Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13201–13300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Lalit Kumar Arya & Anr. / Chaya Devi v.M/S Prabhat Zarda Factory International (Noida) / Family Members
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex disputes over several family-owned trademarks, including 'RATNA' and 'PRABHAT ZARDA'. The core conflict revolves around the ownership of these marks following the death of the original proprietor, Sh. Lalit Kumar Arya, and subsequent assignment to his daughter-in-law, Smt. Chaya Devi. The court has directed that the validity of the trademark assignments and the enforcement of existing injunctions must be adjudicated during the trial, acknowledging the intricate family succession issues.
M/s.Swagath Motels Private Limited v.M/s.Hotel Swagath; Registrar of Trademarks
M/s.Swagath Motels Private Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Hotel Swagath' registered in M/s.Hotel Swagath, citing concerns over register purity. However, on August 8, 2023, the Madras High Court noted that the dispute between the contesting private parties had been resolved amicably. Consequently, the court closed (T)OP(TM) No.486 of 2023 without passing any formal order regarding costs.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International v.Orbicular Pharmaceutical Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner in Telangana High Court. The purpose was to collect documents and testimony from Orbicular Pharmaceutical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which was involved in a U.S. patent infringement case concerning Teva's anti-cancer drug, Bendeka®. The court granted the petition, directing the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to conduct the proceedings under strict confidentiality terms.
Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Deepika File Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Filex Systems Pvt. Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Deepika File Products for passing off the plaintiff's trade name 'FILEX'. The court found that despite the defendant's arguments regarding prior use or lack of registration, the extensive and long-standing use of 'FILEX' by the plaintiff had established significant goodwill and reputation in the stationery market. This judgment underscores the protection afforded to unregistered marks when passing off is involved.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trademark related to bottles used for bottling country liquor. The court granted leave, accepted an undertaking from the Defendant, and decreed the suit.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trade mark used on bottles for country liquor. The Court granted leave, accepted an undertaking from the Defendant not to use the marked bottles, and decreed the suit.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trade mark used on bottles for bottling country liquor. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks/works, subject to an undertaking by the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Dhananjay Gruh Udyog
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Dhananjay Gruh Udyog alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered 'SPLAT device mark'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Dhananjay Gruh Udyog
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Dhananjay Gruh Udyog alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered 'SPLAT device mark'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. The court issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks on detergent preparations and ordered the destruction of all bearing goods.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Ankit Mishra
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a suit against Ankit Mishra and others alleging infringement of its registered trademark No. 1692705 (in class 5) by the use of similar marks like 'MONTEKET' or 'MONTEKET-LC'. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendants for infringing the mark and passing off goods.
Celgene Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Celgene Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8064/CHENB/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that their invention—a dissolvable tablet formulation for cancer treatment—had novelty and inventive step over prior art, which consisted of enteric-coated tablets. The High Court found the controller's rejection faulty because it failed to consider the technical advancements presented by the appellant.
Symphony Ltd. v.Thermo King India Pvt Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Thermo King India Pvt Ltd alleging that its air cooler model, 'Thermoking Typhoon,' substantially imitated Symphony's registered design for the 'Symphony Storm 70i.' The court found that the Defendant's product was a substantial imitation of the protected design. Despite the Defendant initially raising defenses regarding prior publication and difference in designs, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Symphony Ltd. v.Life Plus Appliances
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Life Plus Appliances alleging infringement of its registered designs for air coolers. The Plaintiff demonstrated that the Defendant's models, 'Tower' and 'Tycoon', were substantial imitations of Symphony's protected designs (Storm 70i, Sumo, and Winter). Despite the Defendant raising defenses regarding prior publication based on advertisements and trademark applications, the court found these claims unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Symphony Ltd., granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Unilever Plc. v.Lucky Products
Unilever Plc. filed a suit against Lucky Products alleging infringement of its VASELINE trademarks (label and shape marks) and copyright related to personal care products, specifically petroleum jelly. The court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptive marks or artwork and ordered the destruction of infringing goods.
