that the process was already known due to its registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that product registration does not equate to disclosure of the manufacturing process required for patentability.
Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Paras Mehra & Ors
The dispute involves Less Than Equals Three Services Pvt. Ltd., which alleges that its founders and employees established a competing business using the source code and MySQL database of the petitioner's website, quickcompany.in. The core legal challenge raised by the defendants was whether the company could maintain a copyright infringement suit without clearly pleading the identity of the author and an agreement vesting the rights in the company. The court analyzed this issue against previous judgments, ultimately finding that the plaintiff's disclosures were sufficient to overcome the preliminary objection.
Rui Boutique v.Nidhi Arora
The plaintiff, Rui Boutique, a manufacturer and trader of ready-made women's garments under the trade mark 'RUI', filed an application alleging that the defendant was using the impugned mark 'RUI INDIA' for similar goods. The court found a strong prima facie case regarding the identity/deceptive similarity between the marks and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's order regarding a patent application, arguing that prior arts were not adequately considered. The court examined the matter and held that since there are efficacious alternative statutory remedies (post-grant opposition or revocation), the writ petition would not be entertained.
M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. v.M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. to appoint Local Commissioners in the execution phase of a trademark infringement suit against M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd. Despite initial rejection by the Trial Court, the High Court emphasized that permanent injunctions related to pharmaceutical products require strict enforcement due to public interest and consumer safety. The appointed commissioners were directed to seize infringing goods bearing the mark CTZ-10 and inspect sales accounts.
Pfizer Inc v.Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents covering Sunitinib and Axitinib. The parties subsequently reached a settlement through mediation before the Delhi High Court.
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents' orders that restricted its right to cross-examine expert witnesses during a post-grant opposition filed by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the patentee, having filed objections under Rule 58, was entitled to challenge the veracity of the opponent's experts through cross-examination. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Onyx, quashing the restrictive orders and allowing the cross-examination without imposing any condition regarding the filing of evidence by the patentee.
Mr.Mohammed Niyamathullah v.Mr.Mohammed Hidayathulla
This civil suit was filed by Mr. Mohammed Niyamathullah seeking a permanent injunction against defendants for infringing his copyright in the Tamil feature film, “Pongadee Neengalaum Unga Kadhalum.” The core of the dispute revolved around an Assignment Deed executed on 09.10.2013, where the plaintiff provided financial assistance to the defendant (who was venturing into film production) and subsequently acquired the entire copyright under default clauses. Despite the defendants' claims of forgery and lack of funds, the court found that the assignment deed was validly established through evidence, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Prashant Properties Limited v.Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd
The petitioner, an operational creditor, entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with the respondent to use a family of marks in lieu of securing an outstanding debt. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from suspending this PUA. The appellate court stayed this injunction, arguing that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the IBC and Companies Act. The High Court set aside the stay order, finding that the suit was maintainable as a collateral security agreement.
Rmans Tours & Travels P Ltd. v.Varuna Associates
Rmans Tours & Travels P Ltd. filed a civil suit against Varuna Associates alleging copyright and trademark infringement. The suit claimed that the defendant was using INDAQUA labels, which substantially reproduced the plaintiff's Rmans label in identical color scheme and layout. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Popular Trading Company
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Popular Trading Company alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation concerning their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Gold Drops' in relation to the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Gold Winner'. Although the initial suit sought various injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo.
Durga Dairy Ltd. v.M/s.Laxmi Food Products
Durga Dairy Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s.Laxmi Food Products seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning their 'DURGA' brand. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'LAXMI DURGA'. However, despite being granted sufficient time, the plaintiffs failed to file an application to amend the cause title due to a change in company name. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the civil suit for default.
Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited v.M/S Genentech Inc And Ors.
This case involves a dispute between Reliance Life Sciences (the appellant) and Genentech/Roche (the respondents) concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug TrastuRel. The respondents sought an injunction against TrastuRel, alleging inadequate testing under Indian regulatory guidelines despite the original patent having lapsed. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, granting an interim stay on the restrictive order, thereby allowing Reliance to continue its manufacturing and marketing operations.
