Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13301–13400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Uoi & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' decision to refuse examination and treat his patent application as withdrawn due to a delay in filing Form-18 (request for examination). The court examined the relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970, and held that since the request was made outside the prescribed time limit based on the earlier date (priority date), the petition lacked merit.
S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons v.The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons' writ petition, setting aside a decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on the registration of the 'SVS' trade mark for edible refined oil. The court ruled that the contesting respondents could not claim exclusive rights over the mark based on an ambiguous arbitration award, especially since the award did not specifically allot the mark to them. This decision reinforced the petitioner's right to use and register the mark.
Monsanto Technology Llc Thru The Authorised Representative Ms. Natalia Voruz & Others v.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Thru The Director & Others
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute between Monsanto Technology LLC and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. concerning the use of patented Bt cotton technology ('BOLGARD'). The core issue revolved around whether the defendants' rights were protected under the PPVFR Act, potentially invalidating the patent claims, or if the plaintiffs could enforce their registered patent for infringement. The court ultimately restored a Single Judge's interim injunction and remanded the suit, emphasizing that complex questions of patent validity must be decided after full evidence is adduced during trial.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
Arihant Evergreen Agro Plast And Textiles Private Limited v.EPC Industries Limited
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed in 2004 alleging patent infringement. The plaintiff-respondent sought to take product samples on record via Order VII Rule 14 CPC, despite a significant delay of over 11 years. The appellants-defendants challenged this order, arguing the delay was unexplained and irrelevant to determining patent infringement.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Maxworth Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a suit against Maxworth Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged trademark infringement concerning the medicinal preparation 'PANTOCID'. The Bombay High Court granted leave and further issued an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the deceptively similar trade mark "MAX PANTOCID" or any other similar marks.
Jasper Infotech Private Limited v.Aadi Sins & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Jasper Infotech Private Limited regarding its SNAPDEAL trademarks. The court restrained the newly impleaded defendants from infringing the trademarks or passing off their business as affiliated with the plaintiff. Crucially, the court directed several domain registrars to immediately suspend numerous domains that were allegedly used for fraudulent activities related to the brand, and also ordered a freeze on specific bank accounts.
Benden Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a commercial IP suit filed by Benden Limited against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The dismissal occurred because the Plaintif had previously received an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) directing the cancellation of its trademark registration, 'Perfect Radiance.' Since the mark was removed from the register, the court found that the Plaintiff was no longer interested in pursuing the suit, leading to its dismissal for want of prosecution.
Gebi Products v.Rose Industries
Gebi Products filed a suit against Rose Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark and copyright related to the packaging and mascot used on brooms. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and designs, and ordered the payment of damages.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Hasmi T.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Hasmi T. regarding the alleged infringement of their trade mark 'VIDVIE'. The court granted an interim order restraining the defendant from using the disputed trademark on mobile phone accessories until the final hearing.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Amit Apparels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour, Inc. against Amit Apparels & Anr., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendants were allegedly adopting and using the identical trade mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and copying its artistic features on apparel goods. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the infringing goods until further orders.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy & Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a court-supervised licensing process for proprietary edible oil trademarks, citing concerns over the integrity of the bidding. The Judge found that media reports suggesting bias had compromised the neutrality of the auction, leading to only two bidders remaining (the Plaintiff and one Defendant). Consequently, the Court Receiver was directed to halt the current proceedings, return all existing deposits, and reissue advertisements under strict conditions of silence from all parties.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Reckitt Benckiser against Patanjali Ayurved concerning alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices related to toilet cleaner advertisements. The core dispute centered on misleading claims made in both original and revised advertisements regarding the use of hydrochloric acid and product naturalness. While the plaintiff sought to challenge the defendant's revised advertisement, the Court permitted Reckitt Benckiser to amend its plaint, allowing the litigation to proceed while preserving the rights of Patanjali Ayurved.
Laila Nutraceuticals v.Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF)
Laila Nutraceuticals challenged an arbitral award requiring it to pay Rs. 84,00,000/- to Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF). The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's patent claims lacked novelty and that the license agreement was invalid because it was not registered with the Patent Office. The court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the arbitral award.