Living Media India Limited v.Lallantop Media And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Living Media India Limited, finding that Lallantop Media and Anr. infringed upon its trademark rights by registering and using the similar domain name 'THELALLANTOP.NET'. The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of the domain and directed the registrar to facilitate the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established online brand identities in the digital media space.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court passed an order granting leave to the petitioner and issuing a temporary injunction. The injunction restrained the respondent from dealing in medicinal preparations bearing the impugned trade mark "MONTEKAZ" or any deceptively similar mark, preventing passing off of the plaintiff's brand 'MONTEK'.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not new and had been in use for decades. The Court ultimately disposed of the Original Applications on terms requiring the Respondent to maintain and submit quarterly accounts related to the sale of similar products.
M/s.Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg v.Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg filed a civil suit against Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of its registered trade marks, including 'GEDORE', and copyright violation concerning the 'GEDORE Device' artistic works. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off and IP infringement. However, before the final judgment, both parties entered into a compromise agreement.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt Ltd
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. concerning trademark infringement related to pharmaceutical preparations. The Bombay High Court granted leave and issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trade mark "MONTEKAZ" or any deceptively similar marks.
Warner/Chappell Music Limited v.Spotify AB
The Bombay High Court passed an order in a Notice of Motion concerning copyright infringement related to musical works. The court granted leave to the plaintiff and directed the parties regarding financial deposits and future proceedings, while reserving final judgment on statutory licensing issues.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not novel and had been in public use for decades. The Court found that while the balance of convenience was not clearly in favor of granting injunctive relief immediately, it directed the Respondent to maintain detailed quarterly accounts regarding sales and profits of similar products.
Luxembourg Brands S.A.R.L & Anr. v.G.M. Pens International Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an extension of five weeks to the Local Commissioner in a trademark infringement dispute involving the brand TERAMAX. The court noted that while the defendant had finally filed an affidavit regarding net revenue, it lacked necessary annexures detailing the accounts workings. Given these procedural delays and ongoing verification processes, the court allowed more time for the commissioner to submit a comprehensive report on the defendant's sales.
Hotel Panchavati & Anr. v.Hotel Panchvati & Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Hotel Panchavati & Anr. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' well-known reputation and goodwill associated with the 'PANCHAVATI' marks in the hospitality sector. Finding that the Defendants were using deceptively similar marks and domain names, the Court issued an injunction restraining their continued use of these marks and directed them to remove all infringing materials within three days.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Trustbanq Reality Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim permanent injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., who holds the registered trademark 'BELLEVUE' for luxury apartments. The court found that the Defendants were using a confusingly similar mark, 'BELLE VUE', for their real estate projects. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from launching any new projects under this name and faced restrictions on executing new sale deeds in existing projects.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v.Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited against Mr. Gagan Varshney & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court observed that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'PULSER' and identical trade dress for candies, which infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark PULSE and its associated artistic packaging. This protective order prevents the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the infringing marks until further orders.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Mahabir Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a commercial IP suit against Mahabir Enterprises alleging infringement of its copyright in artistic packaging/trade dress for detergents, along with passing off. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from reproducing or selling infringing goods and ordered the payment of a fine.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Mahabir Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a commercial IP suit against Mahabir Enterprises alleging infringement of its copyright in artistic packaging and passing off related to its detergents. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from reproducing or dealing in similar goods, and mandated the payment of a fine.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Venkata Reddy Alla
The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Patent No. 209816, along with damages and other reliefs. The case was successfully mediated, leading to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Unilever Plc. v.Lucky Products
Unilever Plc. filed a notice of motion seeking an interim order against Lucky Products for allegedly using a pirated trade dress and trademarks deceptively similar to VASELINE in their petroleum jelly products. The Bombay High Court granted the leave petition and issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling such goods.
Agarwal Deokinandan Gopiram v.Jagdamba Textiles Pvt Ltd
The petitioner, an owner of a patent related to a specialized fabric dyeing machine, challenged the respondent's use of similar technology. The court examined the technical specifications of the patented machine and found that the applicant had established a strong prima facie case for patent violation.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Mahabir Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Mahabir Enterprises alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress and misuse of the 'Sunlight' trade mark in detergent products. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright and passing off, while also imposing a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Micro Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against Micro Paints alleging that the defendant was using pirated trade dress and marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's label marks (TRUCARE) and trade dress (ULTRA DECO). The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods under such deceptive marks.
