Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13401–13500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.S.G.K. Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against S.G.K. Industries alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'SPLAT' trade mark used for detergent preparations. The Bombay High Court granted interim injunctions restraining the defendant from using any identical or deceptively similar marks, pending final disposal of the suit.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using a similar trade mark. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit with the court's permission, leading to its dismissal.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
The petitioner challenged the registration of Design No. 242843 (Sunday Chair) on grounds that it lacked novelty or originality as it resembled known designs. The respondent argued that the design was unique, aesthetically pleasing, and distinct from prior art. The High Court upheld the Deputy Controller's order, finding the registered design to be novel and original.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Suchit Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Suchit Industries alleging infringement related to the soap brand 'Karan'. The defendant, Suchit Murkute, admitted manufacturing soaps under the brand but undertook not to use the splat logo in the future. The Court granted leave and decreed the suit based on these undertakings.
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav v.Saikadam Foods And Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav filed an IP suit against Saikadam Foods And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks and copyrights associated with the name PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted leave, decreed the suit, and passed a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using similar marks or labels.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Rds Industries
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP Suit against Rds Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, specifically the 'Device of SPLAT' mark used in detergent preparations. The court granted leave and passed an order restraining the defendant from using any identical or deceptively similar marks pending the final hearing of the suit.
Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Kyorin Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its tablet patent application (No.5360/CHENP/2010), which cited lack of inventive step and non-patentability. The court found that since a process patent for manufacturing the tablet had already been granted, the respondent was estopped from rejecting the product patent on grounds of lacking inventive steps. However, the matter regarding Section 3(e) non-patentability was remitted for fresh consideration.
M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd v.M/S Kamdhenu Ltd
This appeal addressed an interim injunction sought by Kamdhenu Ltd against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for alleged infringement of a registered design on TMT steel bars. Kamdhenu claimed its unique surface pattern was protected, while Aashiana argued that the design merely replicated a widely accepted British Standard (BS 4449:2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the injunction, finding that Kamdhenu's registration was suspect because it relied on a commonly applicable standard available in the public domain.
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Institute Of Chartered Financial Analysis of India filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the registered trademark 'CFA'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Although the court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's counsel failing to provide instructions.
The Society Of Certified Public Acountants v.New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd
The Society of Certified Public Accountants filed a civil suit against New Horizons Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'CpA'. The court initially determined that the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it involved intellectual property rights relating to trademarks. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed for default because the counsel on record for the plaintiff submitted that they had no instructions from the plaintiff.
B.Vivekananthan v.B.Anandan Trading as Anand's MOONRAKERS RESTAURANT & B.Anandan Trading as Anand's Moonrakers
This Madras High Court case involved a trademark infringement suit filed by B.Vivekananthan against B.Anandan regarding the use of the 'MOONRAKERS' mark in restaurant and hospitality services. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions for both trademark infringement and passing off, along with delivery up of infringing materials. Ultimately, the parties reached a joint compromise memo on April 30, 2021, which was recorded by the court, leading to a decree based on mutual settlement.
M/s.Geege Paints v.M/s.Agsar Match Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s.Geege Paints challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Geege Paints had sought to uphold the validity of its trademark 'STAG' against rectification initiated by M/s.Agsar Match Industries. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court despite being duly served with notice, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited & Anr v.Droom Technology Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over alleged disparagement between Cars24 (Plaintiffs) and Droom Technology (Defendants). Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's advertising campaign, which used similar catchphrases and visual elements, was designed to denigrate their brand. However, the court found that the defendant had sufficiently modified its advertisement and that the phrase 'DON’T BE A BAKRA' was an integral part of the defendant's registered trademark, not a disparaging reference to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court allowed the defendant to continue using the revised advertisement during the pendency of the suit.
Tapas Kanti Mandal v.Cosmo Films Ltd.
The petitioner, a former employee of Cosmo Films Ltd., challenged an injunction granted by the trial court restraining him from working in competing businesses after his resignation. The plaintiff company relied on a non-compete clause and confidentiality agreements regarding trade secrets and proprietary knowledge. The High Court ruled that post-service negative restrictive covenants are generally not enforceable, favoring the petitioner's right to profession.
S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against TCS for infringing his copyright and patent related to 'FLYGUARD' (e-Passport/Smartcard). Despite arguments regarding jurisdiction, the court dismissed the suit due to the continuous non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel reporting 'No Instructions'.
