Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13101–13200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was infringing upon their registered trademark (XXX label) through manufacturing and distribution of similar goods, as well as committing copyright infringement regarding the artistic work on the packaging. Furthermore, the suit included claims of passing off based on trade dress similarity.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged an order that granted a patent for 'Methods of Evaluating Peptide Mixtures' after dismissing their pre-grant opposition. The petitioner sought urgent relief as the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was non-functional due to long-standing vacancies in its Technical Member positions, leading to a logjam of appeals. The Delhi High Court addressed this systemic issue by invoking the doctrine of necessity, ruling that IPAB can continue hearing urgent matters related to Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights even with vacant technical posts.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani' constituted passing off and trademark infringement. The court recognized the plaintiff's long-standing reputation and exclusive use of the name since 1957. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant and awarding damages.
Palson Enterprises v.Kasi Group Of Companies
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Palson Enterprises, upholding the Single Judge's decision to vacate the interim injunction. The court found that Palson had slept over the matter for eight months despite having knowledge of Kasi Group's use of the 'Kasi' name in their theatre business. While acknowledging the appellant's rights under the Trade Marks Act, the court held that issues of prior usage and comparative loss must be determined during a full trial, not at the interim stage.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.D & H India Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed a plaintiff's application to amend their plaint. The plaintiff sought to introduce facts regarding the earlier use of the trademark SUPERON by its parent group, Stanvac Chemicals India Limited, dating back to 1994. Despite arguments from the defendant claiming grave prejudice due to the change in user date, the court upheld the amendment order. The judgment emphasized that at the stage of considering an amendment, the court must not delve into the merits or correctness of the claims, provided the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication and is bona fide.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation v.Chairperson, Protection Of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights and Ors.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation challenged decisions made by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority regarding the registration of Kaveri Seeds Limited's maize variety KMH50. Pioneer claimed that KMH50 was identical to its own variety, 30V92, and alleged misappropriation of germplasm. The court set aside several impugned orders and restored Pioneer's application for a DNA profiling test.
Mrf Limited. v.Metro Tyres Limited.
Mrf Limited filed a suit alleging that Metro Tyres Limited infringed its copyright by producing a similar advertisement for their tyres. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's ad was a substantial and material copy of their original cinematic work. However, the Delhi High Court found that after applying the R.G. Anand test, the two advertisements were neither substantially nor materially similar in substance or kernel. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction.
Dongguan Tr Bearing Co. Ltd. v.M/s. Harman Overseas and Ors.
The Bombay High Court addressed a Commercial IP Suit filed by Dongguan Tr Bearing Co. Ltd. against M/s. Harman Overseas and Ors. The court noted that both parties had initiated applications before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) seeking the rectification of each other's trademarks. Consequently, the judge stayed the ongoing suit until the outcomes of these parallel IPAB proceedings are determined.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, which had acquired distinctiveness through long-standing usage since 1984. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori' constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the defendant willfully adopted a phonetically and deceptively similar name to capitalize on the plaintiff's established goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited v.M/S.Ribock Industries
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited filed a civil suit against M/S.Ribock Industries alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of Cavinkare's registered trademark 'ZOYO,' copyright violation concerning the 'NYLE' label design, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formally recorded by the Madras High Court and incorporated into the final judgment.
Flsmidth Private Limited v.Mr.S.Balaj Das
Flsmidth Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts regarding alleged copyright infringement in engineering drawings and passing off related to its 'O-SEPARATOR' product. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff had adequately established territorial jurisdiction for the Commercial Division of the Madras High Court against foreign respondents. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff failed to provide specific pleadings demonstrating how the defendants were amenable to the court's jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Oramed Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Oramed Ltd. challenged a decision dated February 25, 2019, made under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority erred by proceeding on Section 3(d) instead of Section 3(e), and that the order was based on conjectures rather than conclusive findings. The court found infirmities in the impugned order.