A.S. Hameed v.P. Maharajan
The dispute centered on a registered trade mark ('No.10 A.S. PHOTO BEEDI') used for beedies and tobacco products, with the plaintiff seeking an injunction against alleged infringement by the defendant. However, the case progressed to an application by the defendant seeking revocation of the 'leave to sue' initially granted to the plaintiff. The court ultimately held that neither party resided nor conducted business within its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the successful revocation of the leave and the dismissal of the main suit.
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 regarding alleged trademark infringement/passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meena Prints" or "Meera Prints" on their textile goods.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others regarding alleged passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Kasthuri Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against M/s.Kasthuri Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('Gold Winner') and copyrights related to packaging for sunflower oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'Kasthuri Gold'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
Hotel Panchavati And Anr. v.Hotel Panchavati Pure Veg Family Restaurant and Ors.
The suit was filed regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's registered trade marks, PANCHAVATI / PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted leave to the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, issuing a perpetual injunction against the defendants.
Sri Bishnupada Biring v.Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Biring
The Calcutta High Court noted a prima facie case raised by the petitioner concerning procedural flaws and patent discrepancies in the commissioner's report. Consequently, the matter was directed to be heard as a contested application. An interim order granting a stay on the impugned order and related proceedings was issued.
Snj Distillers Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
Snj Distillers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to issue a registration certificate for their trademark application. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the trademark certificate had already been issued. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
dharampal satyapal sons pvt ltd v.mr satish kumar
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) sued Mr. Satish Kumar & Ors (Defendants) for infringement of their registered trademark 'PULSE' on candies, alleging deceptive similarity to the Defendants’ brand ‘PLUS’ and trade dress. Both parties were selling candies in class 30, with the Plaintiff claiming significant market share and goodwill.
Sopariwala Exports And Anr. v.Satyapal Shivkumar
The Bombay High Court vacated an earlier ex-parte order that had recognized the Plaintiff's prior use of the trademark 'PAN RAAS'. The court found that the statement claiming the Plaintiffs conceived and adopted the distinctive mark in 2008 was incorrect, noting that the word 'RAAS' was adopted after a compromise with Rasana Private Limited. This decision significantly impacts the Plaintiff's claim regarding the originality and priority of their trademark rights.
Hanuman Candle Works v.M/S Ashwini Candle Industry
The Gauhati High Court disposed of an appeal concerning alleged infringement of a trademark and copyright related to candle artwork. The respondent agreed to refrain from using the disputed artwork ('MAYUR'), leading the court to make its previous interim injunction order absolute. However, the core issue regarding concurrent usage of the 'MAYUR' trademark remains pending before the Registrar of Trademarks, necessitating further action by both parties.
Maharshi Packaging Machines Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Maharshi Udyog Thru Partner, Bhagvat Vitthaldas Shah
The Gujarat High Court stayed a commercial trademark civil suit after hearing an appeal challenging the trial court's refusal to frame an issue regarding the validity of the plaintiff's trademark registration. The petitioner argued that since they had filed a rectification application under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the IPAB, the Civil Court should not have ruled on the matter unilaterally. The court agreed that the trial court needed to properly consider the pending statutory proceedings, leading to the stay.
Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Issac Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods / M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P)Ltd. v.Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Aachi Spices and Foods filed a civil suit alleging that Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd was infringing upon its copyright and passing off its brand, 'AACHI RAGI FLOUR.' The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the unauthorized use of similar marks on ragi flour products. After establishing jurisdiction and presenting ex-parte evidence, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting injunctive reliefs and directing the surrender of infringing materials. Furthermore, given the defendant's failure to appear despite being duly served, the court awarded significant compensatory costs.
Colgate Palmolive Company v.Personal Brushes Pvt. Ltd.
Colgate Palmolive filed a suit against Personal Brushes Pvt. Ltd. alleging passing off and infringement related to their toothbrush products. The court passed an interim order granting reliefs restraining the defendants from imitating the trade dress, get up, and infringing specific registered designs.
Metco Polymers Private Limited v.M/s.AnB Healthcare Products
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their registered patent related to 'water beds'. However, the counsel for the plaintiffs subsequently moved an application to withdraw the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Reva Sree Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Reva Sree Industries alleging infringement of its trademarks (OK and WHEEL) and passing off through the use of similar trade dress on detergent products. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks/trade dress pending final disposal.