S.Paul Raj v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against TCS for infringing his copyright and patent related to the e-Passport (Smartcard) invention, known as 'FLYGUARD' or 'TCS e-Passport Solution'. Despite multiple hearings and court directions, the plaintiff failed to appear or file necessary affidavits, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Naseer Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Naseer Apollo Pharmacy. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Apollo Pharmacy' was deceptive and infringed upon Apollo's registered trademarks across multiple classes, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, ordered the surrender of all infringing materials, and directed the defendant to render accounts of profits.
M.Kumaaravel / M/s.Vel Chakra Coffee Private Limited v.Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Madras High Court, M.Kumaaravel sought permanent injunction and damages against Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House for passing off their establishment as similar to 'Madras Coffee House.' However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiffs formally moved to withdraw the suit. The court accepted this request, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit.
Tata Sons Ltd & Anr v.Krishna Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting permanent injunctions and awarding substantial damages against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The suit centered on the unauthorized use of the well-known 'TATA' mark and associated domain names (www.tatafinserve.com). Given that the defendants evaded court proceedings, the Court emphasized the principle of corrective justice, holding them liable for punitive damages.
Condore Health Care Pvt.Ltd v.M/S Corem Pharma Pvt Ltd
This case involved a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of a suit filed under the Commercial Courts Act. The petitioner argued that since the estimated value of their intangible trademark rights and reliefs sought was less than one crore rupees, the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the respondent contended that the market value mentioned in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exceeded the threshold. The High Court ultimately ruled that for determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Act, it is the value of the reliefs estimated by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fees that governs, not the higher market valuation cited elsewhere.
Turning Point & Anr. v.Turning Point Institute Private Ltd
This appeal addressed a dispute over the use of the mark 'TP TURNING POINT' in the educational sector. The appellant challenged an order that had restricted its use of the trademark, while the respondent claimed prior usage rights dating back to 1994. The court focused on setting aside the restrictive injunction granted against the appellant. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal regarding the interlocutory injunction, quashing the previous order and dismissing IA 16232/2015. However, the judgment noted that it was prima facie and interlocutory in nature, leaving the core merits of the trademark dispute unresolved.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was selling products identical or obvious imitations of their protected designs, including the Aqua Safe bottle and Eco Flip Top bottle. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on the interim relief. Consequently, the court allowed the injunction application for the plaintiff while dismissing other related applications.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps (Aqua Safe and Eco Flip Top) against Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff demonstrated that their unique and popular product designs were being imitated by the defendant. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on interim relief.
Galderma S.A And Anr v.Medsea Healthcare Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking a summary dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The court noted that while the plaintiffs had assigned their rights to the mark Q-MED, the timing and effect of this assignment were complex and required full trial evidence. Given the ongoing dispute over ownership changes and alleged concealment, the court ruled that the core issues could not be resolved summarily, allowing the main litigation to proceed.
M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan v.M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan, argued they had a strong prima facie case against the respondent for using a deceptively similar name ('Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House') for their restaurant business. While the High Court did not rule on the merits of the infringement claim itself, it intervened by directing the lower court to expedite the proceedings and pass necessary orders within 30 days.
Praneet Singh Davar v.L S Davar & Co & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous interim order that restricted the appellant's association with the respondent firm. While acknowledging the initial prohibition, the court clarified that the single judge's recorded 'prima facie' opinion regarding trademark rectification was not a final determination. The judgment directs the Registrar of Trademarks to proceed with the rectification proceedings based on merits, independent of the prior preliminary view.
M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v.M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
The Supreme Court set aside previous orders from the IPAB and High Court that had cancelled the 'NANDHINI' trademark registration held by M/S. Nandhini Deluxe. The dispute centered on whether the restaurant chain could use a deceptively similar mark to the established milk producer, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Federation Ltd. The SC found that the appellant was a concurrent user who adopted the mark early enough and did not attempt to take unfair advantage of the respondent's goodwill, thereby restoring the registration.
Rapid Bevtech Pvt Ltd v.Khs Machinery Pvt Ltd
Rapid Bevtech Pvt Ltd challenged an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court, arguing that the suit lacked commercial jurisdiction and that the alleged confidential information was public knowledge. The core dispute revolved around the unauthorized use of specialized manufacturing know-how and technical secrets by former employees (now associated with Khs Machinery Pvt Ltd). The Gujarat High Court upheld the original order, finding no interference necessary as the relief granted balanced the rights of both parties.