Anurag Sanghi v.M/S Knitpro International
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a request by Anurag Sanghi to consolidate several related intellectual property suits. The petitioner sought to have three separate suits—one for design infringement (CS 867/2018), one for passing off (TM No.178/2017), and one for copyright infringement (TM No.179/2017)—tried together in a single court. The Court held that since the causes of action are based on the same facts—the sale or offer for sale of rival knitting needles—they must be tried jointly to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, citing precedents like Carlsberg Breweries A/S.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Meera Soap Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a suit against Meera Soap Works alleging infringement of its copyrighted artwork and passing off related to its SUNLIGHT detergent label. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and issued perpetual injunctions.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff has sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its patents related to optical fibre technology. The court is considering interim arrangements to balance the rights of both parties until a final determination is made.
Unilever Plc. v.Punjab Food Products
Unilever Plc. filed suit against Punjab Food Products alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trade mark, FEAST. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant regarding the use of 'Choco FEAST' on frozen desserts. Furthermore, the Defendant was ordered to deliver up all infringing materials for destruction and agreed to pay Rs. 2 Lacs towards costs/damages.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v.Gnanasekaran Paramsivan Trading as Mahindra Lifts and Anr.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd filed a suit against Gnanasekaran Paramsivan for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyright, and passing off related to the mark 'MAHINDRA' and domain name www.mahindralifts.com. The Bombay High Court disposed of the suit by decreeing the prayers in favor of the Plaintiff, granting perpetual injunctions and ordering the destruction of infringing goods.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt Ltd v.Amit Dahanukar & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed the defendant's attempt to dismiss the trademark infringement suit by arguing that the cause of action was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The court found that since the alleged unauthorized use and infringement constituted a continuing cause of action, the earlier litigation did not bar the present suit. Consequently, the application for dismissal was dismissed, allowing the main IP dispute to proceed.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/s Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against M/s Arora Stationers alleging fraudulent imitation of its registered pen design (Design No. 263172). The respondents challenged the validity and novelty of Pentel's design, claiming it was a combination of known designs. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Pentel, emphasizing that since the respondents themselves had applied for registration of a similar design, they could not simultaneously argue against its originality. Consequently, the court found a prima facie case of piracy and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from marketing the infringing product.
M/S Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd v.M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd, finding that Asus Technology and others had infringed upon its trademark rights through passing off. The court determined that the defendant's adoption of 'ZENFONE' was deceptive because it incorporated the plaintiff's dominant mark 'ZEN' for identical goods (mobile phones). Given the plaintiff's prior use, significant market reputation, and large advertising expenditure, the court granted a permanent injunction to prevent further misuse of similar marks.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trademark. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit in favor of Unilever, and issued perpetual injunctions against the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ahuvan Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Ahuvan Industries alleging infringement of its copyright in the SUNLIGHT label artwork and passing off through the use of deceptively similar trade dress and label marks by the Defendant's product, MEJOL. The Bombay High Court granted leave to appeal and decreed the suit.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, issuing perpetual injunctions against the use of the impugned mark 'CHOCO FEAST' and ordering the destruction of infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trade mark. The court granted leave, decreed the suit, and issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark on their ice-creams and frozen desserts.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ahuvan Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Ahuvan Industries alleging infringement of its copyrighted artwork and passing off related to its SUNLIGHT detergent brand. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, imposing perpetual injunctions on the defendant.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trade mark, FEAST. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark 'CHOCO FEAST' or any deceptively similar mark, and ordered the destruction of all infringing materials.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ahuvan Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Ahuvan Industries alleging infringement of its copyrighted artwork (SUNLIGHT) and passing off through the use of deceptively similar labels and trade dress (MEJOL). The Bombay High Court granted leave to appeal, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, and issued perpetual injunctions.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a Commercial IP Suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trademark. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and ordering the destruction of all related materials.
Rallis India Limited v.Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Rallis India Limited filed a suit against Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr. alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the trade mark 'RALLIS' in medicinal preparations, website domains, and business names. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendants and ordering them to transfer the infringing domain name.