Unilever Plc. v.HAD Enterprises
Unilever Plc. filed a suit alleging that Had Enterprises was violating its trademarks (LAKME, LAKME EYECONIC, etc.) by selling products using deceptive marks and logos. The court addressed motions related to the investigation of these IP violations.
Texmo Industries v.Mr.Kantilal Solanki
The Madras High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Texmo Industries against Mr. Kantilal Solanki, finding clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that since both parties used the identical mark 'TEXMO' on the same product—agricultural pumps—the use by the defendant constituted a direct violation of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (Nos. 315049 and 315050). Consequently, the suit was decreed granting permanent injunctive reliefs to protect Texmo Industries' brand integrity.
Riyaz Chowdhary v.Parfums Parour And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark rectification dispute concerning the mark 'LOMANI'. The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to remove the trademark, arguing that he was denied natural justice because the application for rectification was not served upon him until seven years after it was filed. Recognizing this procedural lapse, the Court set aside the IPAB's order and mandated a fresh hearing, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to contest the removal of his registered mark.
Rajeshbhai Gokulbhai Sojitra v.Registrar Of Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhavan
The Gujarat High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajeshbhai Gokulbhai Sojitra concerning the prolonged delay in deciding his trade mark registration application for 'Krinal Double Filter Chuno'. The petitioner alleged inaction by the Registrar of Trade Marks, noting that the application had been pending since 2008. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive to the Respondent Authority to finalize the decision on Application No.1688346 within eight weeks from the date of the order, without examining the merits of the underlying trade mark dispute.
Red Bull Ag v.C. Eswari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Red Bull Ag, declaring its 'Double Bull Device' and 'Single Bull Device' trademarks as well-known marks in India. The court found that Red Bull's extensive global presence, massive sales figures (controlling 97.3% of the Indian energy drink market), and widespread promotion satisfied the criteria for a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This declaration provides strong legal backing to prevent unauthorized use by defendants in related goods.
Unilever Plc v.Glint Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, sought interim relief against the Defendant, Glint Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks SUNSILK and CLEAR in the personal care industry. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks and ordered disclosure of relevant documents.
M/S VAJRA PLASTICS INDUSTRY v.M/S VARSHA POLYMERS
This appeal addressed allegations of design infringement concerning PVC rainwater gutters. The plaintiffs claimed their unique 'Euro Guard' gutter design was copied by the defendants' 'Varsha Square Gutter'. Although the plaintiffs held a valid design certificate, the High Court found it difficult to sustain the lower court's injunction order. The court ultimately set aside the temporary injunction while directing both parties toward expedited trial proceedings.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trade marks APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade marks APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Asian Paints Limited v.Agrasen Paints and Chemicals
Asian Paints Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against Agrasen Paints and Chemicals for alleged infringement of the distinctive trade mark UTSAV and associated trade dress. The Bombay High Court granted the requested relief, restraining the Defendant from using similar marks or trade dresses in relation to paints and distemper pending the final hearing.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks, APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints, issuing perpetual injunctions against the defendant's use of similar marks (APEXS and ROYAL) on paint products.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.National Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against National Chemical Works alleging infringement of its well-known trade mark 'SUNLIGHT' and its copyright in the associated artistic packagings. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and passed permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Atlas Radio Traders v.Vijay Marketing
Atlas Radio Traders filed a Notice of Motion alleging that Vijay Marketing was engaging in passing off by using the mark 'JZ CROWN' on electronic goods, which is deceptively similar to Atlas Radio Traders' prior trade mark 'CROWN'. The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or selling such goods until the final disposal of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.National Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against National Chemical Works alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (SUNLIGHT) and copyright in artistic packagings. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks ('SOOLIGHT') and reproducing the copyrighted trade dress on detergents.
Hemant Bandodkar v.Vertellus Speciality Materials
The Plaintiffs allege patent infringement regarding two patents related to a high yielding process for manufacturing DCDPS with near zero effluents. They seek ad-interim reliefs and preservation of documents.
Unilever Plc v.Golden Assam Tea Depot
Unilever Plc filed an IP suit against Golden Assam Tea Depot for trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of the impugned trade mark "Sipton" and other deceptively similar marks in relation to tea products, which infringed upon Unilever's registered trademarks, particularly "Lipton".