Jhs Svengard Laboratories Limited v.Ranir Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the unique ornamental design of toothbrushes, where JHS Svengard Laboratories claimed exclusive rights over its 'CURVY' design. The court noted that the Plaintiff sought an injunction against Defendants selling similar products and had previously initiated a trademark cancellation action against one of the defendants. Recognizing the interconnected nature of the claims, the Court ordered the transfer of the pending trademark cancellation petition to be heard alongside the current infringement suit.
Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v.Fiit Jee Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., a well-known aerospace and defense entity, against Fiit Jee Limited & Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting the prestigious 'BRAHMOS' trademark for educational services, causing confusion among students who believed their tests were affiliated with the renowned company. Citing the strong prima facie case, the court ruled that allowing continued use by the defendants would cause irreparable loss to Brahmos’s goodwill and reputation.
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. challenged procedural orders issued by the Controller General of Patents concerning a post-grant opposition filed against their Indian Patent No. 255964. The petitioner argued that denying them the opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses relied upon by the opponent violated principles of natural justice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding that the denial vitiated the proceedings and set aside the impugned orders.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.Konkan Agro Marine Industries Private Limited
The petitioner filed a commercial IP suit against the respondent regarding the use of bottles bearing a registered mark. The court recalled an ex-parte order after the plaintiff failed to disclose a prior cease and desist notice. Subsequently, ad-interim relief was granted in favor of the plaintiff.
Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors v.Darshanam Life Space Private Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse interim order that had vacated the appellants' ex-parte injunction, which was related to trademark infringement concerning 'Central Park'. The court acknowledged the strong goodwill and reputation of the appellant's registered mark. While keeping the core dispute in abeyance, the court granted permission for the respondent to sell remaining unsold flats, balancing the need to protect IP rights with commercial realities.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking to defer or modify the appointment of a scientific expert to determine if the defendant's product, VALSAC, falls within the scope of Claim 1 of their patent (IN 229051). The court accepted the suggestion to appoint an expert from the Roll of Experts and framed a specific question for the appointed Expert Advisor.
M/S.M K Food Products v.M/S.S H Food Products
M/S.M K Food Products challenged the return of its plaint filed in the Commercial Court alleging copyright infringement concerning product packing design. The court held that since the suit sought permanent injunction against infringement, it inherently contemplated urgent relief. Therefore, the requirement to exhaust pre-institution mediation under Section 12(A)(1) of the Commercial Courts Act was found illegal and set aside.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
Hindustan Unilever Limited sued Eureka Forbes Limited for infringement of its water purifier patent (IN 198316). The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that an infringement suit is not maintainable against another registered patentee. The court ultimately held that a patentee is entitled to maintain such a suit, deciding the preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
The Gujarat High Court rejected the application for stay of the suit (C/CS/2/2017) and proceeded to frame issues regarding alleged infringement of a suit patent. The court also issued directions to expedite the recording of evidence, directing the record to be transmitted to the District Court, Vadodara.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The Bombay High Court granted leave, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar logos or marks on detergent powder.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.H. R. Chemical
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against H. R. Chemical alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (Nos. 1486109, 1780462, and 1486107) and passing off in relation to detergent powder. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar logos.
Rajendra Singh Shekawat v.M/S Shrinath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Rajendra Singh Shekawat against an order that denied a temporary injunction. The plaintiff, holding registered trademarks MAHARAJA MAHANSAR and MAHARANI MAHANSAR, alleged infringement by the defendant's use of 'Mahansar D.J. Special.' While the court acknowledged the similarity in the word 'MAHANSAR,' it held that determining whether this commonality constitutes deceptive similarity or infringement is a complex question of fact requiring evidence from a regular trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the defendant was directed to provide production and sales accounts to facilitate potential restitution if the plaintiff succeeds later.