Unilever Plc v.Deluxe Ice Cream Factory
Unilever Plc filed a suit against Deluxe Ice Cream Factory alleging infringement and passing off related to its well-known trademarks, specifically FEAST and CORNETTO. The court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like CHOCO FEAST, CONATTO, and CONETO in relation to ice creams and frozen desserts.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Halberd Chemicals
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Halberd Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress, registered trademarks (Nos. 1486109, 1780462, 1486107), and passing off using its well-known logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Halberd Chemicals
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Halberd Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress and registered trademarks. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing these rights and passing off.
Unilever Plc. v.Masqati Dairy Products
Unilever Plc. filed a commercial IP suit against Masqati Dairy Products regarding the alleged infringement and passing off related to its registered trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc. v.Masqati Dairy Products
Unilever Plc. filed a commercial IP suit against Masqati Dairy Products alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave and decreed the suit, restraining the defendant from using the similar mark 'CHOCO FEAST' in relation to frozen desserts.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Crop Life Science Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a suit against Crop Life Science Limited alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429). The parties subsequently reached a compromise and settled their disputes before the Madras High Court.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Enzalutamide', citing lack of inventive steps. The petitioner further argued that the rejection was vitiated because the Controller failed to address or refer to crucial expert affidavits and scientific documents presented during the proceedings.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of Patent No.193247, but since the patent had lapsed, the suit was pursued only for damages. The defendant filed a Counter Claim seeking revocation of the subject patent. The core legal issue addressed by the court was whether the written statement to the Counter Claim could be taken on record despite not being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial within the stipulated time.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
Cedar Properties & Trading Llp & Ors. v.Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Cedar Properties & Trading LLP against Hab Pharmaceuticals & Research Limited. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using the deceptively similar trademark 'DROTIOST' for pharmaceutical preparations, infringing upon their registered mark 'DROTIN'. Given the potential for consumer confusion in the medical field, the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Mak Traders
This notice of motion pertains to an ongoing Commercial IP Suit where Hindustan Unilever Ltd. sought protection for its distinctive SURF EXCEL trade dress against Mak Traders' competing detergent products. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using any trade dress or mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, imposing perpetual injunctions on the defendant.
M/S. Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
M/S. Lucky Exports challenged an order rejecting its appeal against the cancellation of Design No. 202108, which covered a 'Coaster Brake Sub Assembly'. The core dispute revolved around whether this mechanical component was purely functional and therefore ineligible for design registration, or if it possessed sufficient aesthetic features to qualify. The court examined arguments regarding prior publication and novelty, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Anil Chemicals
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Anil Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic labels (WHEEL) and passing off through the use of deceptively similar artworks/trade dress (SURYA) on detergent products. The parties reached a settlement, leading to the court decreeing the suit.
Amrit B Sanghavi v.Dhanraj Surana
The suit involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered mark 'ITONE' with the use of 'DITONE', and also restrained them from passing off the plaintiff's goods.
International Cycle Gears v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner appealed against the Controller's order allowing the cancellation of Design No. 201728 for a 'Coaster Brake Hub'. The appeal argued that the design was significantly different from known models, particularly those published in February 2005. However, the High Court upheld the Controller's finding, concluding that the design lacked novelty and originality as it was substantially identical to prior publications.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Hari Om Plasters
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a suit against Hari Om Plasters alleging trademark infringement concerning various 'BIRLA' branded products. The court, after reviewing the site report and inventory of seized goods, granted leave to the plaintiffs. Crucially, the court passed a temporary order restraining the defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered 'BIRLA' trademarks, including specific variants like 'BIRLA WHITE' and 'BIRLA PLUS', pending the final hearing of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Mak Traders
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Mak Traders alleging infringement and passing off related to their detergent preparations. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an ad-interim injunction.
Asian Paints Limited v.Rainbow Colours Co. and others
Asian Paints Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Rainbow Colours Co. and others alleging infringement of its distinctive trademarks and trade dress related to wall primers. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting an interim injunction.