Luxembourg Brands S.A R.L & Anr v.G.M Pens International Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court partially decreed the suit for trademark infringement and passing off. Despite previous settlements where the defendant agreed to cease using certain marks, the court found that the defendant continued manufacturing and selling products under the mark 'TERAMAX'. Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on the company's directors and mandated a detailed accounting and independent audit of all net revenue earned from the infringing sales.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Reva Sree Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an IP suit against Reva Sree Industries alleging that the latter was using a mark (OK WELL) and trade dress deceptively similar to HUL's established marks (OK and WHEEL) and packaging. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an ad-interim injunction.
Great White Global Pvt. Ltd. v.Sameer Kumar And 6 Others
The petitioner, Great White Global Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Sameer Kumar and others alleging infringement of its copyrights and trademarks. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order recognizing the plaintiff's cause of action for infringement.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Raj Enterprise
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Raj Enterprise alleging infringement related to its detergent preparations, specifically concerning the use of an impugned pirated trade dress and 'Wheel Device'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting interim relief.
Kama Ayurveda Private Limited v.Rwl Healthworld Ltd. & Ors
Kama Ayurveda sought an interim injunction against Rwl Healthworld, alleging that the defendant's product packaging was deceptively similar to its own 'Eladi Hydrating Ayurvedic Face Cream,' thereby constituting passing off. The Delhi High Court examined both products and found material distinctions in shape, color scheme (gold/cream vs. white/off-white), and floral patterns. Ultimately, the court concluded that a common purchaser would not be misled, dismissing the plaintiff's application for an interim order.
Biofarma v.Bal Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed Biofarma's suit against Bal Pharma Limited concerning passing off and trade dress infringement. The court found that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over the term 'MEX' because it was an acronym ('Metformin Extended Release') derived from the principal drug ingredient, rendering it descriptive and publici juris in the pharmaceutical trade. Consequently, the defendant was permitted to continue using the mark without infringing on the plaintiff’s established brand.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Bharath Trading Co.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against Bharath Trading Co. and others for allegedly using a trade mark identical or deceptively similar to its 'SPLAT' device mark in relation to detergent preparations. The court allowed the leave petition and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods under the impugned mark pending final disposal of the suit.
Unza International Limited / Cavinkare Private Limited (depending on the suit) v.Cavinkare Private Limited / Wipro Limited (depending on the suit)
This Madras High Court judgment, dated November 15, 2018, resolved multiple complex trademark disputes involving Unza International and Cavinkare Private Limited against Wipro entities. The court decreed Civil Suit No. 1006 of 2009 in favor of Unza International regarding the 'ENCHANTEUR' mark, while simultaneously dismissing other related suits (C.S.Nos. 221 & 222) and closing associated writ petitions based on a compromise memo signed by the parties. The ruling highlights how litigation can conclude through negotiated settlements.
Skol Breweries Ltd. v.Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd.
This appeal was filed by Skol Breweries Ltd. (now Sab Miller) seeking a temporary injunction against Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd., alleging that the latter was using bottles bearing the appellant's registered design for their product, 'BLACK FORT.' The plaintiff claimed this constituted infringement and passing off of its beer, 'HAYWARDS 5000.' However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substance in the request for an injunction at that stage.
Skullcandy Inc v.Shri Shyam Telecom & Ors
Skullcandy Inc filed a suit against Shri Shyam Telecom and other entities, including the e-commerce platform Shopclues.com, alleging infringement of its 'SKULLCANDY' trademark through the sale of counterfeit products. The core legal dispute centered on whether the online marketplace could claim immunity as an intermediary under the IT Act. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Skullcandy, finding that the website's operational features—such as guaranteeing 100% genuine products and maintaining a 'Replica' category—demonstrated a role beyond that of a passive intermediary.
M/s.MRF Limited v.Multi Race Force Lubricants Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. MRF Limited, finding that the defendant's use of similar marks constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court applied the 'average purchaser' test, concluding that the overall similarity between the marks and packaging was likely to mislead an ordinary consumer. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a perpetual injunction restraining further misuse of the mark.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited v.Netsweeper Inc.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited filed a suit against Netsweeper Inc. alleging passing off and unauthorized use of its registered trademark, 'NETSWEEPER'. The plaintiff, based in Canada, claimed that the defendants were wrongfully associating themselves with its brand to sell similar software services. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, confirming the original injunction granted in favor of Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited.