Capt. (Retd) Shibu Issac & Force 1 Guarding Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Force 1 Security Services
This Madras High Court judgment records a settlement between the plaintiffs (owners of 'FORCE 1') and the defendant ('Force 1 Security Services'). The suit, originally filed for trademark infringement and passing off, was resolved through a Memorandum of Compromise. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant agreed to cease using the infringing marks, withdraw their pending trademark application, and refrain from challenging the plaintiffs' rights in the future. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these mutually agreed-upon terms.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd v.Narasu's Sarathy Industries
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd against a lower court order. The company successfully argued that it is the exclusive owner of the 'Narasu's' trade mark, dating back to 1926. Given the risk of irreparable injury and loss of goodwill due to the respondents granting licenses to third parties, the Court issued an interim injunction. This order mandates that the respondents cease all licensing or assignment activities related to the trademark until the final disposal of the civil suits.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.RVS Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.RVS Traders alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and associated copyright, specifically concerning the use of the deceptively similar mark 'SPS Gold' on edible oil products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and directions for destruction of infringing materials. However, before the final judgment was passed, both parties entered into a Compromise Memo to settle all disputes.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.SP Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.SP Traders alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'Gold Winner' and violation of copyright related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Shree Gold' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Although the initial claims involved trademark, passing-off, and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
M/s.Micro-Pak Ltd. v.Radhika Sales
M/s. Micro-Pak Ltd filed a civil suit against Radhika Sales alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Micro-pak' and associated copyright, particularly concerning anti-microbial stickers and moisture management products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of counterfeit goods, and damages for passing off. Ultimately, the parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo, leading to the court decreeing the suit in terms of this settlement.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Somasundaram Ramkumar
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Flipkart Internet Private Limited against Somasundaram Ramkumar for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'FlippingKart' with mala fide intent to deceive consumers and spoil Flipkart's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions against the use of the infringing mark and declaring 'FLIPKART' a well-known trademark.
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited v.M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited filed a suit against M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries alleging infringement of its well-known trademark, "O TVS TYRES," and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, damages, and account of profits. However, the court ultimately decreed the suit only for the specific prayers related to permanent injunctions after receiving an undertaking from the defendants.
Mr.T.Chitty Babu v.M/S.Sakthivel Builders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Mr. T. Chitty Babu and M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendants' use of the 'SB' logo constituted infringement and passing off against their registered 'AH' trademark. The court held that the similarity in color scheme and stylized script created a likelihood of confusion among the public, leading to the decree of permanent injunctions and an award of damages.
Corum Hospitality And Another v.Hotel Varuna And 3 Others
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed procedural matters in a commercial IP suit involving trademark disputes between Corum Hospitality and Hotel Varuna. The court accepted undertakings regarding the filing of Vakalatnamas and set out timelines for addressing office objections to the notice of motion. Furthermore, an intervener sought permission to join the proceedings concerning alleged infringement of the 'Bar Stock Exchange' trademark, which was granted procedural allowance.
Royal Dryfruit Range v.Royal Taste Dry Fruits
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IP Suit involving Royal Dryfruit Range versus Royal Taste Dry Fruits. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendant, Royal Taste Dry Fruits, to remove the disputed mark 'ROYAL' from its signage and packaging, as well as withdraw its trademark application. A short extension was granted for compliance, effectively settling the immediate dispute through mutual agreement and judicial acceptance of the undertakings.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. v.Varun Sood
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. filed a suit against Varun Sood and others alleging infringement of their design rights and passing off related to water purifier products. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages concerning the use of deceptively similar designs (ESSENCIA/SPARKLE) compared to their registered designs (KENT WONDER/EKNT SUPREME). Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual settlement, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.
M/S Ever Bake v.M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Ever Bake's petition challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a trademark infringement suit. The respondent, M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd., had filed a suit claiming violation of their registered 'EVER BAKE' trademark. Although the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction because they operated in Assam, the Court upheld the trial court's decision. Citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the High Court found that since the respondent's registered office was in Delhi, the suit was correctly filed within the proper jurisdiction.
Cargill India Pvt Ltd v.Gati Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Cargill India Pvt Ltd's application to frame an issue concerning the validity of Gati Ltd's registered trademark, 'GATI Nature Fresh Apples.' Despite Gati Ltd arguing that Cargill was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the registration, the court rejected these objections. The judgment clarified the procedural mechanism under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, allowing the plaintiff time to pursue rectification proceedings before the IPAB, thereby keeping the core validity question alive in the litigation.