G.Thirumoorthy v.Ellora Kalyani Gold Covering
G.Thirumoorthy filed a suit against Ellora Kalyani Gold Covering seeking permanent injunctions for infringing his registered trade mark 'KALYANI COVERING' and copyrighted artistic work, as well as passing off. The plaintiff sought to prevent the use of the deceptively similar mark 'KALYANI GOLD COVERING' on gold covering ornaments. However, during the proceedings, the court noted that the plaintiff failed to file an affidavit confirming the survival of the cause of action. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Jasper Motors Private Limited And Another v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw and Others
The applicant (Defendant No.2) filed an application seeking recall of a prior injunction order, arguing that the plaintiff's patent was invalid based on grounds like prior art and lack of inventive step under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found prima facie satisfaction regarding the patent's invalidity and noted the defendant's manufacturing activity, leading to the recall of the interim order.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Habiganj Agro Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the interim injunction granted to Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against Habiganj Agro Ltd., finding that the defendants failed to establish a compelling case for vacating the order. Despite arguments regarding 'proposed to be used' status and prior ownership claims, the court noted evidence of slavish imitation in the defendants' packaging materials. The interim injunction remains active for 16 weeks while the main suit proceeds.
Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd v.Citi Group Inc & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's order that had attached the bank accounts of Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd due to non-compliance with previous injunction orders regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no statutory provision for an appeal against such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's subsequent failure to comply with a one-month compliance statement made before the judge demonstrated bad faith.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. filed two suits alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 184753, which covers channel decoding technology used in DVD video players. The plaintiff claimed this patent was essential for the industry. Although the suit patent had expired by the time of judgment, the Delhi High Court found that the defendants were infringing the patent and liable to pay royalties at FRAND rates. Furthermore, due to the defendant's conduct as a former employee, punitive damages were awarded against Rajesh Bansal.
The Gillette Company Llc v.Tigaksha Metallics Private Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, The Gillette Company Llc, to continue its existing interim injunction against the defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff due to their prior use of the mark compared to the defendants' recent adoption. This decision maintains the status quo while the main suit proceeds, though the plaintiff must compensate the defendant for any losses incurred if they ultimately fail in the litigation.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Insecticides (India) Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Parijat Industries (India) Pvt Ltd for passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'VICTOR 80' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'VICTOR', despite arguments regarding prior use and registration complexities. This judgment reinforces the principle that prior user rights can prevail over subsequent adoption, even if the latter is claimed in good faith.
Eih Ltd. v.Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.
Rohit Singh & Anr v.Apple Inc.
The Delhi High Court addressed the trade mark dispute between Rohit Singh and Apple Inc. concerning the term 'SPLITVIEW.' The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against Apple, alleging passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar feature name in its operating systems. While the court dismissed an interim injunction request, it proceeded to frame six detailed issues for trial, focusing heavily on whether the term is merely descriptive, who has prior usage rights, and if the plaintiffs' mark has acquired distinctiveness.
Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd v.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd challenging a prior order that confirmed an ex parte interim injunction. The court upheld the injunction, finding that the respondent's registered trademark 'Doctor Brand Phenyle' had acquired distinctiveness and was associated with its phenyl disinfectant product. Despite the appellants' claims of rights via assignment deeds, the court found their use of 'Doctor Hazel' to be infringing, while allowing them to continue using 'Chemist brand germ troll.'
Lt Foods Limited v.Heritage Foods (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit filed by Lt Foods Limited against Heritage Foods (India) Limited. The stay was granted because both parties had pending cancellation/rectification applications concerning their respective 'HERITAGE' trademarks before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Crucially, the court clarified that while the main suit is stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, this does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing urgent interlocutory relief, such as an injunction.
Dhanpat Seth And Others v.M/S Nilkamal Plastic Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction and damages, alleging that the defendant infringed their Patent No. 195917 for a device used for manually hauling agricultural produce. The court examined the patent's validity and found that the invention lacked inventive step, as it was merely a substitution of bamboo with plastic in a traditionally known item (Kilta).
Syed Zakirali S/o Syed Jawarali v.Syed Zahidali S/o Syed Jawarali & Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal filed by Syed Zakirali against the dismissal of his civil suit concerning trademark infringement. The court held that Defendant No. 2 was illegally passing off goods as those of the plaintiff using disputed wrappers and labels ('322 pucca label' and '322 A.K.'). Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using these marks if the plaintiff renews them, and ordered to pay damages or render accounts of profits.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed Torrent Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a lower court order that vacated an interim injunction. The dispute centered on whether Comed Chemicals' brand name, 'CODROXIL', infringed upon Torrent's registered trademark, 'DROXYL'. Despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity, the court found no prima facie case for confusion, noting that both names originated from the generic drug 'Cefadroxil' and considering the nature of prescription-only pharmaceutical sales. The appeal was dismissed, directing the lower court to finalize the main suit promptly.