Corum Hospitality v.WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The suit involved allegations that the Defendant was infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademarks by using deceptive names like 'WORLD BAR STOCK EXCHANGE' and 'WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.' The parties reached a settlement before the court.
Corum Hospitality v.WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Corum Hospitality filed a Commercial IP Suit against WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trademarks, specifically 'THE BAR STOCK EXCHANGE'. The parties reached a settlement before the Bombay High Court.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh And Anr v.Symed Laboratories Ltd
The execution petition sought to enforce a consent decree from 2015, which restricted Symed Laboratories Ltd from commercially exploiting RIVAROXABAN. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant had obtained a commercial license and made exports. The court addressed jurisdictional objections before disposing of the petition.
Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd. v.Dinender Jain & Others
In this interim order, the Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Oriflame against various defendants, including Amazon. The core dispute centered on whether Direct Selling Entities (DSEs) like Oriflame must obtain prior written consent before their products are sold on e-commerce platforms. While Amazon argued it was merely an intermediary exempt from liability under the IT Act, the Court issued specific interim directions. These orders mandate Amazon to identify sellers offering Oriflame's products and verify if they have obtained proper consent; listings without consent must be removed within strict timelines.
Akhil Bhatia & Anr. v.Shri Krishan Kumar Bhatia & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the dispute concerning the trademark 'ELLWIN'. Recognizing that settlement was not immediately possible, the court directed all parties to maintain the status quo regarding relevant assets and businesses. Crucially, the Registrar of Trademarks was instructed not to act on a specific assignment deed dated July 18, 2018, thereby keeping proceedings related to that transfer stayed.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Union of India and others
Panacea Biotec Ltd. challenged the grant of its vaccine patent (IN'351) after the Opposition Board provided a recommendation that the Petitioner deemed 'flawed.' The Petitioner sought the High Court to reconstitute a new Opposition Board. The court rejected the petition, holding that the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for expert adjudication and judicial interference is unwarranted at this stage.
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Bafna Biotech
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Bafna Biotech alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the 'ZINCOVIT' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA on pharmaceutical products. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise.
Narayanlal Hemaji Mewada And Anr v.Rishabh Enterprise And Anr
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a perpetual injunction against the defendants. The court restrained the defendants from using any label or domain name containing 'MARSHAL GRIP' or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered marks (MARSHAL/MARSHAL GRIP). Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to pay costs and destroy the wrappers of the impugned goods.
Marico Limited v.Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marico Limited against Mahajan Group Of Industries & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off regarding the plaintiff's 'SAFFOLA Oats' brand. Given that the defendants were allegedly selling oats with packaging deceptively similar to SAFFOLA, the court restrained them from manufacturing or distributing the competing product, 'NUTRI DELITE OATS,' until further orders.
Elder Projects Ltd. v.Elder Labs Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Elder' on pharmaceutical products. The court heard statements from key executives of both parties, including those from Elder Projects Ltd. and Elder Labs Limited. While the plaintiff raised claims regarding unauthorized use, the court noted that it was of a prima facie view that the plaintiff had made false claims, reserving judgment on this matter for future hearings.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Nk Singh & Ors.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. sought an ad interim injunction against Nk Singh & Ors., alleging that the defendants were openly offering for sale a patented anti-hyperglycemic agent, REMOGLIFLOZIN ETABONATE. The court found that the plaintiff held exclusive rights and granted the injunction.
Amit Bansal v.Amit Garg & Anr
The Delhi High Court stayed an earlier injunction order passed by the ADJ in a trademark dispute involving 'ATHERMAL'. The appeal challenged the lower court's decision, which had favored the plaintiff (Amit Garg) based on registration and alleged prior use since 2003. However, the High Court noted serious procedural flaws, including the inclusion of an unverified party (Plaintiff No. 2), and directed further examination of the trial record.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing its patented pharmaceutical composition, Valsartan + Sacubitril (Patent No. 229051). The dispute centered on whether Natco's product, VALSAC, was identical to the claimed invention. The court found prima facie merit in Novartis' contentions and appointed an independent Expert Advisor to determine infringement.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Vahini Enterprises And Anr.