Commscope Inc. Of North Carolina v.Union Of India
Commscope Inc. approached the Madras High Court seeking rectification of errors in its trademark registration certificate (No. 1380719). The petitioner argued that despite multiple representations, the Trademark Registry failed to issue the corrected certificate. The court intervened, directing the second respondent, the Registrar of Trademarks, to correct the error and issue a fresh Registration Certificate, thereby resolving the immediate procedural hurdle for the petitioner.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.R. R. Trading Company
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against R.R. Trading Company for allegedly using a label mark and trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive BROOK BOND RED LABEL/RED LABEL. The Bombay High Court granted the leave petition and passed an interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods that pass off as those of the plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Jmd Oil Private Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against JMD Oil Private Limited for alleged infringement of its trade dress and marks. The court granted the leave petition and subsequently passed an order granting an interim injunction.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Jmd Oil Private Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against JMD Oil Private Limited alleging infringement through the use of pirated trade dress in detergent and personal care products. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting interim injunctions.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.R. R. Trading Company
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Notice of Motion against R.R. Trading Company alleging that the defendant was using a label mark and trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive BROOK BOND RED LABEL/RED LABEL for tea products. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from passing off their goods.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Manoj Kumar Sharma
The petitioner, Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited, filed an IP Suit against Manoj Kumar Sharma regarding alleged infringement of its trade marks. The court granted leave to the defendant and passed an interim order restraining him from using 'JAWED HABIB' or 'JH' in connection with hair salon services pending the final hearing.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Systopic Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited to frame a new issue in its ongoing suit against Systopic Laboratories Limited. The core dispute involves the similarity between the trademarks 'STORVAS' and 'ORVAS'. Crucially, the court permitted the framing of an additional issue questioning the validity and potential cancellation of the defendant's trademark registration (No. 1328403). This decision was influenced by recent Supreme Court dicta emphasizing the necessity of addressing pleas of invalidity.
M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates v.M/s.Very Good Foods
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates against M/s.Very Good Foods, upholding the original finding that no infringement occurred. The court found insufficient evidence to establish deceptive similarity between the labels 'Chakra' and 'VG', noting differences in product descriptions and names. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to adequately prove specific financial loss caused by the defendant's marketing.
Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited v.Millennium & Copthorne International Limited
The Bombay High Court granted a limited ad-interim relief to Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited, protecting its use of the name 'Hotel Millennium Park' and associated domain. The court ruled that pending the final suit, the Defendant must provide at least 7 days prior written notice before initiating any legal action claiming infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff. This decision provides immediate protection against groundless threats while the main litigation proceeds.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Sationers
This case involves a dispute over design rights concerning a pen. The defendants filed an application seeking to amend their written statement, claiming that they had subsequently received a Certificate of Registration for Design No. 282909 in Class 19-06. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment, arguing it was mutually destructive and that the trial had already commenced. However, the court allowed the amendment, finding that the registration was a subsequent development and not fundamentally contradictory to the earlier pleas.
Nawaz Modi and Anr. v.Design Your Body Art/New Body Art Fitness Club and Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Body Basic Healthcare Pvt Ltd (Nawaz Modi), finding that the defendants were infringing on their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using similar marks like 'NEW BODY ART' or misrepresenting their services as connected to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to withdraw an application for registration of the mark 'BODY ART GYM' and pay substantial damages.
Pankaj Sales Corporation v.Indra Jain Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed an execution petition filed by Pankaj Sales Corporation against Indra Jain Industries. The dispute centered on whether the judgment debtor was violating a consensual decree related to trademark use. The court ruled that while the defendant was bound by the settlement agreement regarding specific registered trademarks (TRISHUL/TRIDENT and TRISHUL), the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over an unreferenced label design presented in the execution petition. Consequently, the attempt to enforce the alleged violation failed.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Modi Powder And Shop Company and 2 Others
The petitioner filed an IP suit against the respondents regarding impugned goods. The court noted that local police authorities refused to assist the Court Receiver in seizing and sealing the goods as directed by a previous order. Furthermore, Defendant No.2 failed to appear in court, leading the court to issue a bailable warrant.