M/s. Hotel Sealord v.M/s.Hotel New Sealord
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s. Hotel Sealord against M/s. Hotel New Sealord, alleging passing off and trademark infringement based on similar names. Although the plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages, the court noted that the parties had reached an amicable settlement prior to judgment. Consequently, the Civil Suit was decreed strictly according to the terms outlined in the Memo of Compromise signed by both parties.
Facebook Inc. v.Surinder Malik & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark owner, Surinder Malik, against Facebook and Instagram regarding the unauthorized use of the 'DA MILANO' mark. The court clarified that while these platforms are intermediaries protected under Section 79 of the IT Act, they have a duty to take down infringing content once notified by the rights holder. This judgment sets clear operational guidelines for social media platforms concerning trademark infringement in India.
A.Kumar v.Radhakrishnan
A.Kumar filed a civil suit against Radhakrishnan and two other companies, M/s.Ashcom and German Refilling Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of their trademarks and passing off concerning inkjet, laser, and toner cartridges. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits. However, on the date of hearing, no counsel appeared for A.Kumar, leading the Madras High Court to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.
Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. v.Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories Private Ltd., declaring them the exclusive proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT against Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court found that despite a past manufacturing agreement, which was subsequently terminated, the defendant had no right to claim ownership or make false propaganda about the mark. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from making such claims and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for its patented drug, Ceritinib. Natco Pharma challenged this by relying on an order from the Controller revoking the patent due to lack of novelty. The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.HOTEL NAMMA AACHI
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, V. Dhadapani, and S. Ravichandran
This civil suit was filed by S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, alleging infringement of the registered trademark "UDHAIYAM" and copyright violation concerning their oil products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages for passing off. However, before a final judgment on merits, the parties reached an amicable settlement.
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
Shogun Organics Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent (IN-236630) related to the manufacturing process of d-trans Allethrin, an active ingredient in mosquito repellents. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using the patented process despite having different licenses. The court found the patent valid and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Kishan Green Field Agritech & Ors.
In this trademark and copyright infringement suit, the defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over the case. The Calcutta High Court did not immediately rule on the jurisdictional challenge but instead granted the plaintiff an opportunity to file a detailed affidavit in opposition. Furthermore, the court directed the defendants to disclose all sales accounts related to the 'DOUBLE PAAN' trademark from the date of filing, ensuring that the core issues of infringement and jurisdiction would be addressed thoroughly.
Bytedance Ltd. v.Don Cinema
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed an urgent application filed by Bytedance Ltd., the registered proprietor of the 'Tiktok' trademark, against Don Cinema. The dispute arose from an alleged announcement by the defendant regarding a web series titled 'Tiktok House.' After the defendant provided an undertaking to the court denying any such release, the plaintiff withdrew its request for ad-interim relief. The court subsequently set out procedural directions for further pleadings and hearing.
Astrazeneca Ab v.P Kumar & Anr
Astrazeneca filed suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for marketing generic versions of TICAGRELOR, claiming infringement of three Indian Patents (IN 907, IN 984, IN 674). The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction while the patents faced credible challenges to their validity. The court ultimately found that since the defendants raised strong questions rendering the patent vulnerable, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic (P) Limited v.Veecare Hospitals and others
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic, finding that the defendants infringed upon its registered trademark 'VCare'. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'Vee Care' was phonetically and alphabetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse and ordering the defendants to pay costs.
S.Sudhakar & Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders
The plaintiffs, S.Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against M/s.Puvaneshwari Oil Traders alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their registered mark 'UDHAIYAM' used for food products like Gingelly Oil. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off. However, during the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel requested permission to withdraw the suit while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case should future infringement occur.
K.Dalpat Singh v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by K.Dalpat Singh challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on whether opposition proceedings against the trademark 'Gold Mehal' had been validly abandoned. The court found no infirmity in the IPAB's decision, which set aside the initial finding of abandonment and remanded the matter for a full hearing on its merits. This ruling emphasizes procedural correctness in trade mark oppositions.