The plaintiff, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Vahini Enterprises and others alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'Meena Prints' (Reg. No. 967504) and copyright in the mark. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off goods using similar marks.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. sought to rectify the corporate name of NTK Bearings Private Limited, arguing that the company's use of 'NTK' infringed upon Ngk's registered trademark. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the Regional Director's rejection. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory limitations, finding that the petitioner failed to act diligently and waited too long after becoming aware of the opposition and subsequent rejections.
H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. v.Hnm Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) against Hnm Traders. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants' adoption of 'HnM' was nearly identical to H&M's distinctive style and color schemes. This order prevents the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or applying for registration until further orders.
Industrial Tools And Hardware v.Naman Arora and Sandeep Garg
The plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that the defendants infringed their registered trademark and manufactured identical products using the plaintiff's marks. The court observed the infringement and granted an interim order restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods bearing deceptively similar marks.
Trans Union Cibil Ltd. v.Chetani Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim order favoring Trans Union Cibil Ltd. against Chetani Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was infringing the 'CIBIL' trademark, misrepresenting itself as connected with CIBIL to the public, and collecting money from victims. Consequently, the injunction prevents the defendant from using or enabling others to use the protected trademarks in relation to credit scores and reports until the final disposal of the suit.
M/s.Bombay Pen Depot v.M/s.Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/s. Bombay Pen Depot and M/s. Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd by accepting a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC). Under the terms, the Plaintiff assigned its registered trademarks (PENTONIC) to the First Defendant for a consideration of INR 15 lakhs. In exchange, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw oppositions against the defendant's trademark applications and cease using the mark after a specified date.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute over territorial jurisdiction concerning a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant challenged the court's authority, arguing that since both parties had connections to Mumbai, the case should have been filed there based on precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court ultimately held that the interpretation of Sections 62 and 134 of the Trademarks Act, conferring 'additional jurisdiction,' is distinct from the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's territorial competence.
Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa v.M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves an Italian company, Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa, which filed a suit against M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd. for passing off its trademark and design mark used on brass ball valves. The dispute escalated when the appellant challenged procedural orders passed during the trial process. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned interlocutory orders did not qualify as 'judgments' under the Letters Patent, thereby rendering the appeals non-maintainable despite the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Mr.Babu Xavier v.M/s.Feather Touch Entertainments
Mr. Babu Xavier filed a civil suit against M/s. Feather Touch Entertainments and others seeking financial compensation and permanent injunction regarding the film 'VAA DEAL Tamil'. The court first established its jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the dispute involved intellectual property rights (copyright) related to the cinematograph film. Subsequently, both parties submitted a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading the court to pass a summary judgment based on the settlement terms.
Parthasarathy Seniammal Educational Trust v.V.Rangasamy Naidu Educational Trust
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed a dispute between two educational trusts regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants argued that mere abbreviations should not be considered infringement, while the respondents maintained that the single judge's decision was sound. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal but left all substantive issues open for resolution in the pending injunction application.
Institute For Inner Studies & Ors v.Charlotte Anderson & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the exclusive rights over the name and practices of 'Pranic Healing'. The defendants argued that these terms and concepts were pre-existing since 1904, forming part of traditional knowledge available in the public domain, and thus incapable of protection under existing IP laws. The court directed specific defendants to file an affidavit detailing their position before further arguments.
Srmb Srijan Private Limited v.Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Srmb Srijan Private Limited against Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited. The dispute centered on the 'X-Ribs' surface pattern used on TMT bars, which the plaintiff claimed constituted a distinctive trade dress and trademark acquired through long use and extensive marketing. The court found a strong prima facie case for passing off, noting that the defendant was using an identical imitation of the plaintiff's unique product indicia. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trade dress when demonstrating consumer association.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Golden Glue and others
Pidilite Industries Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Golden Glue and others alleging passing off related to its FEVICRYL product line. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and also passed an interim order granting specific injunctions.
Sae India v.Delta Inc.