Asian Paints Limited v.Phinex Paints and Polychem Industries
Asian Paints Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Phinex Paints and Polychem Industries alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting an interim injunction.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite India Ltd.
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Aqualite India Ltd. for allegedly infringing its registered footwear design No.294938. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product was an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. During the interim application, the court directed a market survey which revealed numerous third-party products with near identical designs available in the market.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.Satish Reddy
The plaintiffs, holding exclusive rights to Indian Patent No. 215528 for Lorcaserin, filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against the defendants who were planning to commercialize an infringing drug (LHH). The court found that there was a prima facie case of infringement in favor of the plaintiff.
Metro Brands Limited v.Reliance Retail Limited
The Bombay High Court passed an order by consent in a Commercial IP Suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, restraining them from infringing or passing off the Plaintiff's registered METRO marks. Additionally, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay costs of Rs. 10 Lakhs.
Hotel Panchavati v.Hotel Panchawati
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the Defendants alleging infringement of their well-known PANCHVATI trademarks in the hospitality sector. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and domain names.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringing its registered trade marks (SUNLIGHT) and copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringement and passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the Bolar provision. The court examined whether patented products could be exported for clinical trials and regulatory submissions outside India without constituting patent infringement. The bench affirmed that sale or use under Section 107A is legal both domestically and abroad, provided the end purpose is reasonably related to research and development for regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that disputes regarding the legitimate scope of this exemption should be adjudicated in civil suits rather than public law proceedings like writ petitions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringing its trade marks (SUNLIGHT) and copyrights related to detergent packaging. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, issuing permanent injunctions.
Ceat Limited v.Ambika Rubber Industries and others
The petitioner, Ceat Limited, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark CEAT and copyright in its original artistic work and trade dress. The court had previously granted ex-parte ad-interim relief. On this date, the defendants repeatedly failed to file their affidavits or appear before the court despite multiple adjournments, leading the court to pass an order directing them to appear on a specific future date while continuing the existing interim orders.
Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. v.BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras)
This civil suit was filed by Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. against BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras) seeking perpetual injunctions for infringing their registered mark 'Eagle' and committing copyright violations. The plaintiffs sought relief including damages, surrender of materials, and a preliminary decree for accounts of profits. However, the parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Madhusudan Pharmaceutical Agency and another
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Madhusudan Pharmaceutical Agency and others alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'PANTOCID-DSR'. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from dealing in products bearing the impugned trademark.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jayalakshmi Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Jayalakshmi Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyrights, and trade dress concerning its detergent products. The court granted the injunctions sought by the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using infringing marks or artwork.
Piramal Enterprises Limited v.Chemiloids and others
The dispute concerns the alleged unauthorized use of confidential information, specifically a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), by Chemiloids and others in the process of extracting SI containing X-X% of 7-HF. The court appointed the Department of Chemical Engineering, IIT Madras, as an Expert Commissioner to compare the processes used by both parties.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Time Plus Institute & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management (T.I.M.E.) against Time Plus Institute, recognizing the strong likelihood of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the respondent's use of similar marks was likely to deceive the public and dilute T.I.M.E.'s established goodwill in the coaching industry. Furthermore, a local commissioner was appointed to seize infringing materials, reinforcing the protection of T.I.M.E.'s statutory and common law rights.
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited v.Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, which was seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. The court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the order, primarily based on the principle that the defendants themselves had applied for registration of a similar mark (CONCRETA). This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine against 'approbation and reprobation,' preventing parties from contradicting their own prior actions in litigation.
Speciality Restaurants Limited v.Deepika Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd.
Speciality Restaurants Limited filed a suit against Deepika Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court disposed of the suit and notice of motion based on minutes of order, accepting undertakings from the defendants.
Flexituff International Ltd v.M/S Tirupati Sprinklers
The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging infringement of its registered dripper design. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the design developed since 2010. The defendant countered that the design was generic, not novel, and had been obtained from a third party (Mr. Uri Alkalay) prior to registration. The court dismissed both injunction applications.