Powerhouse Licensing LLC v.Ashok Banwarilal Gupta Trading As Qs
In this Bombay High Court matter concerning alleged trademark infringement, the court accepted an undertaking from the defendants. The defendants committed to refraining from using the trademark or trade name 'POWERHOUSE' across all platforms, including websites and social media. This interim order allows the case to proceed while securing immediate protection for the petitioner's brand.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
The Madras High Court modified existing interim injunctions in a dispute between Vennila Clothing Company and M/s.Arrs Silks regarding trademark and trade dress infringement. The court partially allowed the applications seeking to vacate the previous injunctions, establishing an interim arrangement where the defendants could use specified changed trade dresses for a period of eleven months. This decision allows the main suit to proceed while providing temporary relief to both parties.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner filed an IP suit against the respondents alleging infringement and passing off related to their registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights used in textile goods. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks and ordered them to pay damages.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed an IP suit against Shri Ajanta Fabrics and others for infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks in relation to textile goods.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Modi Powder and Soap Company & Ors
The petitioner filed a notice of motion regarding the execution of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order. The court found that local police authorities refused to assist the Court Receiver, and the defendants also obstructed the seizure and sealing of the impugned goods. Consequently, the court passed further orders directing the concerned parties to appear before it.
Cello Plastic Industrial Work And Ors. v.Ajay Shantilal Raka
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute involving Cello Plastic Industrial Work and Ajay Shantilal Raka. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to produce specific application and opposition records before the next hearing date. This procedural step indicates that the case is actively moving forward, requiring both parties to prepare for detailed examination of the relevant intellectual property filings.
Pradeep Cholayil & Cholayil Private Limited v.Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited
The Madras High Court confirmed the existing interim injunction in favor of Pradeep Cholayil and Cholayil Private Limited against Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MYSOAP' was deceptively similar to the applicants' registered trademark 'MYSOP' for cosmetic soaps, constituting infringement and passing off. The injunction was confirmed post-contest and ordered to operate for a period of one year, allowing the main suit to proceed expeditiously.
Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors. v.Imran Khan
In the case concerning the trademark 'SNJ TOOFAN', the defendant, Imran Khan, filed an affidavit affirming that he has ceased using the mark and undertakes not to use it in the future. The court accepted this submission, allowing the matter to proceed while granting time for the plaintiffs to take instructions. This indicates a potential path toward resolution through settlement or compliance.
Radio Next Webcastion Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India And Anr.
Radio Next Webcastion Pvt. Ltd. challenged an administrative order that declined to list its application under Section 31D of the Copyright Act before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The denial was based on the absence of a dedicated technical member for copyright matters. The Delhi High Court examined whether the IPAB, which is primarily constituted under the Trade Marks Act, could exercise jurisdiction over copyright issues. The court held that due to statutory amendments, the existing Appellate Board has sufficient jurisdiction and can proceed with examining copyright applications despite the temporary vacancy in specialized membership.
Unilever Plc. v.Bhanu Chauhan
Unilever Plc. filed a Notice of Motion seeking restraining orders against Bhanu Chauhan and others for using logos and trademarks deceptively similar to Unilever's well-known brands (DOMEX). The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order.
Simon, S. A. U. v.The Controller Of Patent & Designs & Anr.
Simon filed three applications for the registration of a design related to 'Accessories For Electrical Devices', claiming priority from a Spanish application. The Controller found that the design lacked novelty because it was taught by earlier, prior published designs and compared unfavorably with Registered Design No. 216507.
M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass v.Ashok Kumar Sethi
The main suit involved a claim by M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass against Ashok Kumar Sethi for copyright infringement and passing off related to their Henna products bearing the mark 'AMIN'S'. The defendant filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
Magnolia Ltd. v.Softgel Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction favoring Magnolia Ltd. against Softgel Health Care Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that pending the final disposal of the suit, the defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling, exporting, or using the disputed trademark 'VAGICLIN Plus' in connection with any pharmaceutical product. This interim order significantly protects the plaintiff's brand rights while the main infringement case proceeds.