Sae India filed a civil suit against Delta Inc., alleging multiple infringements, including trademark violation (SAE INDIA, BAJA), copyright infringement related to standards and rules, and passing off. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages. However, both parties agreed that the defendant had ceased all business operations, leading the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Golden Glue and others
Pidilite Industries Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Golden Glue and others alleging passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and also passed an interim order granting injunctions to protect the plaintiff's brand identity and packaging design.
S.S White Burs,Inc v.S.S. WHITE DENTAL PVT LTD
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes between S.S White Burs,Inc and S.S. White Dental Pvt Ltd, which had previously been stayed pending decisions by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Noting significant delays due to the non-appointment of technical members at IPAB, the court issued directions. The parties were directed to seek a status report from the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) regarding the appointment process, highlighting the potential harassment and delay faced by litigants.
Procter And Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Kani Soap Works
The Plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that the Defendant was using the Plaintiff's trade dress and label on detergent powder with clear intent to infringe the mark and pass off goods. The Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an ad-interim order restraining the Defendant from using the ARIEL ATOMIUM and TIDE marks/trade dress pending final disposal of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.J.K.Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against J.K.Enterprises regarding trademark infringement related to detergent powder. The Bombay High Court granted leave and passed an order restraining the Defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods using marks similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive trademarks WHEEL and Device of SPLAT.
Kinjal Lalitbhai Dave v.Red Ribbon Entertainment Private Limited
This appeal challenged an ex parte injunction granted by the Commercial Court regarding copyright infringement of the song "Char Bangadi Wari Gaadi." The appellant argued that the trial court failed to record reasons demonstrating how delaying the injunction would defeat its object, violating Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. While the respondent cited the appellant's delay in responding to the notice, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order and directing the parties to proceed with filing replies, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be treated as a mere formality.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd & Ors
Crocs Inc filed multiple suits alleging infringement of its registered designs (No.197685 and No.197686) by various defendants, including Bata India Ltd. Crocs claimed exclusive rights over the unique shape and pattern of its footwear designs, supported by extensive global trade and goodwill. The present appeal challenged the dismissal of Crocs' applications in these pending suits. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, directing that all related suits be listed together for further proceedings.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Nashirbhai Mohmedali Mansuri And Anr
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Nashirbhai Mohmedali Mansuri and others alleging infringement of its well-known trademark 'Vim', associated logos, and trade dress. The court granted the leave petition and passed an interim order.
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V & Anr. v.Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co (WQD) & Anr.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a process patent related to 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate'. The application before the court sought contempt proceedings due to alleged violation of an earlier interim order. The court found that the defendant's manufacturing process was virtually identical to the patented process, thus violating the interim restraint.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Mn Reddy & Anr
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug RIVAROXABAN (Patent No. 211300). The parties reached a settlement, leading to a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Rshyamala Ranganathan
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringement of their registered patent. The defendants stated they have never manufactured the products in question and agreed to the decree.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee
Bayer sought execution of a prior judgment restraining Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee and others from commercially launching 'RIVAROXABAN' during the lifetime of Patent IN 211300. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendants, including representatives of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, that they would not make commercial use of the product until the patent expires.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others alleging passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted an interim order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meera Prints" on textile goods.
Mahesh Gupta v.Dheeraj Kumar
This order in CS(COMM) 341/2017 addresses allegations of design infringement concerning the 'AQUA GRANDE' water purifier. Despite the defendants claiming they had stopped using the impugned trademark, the court noted evidence showing the sale of the infringing product through a third party, Mannat Electronics. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit clarifying their connection with this seller and detailing their sales turnover for the financial year 2018-19.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others alleging passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted a temporary order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meera Prints" pending the final hearing.
Biogen International Gmbh v.Jayesh Shah
The court passed an order disposing of several applications filed by both parties. The existing interim injunction was confirmed, and the defendant was permitted to sell their existing stock of 'DYFIRA' under specific conditions. This permission required the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.30 lacs to secure potential damages.