Utv Software Communication Ltd. v.1337X.To and others
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple suits concerning the unauthorized streaming and distribution of copyrighted cinematograph works on various websites. The court found that the defendant-websites were infringing upon the plaintiffs' copyrights.
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S v.La Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Anr
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S filed a suit for infringement against La Renon Healthcare Private Limited and others regarding Patent No. 291100 ('RAPIFER'). The court granted permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 based purely on the defendant's binding statement, despite disputes over the plaint's merits. Similarly, the suit against Defendant No. 2 (Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.) was disposed of by binding them to their reply stating they were not infringing.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged the actions of the Controller regarding a pending patent application (No. 3865/KOLNP/2007). The petitioner argued that since the Controller had reserved judgment without deciding on their request for cross-examination, they would be seriously prejudiced if the patent was granted without hearing their objections fully. The Court ruled that in adversarial proceedings before the Controller, the right to cross-examine is an indefeasible right under natural justice.
J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order that revoked Patent No. 251037, citing lack of disclosure regarding ongoing civil suit and a PCT application in Australia. The court found the revocation unjustified, noting that the civil dispute had settled and the respondent had withdrawn the post-grant opposition.
D. Baskaran v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a dispute over the lapsed registration of the 'TAJMAHAL' trade mark. The petitioner sought directions to compel the Trade Mark Registry to accept his renewal application, which had been refused due to the lapse of time. The court ruled that mere expiration is insufficient for removal; the statutory procedure, specifically issuing Form O-3 notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, must be followed scrupulously before a mark can be removed from the register.
Elder Projects Ltd. & Anr. v.Elder Pharmacia Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Elder Projects Ltd. against Elder Pharmacia LLP, finding that the claim of passing off lacked a genuine cause of action. The court relied heavily on evidence provided by the plaintiff's Managing Director, which revealed that the plaintiff had previously claimed rights over the 'ELDER' trademark based on mistaken advice and was not the registered proprietor. Consequently, the interim ex-parte injunction granted to the plaintiff was vacated, marking a significant setback for Elder Projects Ltd.
Dart Industries Inc. v.K.K.Plastics
Dart Industries Inc. filed a civil suit against K.K.Plastics and others, alleging infringement of its registered bottle and cap designs (Registration Nos. 221424 and 221425) and passing off related to its 'Aquasafe' brand. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the defendants for manufacturing or selling imitative products. Given that the defendants failed to appear and contest the suit, the Madras High Court passed a summary judgment in favor of Dart Industries Inc., confirming the infringement claims.
Kesari Trust v.Kesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to various businesses.
Kesari Trust v.Kesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to various businesses.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY alleging infringement of its registered copyright (A-68242/2005) and trademark ('Gold Winner'). The plaintiff claimed the defendant was using deceptively similar trade dress, color scheme, and get up with the mark 'SUN F GOLD' on packing material for refined sunflower oil. Although the suit sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits, the parties ultimately entered into a compromise.
Tata Sky Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India (NIXI)
Tata Sky Limited filed suit seeking permanent injunction against an individual (D-3) for passing off the 'TATA SKY' trade mark, and mandatory injunctions against NIXI (D-1) and GoDaddy (D-2) to prevent or extinguish deceptively similar domain names. The court granted decrees in favor of Tata Sky Limited against D-3, ordering permanent injunction, and against D-1 and D-2, directing the extinguishment of specific listed domain names.
Ceat Limited v.Ambika Rubber Industries And 2 Ors.
Ceat Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Ambika Rubber Industries and others alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to tyre tubes and automobile industry goods. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using marks or trade dress deceptively similar to Ceat's.
Kesari Trust v.Kesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to travel, tourism, forex, and advertising businesses.
Donato Styling Products v.Celine Health Care Private Limited
Donato Styling Products filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Celine Health Care Private Limited. The court granted leave to the petitioner and subsequently passed an interim order granting a temporary injunction against the defendants regarding the use of similar trademarks.