Symphony Ltd. v.Wim Plast Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Wim Plast Ltd for allegedly infringing its registered designs related to air coolers. The dispute centered on the similarity between the plaintiff's protected designs and the defendants' products. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the disposal of the suit.
asian paints limited v.jain paints
Asian Paints Limited sued Jain Paints for trademark infringement concerning the marks 'APEX', 'GOLD DRY APEX', and 'AZPER' used on exterior emulsion paints (Class 02). Defendant No. 2 admitted in their written statement that a stay would not significantly impact them as they were not manufacturing, marketing, or selling the infringing goods.
Aveva Information Technology India Pvt.Ltd. v.DCIT-9(1), Mumbai
The assessee, Aveva Information Technology India Pvt.Ltd., challenged the disallowance of license fees paid to its parent company, AVEVA UK, arguing that payments for distributing copyrighted software products in India did not fall under the definition of 'royalty'. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that such distribution payments were not royalty and thus no TDS was required.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises Private Limited v.M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises filed a civil suit against M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd., seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks ('Presto INSTANZA') and infringement of their registered design for box type pre-inked rubber stamps. The plaintiff also sought relief related to passing off and surrender of infringing materials. However, before the court could rule on the merits, both parties reached a settlement agreement.
Regarding Hike In Prices Of Generic Medicines Medicines. v.Ex Parte
During a Lok Sabha debate, Shri T. N. Prathapan highlighted that patented medicines are sold at high prices, leading to exploitation of common people. He demanded that patent medicines be brought under Price Regulatory Authority or production should be allowed under compulsory license.
M/s.Vaibhav Foods v.Narendra Kumar Mali / M/s.FOOD INDIA
M/s. Vaibhav Foods filed a suit against Narendra Kumar Mali and M/s. FOOD INDIA alleging infringement and passing off related to their unique chocolate packaging design. The Plaintiff demonstrated that they had successfully registered two designs (Nos. 274667 and 274668) for the specific arrangement and color combination of chocolates. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling chocolates using a similar and identical design, leading to confusion in the market.
Dart Industries Inc v.Vijay Kumar Bansal
Dart Industries Inc. filed a suit against several defendants alleging infringement of their registered design (casserole lid) and passing off related to their Tupperware products. The court examined the scope of protection, noting that while the lid is independently registered, the plaintiffs claimed passing off for the entire casserole set. The court ultimately issued an interim order directing the defendants to furnish detailed sales particulars.
Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Pawajot Kaur Baweja
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, former employees, from disclosing confidential information, using proprietary content (including copyright), and competing in Ayurveda. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiffs could refuse to share the list of customers with the defendants, despite claiming rights over that data.
Vinay Aggarwal v.Rims Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'ELEPHANT JINLI' was phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'ELEPHANT,' creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite arguments regarding conflicting agreements from the manufacturer, the court upheld the plaintiff's prior rights and dismissed the defendant's application to vacate the injunction.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Ms.Seema Rathi
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429) against Ms. Seema Rathi and Balaji Agro. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the court recorded and decreed.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged an interim injunction restraining it from infringing Indian Patent IN No.247381, which was held by Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiaries. The appeal focused on whether the Single Judge had properly considered the merits of the case before issuing a restrictive order. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned interim injunction, directing that the application for interim relief be heard again on merits.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. and its subsidiaries for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, titled "Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency." The Plaintiff alleged that two specific models of antennae manufactured by the Defendants infringed upon their patented technology used in telecommunications. Although the validity of the patent was challenged by the Defendants, the court directed them to deposit Bank Guarantees covering the value of infringing sales made both before and during the pendency of the suit. Failure to comply with these financial directions would result in a permanent restraint on manufacturing or selling the infringing antennae.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bayer Healthcare Llc
This appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining Natco Pharma Limited from infringing Bayer Healthcare Llc's Indian Patent No. 240207, which covers the drug Regorafenib. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient clarity and did not adequately consider the parties' submissions regarding infringement. Consequently, the court set aside the interim injunction and directed that the application for interim relief be heard afresh on its merits by the Single Judge.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The claims included unauthorized use of the 'XXX' registered trademark, copyright infringement on the product's artistic label/trade dress, and passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.