New Hope Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Pioneer Bakeries (P.) Ltd.
New Hope Industries challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to rectify its trademarks, Milka Wonder Cake. However, before the Madras High Court could rule on the validity of the marks, both parties entered into a Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated March 26, 2018. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petitions as withdrawn, resolving the dispute outside of judicial decree.
Krishnamachari Ramu v.Srinivasa Raja
The petitioners challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's order that revoked their patents (No. 193899 and 200285) concerning a novel method for preparing low glycemic sweets using Levulose/Fructose. The High Court found that the dispute required intricate scientific proof regarding the elimination of browning reactions, leading it to set aside the revocation order and remand the matter back to the IPAB.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Perfect Agro
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement involving Hakimuddin Bhemat and Perfect Agro. The court heard submissions from various parties, including an added respondent (Respondent No. 2), who claimed they were merely acting as intermediaries based on requisitions from Defendant No. 1. To clarify the supply chain, Respondent No. 2 was directed to file an affidavit disclosing the identities of third-party suppliers. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 provided an undertaking that they would cease using the plaintiff's trademark, while deadlines for other parties were extended.
Reliance Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Reliance Medipharma
The Gujarat High Court addressed appeals concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand name 'RELIANCE' in the pharmaceutical sector. While the court confirmed the lower court's decision refusing a broad injunction against the defendants using the name 'Reliance,' it partially allowed the appeal by specifically restraining the use of the derivative mark, 'Reliance Rx M,' for pharmaceutical products. This ruling highlights the nuanced approach courts take when balancing established trademark rights with specific usage limitations.
Klassic Wheels Private Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the cancellation of Design No. 229267, which covered a 'Wheel Rim' design. The grounds for cancellation were lack of novelty and prior publication. The court dismissed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence.
Vega Auto Accessories (P) Ltd. v.S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Vega Auto Accessories filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet for infringing its registered design related to helmets. The court examined whether the features of the defendant's helmet were substantially similar to the plaintiff's protected design. After detailed comparison, the High Court found that the defendant's product was an obvious imitation, thus confirming the ad-interim injunction in favor of Vega Auto Accessories.
Unknown v.Yogesh Mehra & Others
The plaintiffs argued that the court should not proceed with the civil suit while a statutory appeal was pending before the Statutory Authority. The defendant relied on a precedent (Dr. Aloys Wobben vs. Yogesh Mehra & others) which established rules concerning counter-claims and patent revocation petitions. The court accepted the defendant's submissions regarding the applicability of the precedent and listed the matter for arguments.
Star Television Productions Limited & Ors. v.Vaishali Saran & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Star Television Productions Limited, granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the 'HOTSTAR' brand through trademark misuse, copyright infringement of logos, and passing off. The court specifically ordered the transfer of deceptive domain names (hotstar.online and hotstarmovies.co) to the plaintiff, emphasizing that domain names function as commercial identifiers akin to trademarks in the digital age.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria alleging infringement of copyright, design rights, and passing off related to its popular brand HAJMOLA Anardana. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'KARORPATI Anardana' using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to its own. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the court found that the plaintiff successfully proved a likelihood of confusion leading to passing off.
M/S.J.K.Oil Industries v.M/S. Adani Wilmar Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a composite suit involving both trademark infringement and passing off, contingent on a pending trade mark rectification application. The court ruled that while Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act applies specifically to infringement suits, allowing the stay there, it does not apply to claims of 'passing off.' Consequently, the suit for infringement was stayed until the final decision of the rectification petition, but the parallel suit for passing off must continue and be decided on its own merits.
Rajesh Kalra v.Safeops. Surgical Care & Anr
Rajesh Kalra filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safeops. Surgical Care and others for infringing his registered design of 'Pre-Cut Eye Drape'. The plaintiff claimed novelty in the unique shape and configuration, which included a pre-cut aperture for surgical use. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the core feature—the pre-cut aperture—was purely functional and dictated by utility rather than aesthetic appeal.
Christian Louboutin Sas v.Abubaker & Ors.