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial direction from the Delhi High Court to compel the Union of India (Trademark Registry) to accept the renewal and/or restoration of its registered trademark, No. 1235463. The court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner a four-week window to submit the necessary renewal request along with the required restoration fee. This order clarifies that once submitted, the Trademark Registry will consider the application according to law.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited v.Rupam Garments
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning allegations of infringement and passing off. The Defendant failed to appear before the court, leading the court to issue a bailable warrant against the proprietor of Rupam Garments. The existing ad-interim order was directed to continue.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Jms Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against JMS Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to detergent products. The court granted leave under Clause XIV and issued an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark SARAF or the SPLAT Device in relation to its detergent preparations.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Jms Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against JMS Industries concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to detergent preparations. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark SARAF or the SPLAT Device in connection with similar goods.
Surya Food And Agro Limited v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Surya Food And Agro Limited's suit against Om Traders and others, which alleged passing off based on similar packaging trade dress. The court found that despite the plaintiff's claims regarding distinctive packaging for 'BUTTER DELITE,' there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion with the defendant's product, 'BUTTER KRUNCH.' The judgment emphasized consumer perception principles (Gestalt Psychology), concluding that consumers recall products holistically rather than focusing on minute details of the packaging.
Achla Sabharwal v.A. Saptrishi Films & Ors.
This appeal challenged an order directing the plaintiff's plaint back to be filed in a competent jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around the exclusive ownership and jurisdiction rights concerning the film 'BETI No.1'. While the appellant claimed sole copyright ownership based on an agreement, the respondents relied heavily on a clause stipulating that all disputes must be heard exclusively by courts in Mumbai. The Delhi High Court ultimately upheld the trial court's order.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Lakshmi Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Lakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered copyright (A-68242/2005) and trademark ('Gold Winner'). The plaintiff claimed the defendant was deceptively using similar trade dress and color schemes on packaging for refined sunflower oil. However, during the proceedings, both parties reached a compromise. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on the Joint Memo of Compromise, ensuring the defendant would cease using the offending mark.
Metro Brands Ltd. v.Metro Footwear
The Plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that the Defendant was infringing its registered trademark 'METRO' and engaging in passing off. The Court found prima facie satisfaction regarding the infringement and granted ad-interim relief.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Burdwan Soap Works
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Burdwan Soap Works alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to their detergent powder products. The court granted an interim order, reinforcing existing reliefs and issuing further restraints on the Defendant's business practices.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited v.Rupam Garments
The plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit against the defendant regarding passing off. The court directed the defendant to appear in person along with invoices, and while the defendant failed to appear, the court reiterated that the earlier ad-interim order would continue.
Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopaks Pik-N-Pay
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application filed by Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. against Roopaks Pik-N-Pay regarding alleged trademark infringement of 'ROOPAK'. While the plaintiffs sought a complete restraint, the court acknowledged the defendants' long-standing use of the mark since 1994 and noted unexplained delay in filing the suit (2017). Consequently, instead of granting an outright injunction, the Court ordered the defendants to cease using variants of the mark while simultaneously mandating them to file detailed accounts from 1993-94 to facilitate a fair trial.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited v.Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited filed a suit against Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr. alleging infringement of trademark and passing off. The Calcutta High Court accepted the plaint, noting that no leave was required under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. Given concerns about potential concealment of infringing products, the court dispensed with mediation provisions.
Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited v.Rupam Garments
The petitioner filed a Notice of Motion against the respondent in the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court. The court granted leave and directed the defendant to appear on a specific date along with relevant invoices, while maintaining the existing interim protection.
Gopal Ji Gupta v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gopal Ji Gupta regarding the renewal of his trademark 'BINACA'. The court held that since the Registrar failed to issue mandatory notice (Form O-3) before the mark was removed from the register, the rejection of the renewal application as time-barred was legally flawed. Consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's renewal request, provided late fees are paid.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The petitioner argued that the appeal mechanism was practically unavailable due to the absence of a technical member, and further contended that the rejection of their patent application, which followed a voluntary divisional filing, was erroneous as it failed to consider curative measures.