Sahaya Sujith Kumar v.A.Jordan
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the Patents Act because the respondent's patent rights were pending. The respondent argued the suit was an injunction based on breach of trust and non-disclosure agreement, not infringement.
Wockhardt Limited v.Chematac Pharmaceuticals
Wockhardt Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Chematac Pharmaceuticals alleging passing off due to deceptively similar packaging. The court granted leave and passed an interim order restraining the defendant from using packaging that could mislead consumers into believing their product was associated with Wockhardt.
patanjali ayurved ltd v.axiom ayurveda
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. sued Axiom Ayurveda for trademark infringement, alleging that Axiom was using the terms 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Ayurved Foundation Trust' and 'endorsed by Maharishi Patanjali Yogpeeth Foundation Trust' on their products, creating a deceptive association with Patanjali’s trademarks PATANJALI and PATANJALI AYURVED. The plaintiff claimed significant revenue (approximately Rs. 9,000 crores) and widespread distribution of its products under the contested marks.
M/S Khushi Ram Behari Lal (later M/s. KRBL Ltd.) v.M/S Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, favoring the petitioner in a trademark dispute over the 'TRAIN BRAND.' The court found that the respondent failed to prove prior use of the mark, particularly noting discrepancies and alleged forgery in the invoices presented. Consequently, the application for registration of the 'TRAIN' brand for basmati rice was allowed to proceed.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Tata Kumar Swamy and Anr.
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against the respondents alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trade mark 'Meena Prints' and copyright in its artistic work. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks and ordered them to pay damages/costs.
Hotel Panchavati v.Shree Panchvati Veg Restaurant
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants alleging infringement and passing off related to their well-known 'Panchavati' marks. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the Defendants for using similar marks like 'Shree Panchvati'. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 10 Lacs.
Sugen Inc. v.K.V. Prakash & Ors
The petitioner (Decree Holder) filed an application alleging that the respondents (Judgment Debtors), including K.V. Prakash, SP Accure Labs Pvt. Ltd., and Accure Labs Pvt. Ltd., were violating a permanent injunction decree by making, selling, or dealing in products infringing Indian Patent No. 209251. The petitioner specifically cited the marketing of medicines named SUNIT 50 and SPUNIT 25. The court directed JD No.1 to appear in person for further inquiry.
Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited & Anr. v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited (Times Group) against the defendants for infringing their intellectual property rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were illegally making available electronic copies of 'The Times of India' and 'The Economic Times,' as well as using the plaintiff's logo on their website without authorization. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading to an order restraining the use of the trademarks and copyrighted works, and directing the locking of the infringing domain name.
Nv Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v.A.D.S Spirits Pvt. Ltd.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed Nv Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. to file crucial additional documentation. The plaintiff sought permission to submit legal proceedings certificates and invoices related to their BESTO whisky brand. After considering arguments from both sides, the court granted leave for the documents to be taken on record, provided the plaintiff pays a cost of Rs. 15,000/-.
Associated Chemicals v.Associated Chemicals Corporation
In a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court mediated a settlement between Associated Chemicals and Associated Chemicals Corporation. The parties mutually agreed to allow both entities to continue using their respective trademarks—"Associated Chemicals" and "Associated Chemicals Corporation"—without objection. Furthermore, the Defendant agreed to remove the 'sister concern' designation from its website within 45 days, while allowing the Plaintiff to mention its group affiliation.
Noor Hospital Trust And 7 Ors v.Sajid Ali Khan
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial IP suit concerning the alleged passing off of a hospital's trademark. The Plaintiffs, Noor Hospital Trust, sought to restrain the Defendant from using 'NEW NOOR HOSPITAL,' claiming deceptive similarity to their established mark 'NOOR HOSPITAL.' The court framed multiple issues covering passing off, descriptiveness of the term 'NOOR,' and claims for damages and injunctions, setting a clear path for the evidence phase.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
This order addressed preliminary issues in an infringement suit. The court noted that a registered design holder is entitled to sue another registered holder if there is infringement, and suggested this principle should apply to patents as well. It was also informed that the plaintiff applied for patent grant earlier than the defendant.