Novartis Ag v.Aanchal Corp
The case involves a Notice of Motion filed by Novartis AG seeking an injunction against Aanchal Corp. for infringing their Indian Patent No. 212815 related to pharmaceutical products containing Vildagliptin.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sainath Enterprise
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial suit against Sainath Enterprise alleging that the defendant was using an identical or deceptively similar label mark and trade dress on their detergent powder, thereby passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order.
Joy Creators Pvt Ltd v.Natures Essence Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the use of 'Honey & Almonds' in cosmetic products. While the Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendant's use of the phrase, the court allowed the Defendant to continue using 'Almond and Honey' as a descriptive ingredient term. However, strict conditions were imposed on packaging design, ensuring that this descriptive phrase does not gain undue prominence over the Defendant's own trademark, 'Nature's Essence'.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd v.Ganesh Industries
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Ganesh Industries alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark (MAXX), copyright violation in packaging art, and passing off related to detergent products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for these illegal activities. Both parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise.
Vocco Consultants And 2 Ors. v.Vicco Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'VICCO'. While the original suit was stayed pending a rectification application before the IPAB, the court took proactive steps to address the core dispute. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court framed an additional issue specifically questioning whether the Defendant's registration of the mark 'VICCO' is bad in law and liable for invalidation.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Joshi Products
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP suit against Joshi Products alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic label and distinctive trade dress for its detergent powder, WHEEL. The Bombay High Court granted leave to defend the suit and subsequently decreed it in favor of HUL.
Novartis AG v.Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited
Novartis AG filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered patent (No. 212815) concerning Vildagliptin. The defendant, Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited, contested the claim by stating it neither manufactures nor intends to manufacture the patented drug. By mutual consent, the court disposed of the suit, granting permanent injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Prime Comfort Products Private Limited v.Lal Bahadur Trading As Sulakshmi Enterprises
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment, upholding its territorial jurisdiction to hear the trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant was conducting business and soliciting sales within Delhi via its website and through market confusion involving distributors in the region. This ruling reinforces the principle that digital presence and market impact within a specific territory can establish jurisdictional grounds under IP law.
Sunil Kishore Ahya v.Election Commission of India
The appellant sought information regarding the design and engineering of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The respondents argued that disclosing this technical information, which falls under patent rights, could enable the manufacturing of spurious machines and threaten the democratic process. The Commission agreed with the respondents' stance.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Lite Detergent Soap
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Lite Detergent Soap. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent and also granted specific interim reliefs sought by the plaintiff, which will remain in force until further orders.
S.Sudhakar & Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Udayam Marketing
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, S.Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd., against M/s.Udayam Marketing regarding trademark infringement and passing off of 'UDHAIYAM'. The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using an identical or deceptively similar mark for food products like Asafoetida Powder. Furthermore, given the decade-long litigation period and the defendant's non-appearance, the court awarded substantial compensatory costs to the plaintiffs.
Wockhardt Limited v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Supreme Court rejected Wockhardt Limited's appeal against a High Court Division Bench order that had granted an interim injunction based on passing off. The court found that the Division Bench correctly applied the triple test for passing off, establishing reputation and likelihood of confusion due to the minimal difference between the trade names. Despite arguments regarding acquiescence and prior conduct, the Supreme Court held that the balance of convenience favored the original judgment, thereby upholding the protection of Torrent's trademark.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jai Hind Gruh Udhyog
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP Suit against Jai Hind Gruh Udhyog alleging infringement of its distinctive WHEEL label and trade dress in the soap and detergent industry. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction.
Nakoda Plast Industries v.Amisha Plastic
Nakoda Plast Industries filed an IP suit against Amisha Plastic. The parties subsequently entered into Consent Terms, which were accepted by the Court.
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav v.Anviti Foods And 2 Others
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav filed an IP suit against Anviti Foods and others alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the name PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordered the defendants to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- towards costs/damages.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.S.G.K. Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against S.G.K. Industries alleging infringement and passing off related to its 'SPLAT' trade mark used in detergent preparations. The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks pending final disposal of the suit.
Metro Shoes Limited v.V. Retail Pvt.Ltd.
The Bombay High Court disposed of the suit (COMIP (L) No. 1073 of 2018) between Metro Shoes Limited and V. Retail Pvt.Ltd. after both parties submitted Consent Terms dated August 30, 2018. The court accepted these terms, leading to the disposal of both the Suit and the Notice of Motion.