Christian Louboutin Sas filed a suit against Abubaker & Ors., alleging trademark infringement and passing off based on its registered mark 'RED SOLE,' which refers to the red color applied to ladies footwear soles. The core dispute centered on whether this specific color shade could be protected as a trademark, especially when the defendants were using their own wordmark 'VERONICA.' The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that the use of a single color does not qualify as a trademark under relevant provisions and that Section 30(2)(a) disentitled the plaintiff from claiming infringement or passing off.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.R-3 Organics Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim protective order in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against R-3 Organics Limited. HUL alleged that the respondent was manufacturing and selling detergent powder under 'PARAS STAIN FIGHTER' with labels deceptively similar to HUL's well-known trademark 'SURF EXCEL.' The court found a prima facie case of infringement regarding both the registered trade mark and the copyright in the distinctive getup and color scheme, leading to an order for inventory and seizure of infringing goods.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the rejection of its Patent Application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant contended that the rejection order failed to objectively test the application or discuss relevant prior art (Exhibit D1).
Somashekar P Patil (Appellant) v.D V G Patil (Respondent)
This Karnataka High Court appeal addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between two parties sharing the surname 'Patil'. The appellant sought to maintain an interim injunction against the respondent for using 'Patil Fragrances', claiming it infringed his registered mark. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that the respondent's use of the name was bona fide. The judgment emphasized that Section 35 of the Trademarks Act protects a person's right to use their own surname in business, especially when their specific product brands are distinct.
Sarine Technologies Ltd v.Utpal Mistry
The court heard an application regarding a counterclaim filed by the defendants seeking revocation of a patent. The court held that based on Supreme Court precedent (Aloys Wobben), the counterclaim was not maintainable. Consequently, the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, leading the court to order the original suit be re-transferred to the District Court.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.
This appeal involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a registered design for a mixer grinder base unit. The appellant, M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., challenged an order that had granted an injunction against them based on copyright infringement. The court examined both designs side-by-side and found no substantial similarities, noting distinct differences in shape and configuration between the two tripod bases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous interim orders.
M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Registrar, Trademarks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg challenging the Registrar's decision to treat its trademark applications as abandoned. The court held that since the impugned orders were passed by the Trademark Registrar, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was not a Writ Petition under Article 226, but rather an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
Asugar Engineering Services v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition filed by Asugar Engineering Services, directing the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to reconsider a trademark rectification application. The court found that the IPAB's original order was flawed because it failed to provide adequate opportunity for both parties to contest the issues of non-use and classification. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and remanded back to the IPAB for a fresh hearing, ensuring due process is followed.
Balbir Singh & Company v.Mex Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of a district court in New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the suit filed by the respondent on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the court held that the plaint's averment that the defendant was clandestinely selling infringing goods within Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under both the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. Consequently, the petition seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
Shamnad Basheer v.Union Of India
This writ petition challenged the process and implementation timeline concerning changes to the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined issues related to Section 146 and Section 122 of the Act, which govern patent working. After reviewing an affidavit from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, the High Court accepted the detailed sequential timelines proposed by the Union of India for completing the necessary stakeholder consultation and legislative amendments.
Country Inn Private Limited v.Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc. seeking permission to proceed with a trademark rectification petition aimed at cancelling the plaintiff's 'COUNTRY INN' registrations. The court found the defendant's attempt to derail the ongoing infringement suit frivolous and an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with significant costs awarded against the defendant.
Marico Ltd. v.Mrs. Jagit Kaur
Marico Ltd. appealed against the Copyright Board's dismissal of its rectification petition, challenging Mrs. Jagit Kaur's copyright registration for the 'NIHAL UTTAM' label. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work was not original but a substantial and colorful imitation of Marico's established 'NIHAR COCONUT OIL' label. Given this clear infringement and lack of originality, the High Court set aside the Board's judgment.
Canara Bank v.N.G. Subbaraya Setty
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute involving Canara Bank and N.G. Subbaraya Setty concerning the use of the trademark 'Eenadu'. The core legal questions revolved around whether the bank's actions, such as selling agarbathies using the trademark, violated the Banking Regulation Act. Furthermore, the court examined the applicability of res judicata when a prior judgment was based on an assignment deed that was prohibited by law under the Trade Marks Act.
Pradeep Sharma & Anr v.UPL Ltd
The petitioner challenged an order restraining him from infringing the respondent's patents related to synergistic herbicidal compositions (Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron). The dispute centered on whether the composition used by the appellant fell within the scope of the plaintiff's patented claims. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's finding that prima facie, the defendant's product was covered by the suit patent.
Vior(International) Ltd v.Maxycon Health Care Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunctions, damages, and rendition of accounts against the defendants for infringing an Indian patent (IN No. 221536) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose, as well as for copyright infringement and dilution of their brand image. The court found that the defendants were engaging in infringing activities despite being treated ex parte and violating interim orders.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Monsanto Technology Llc
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed complex disputes surrounding Monsanto's patented Bt Cotton technology. Nuziveedu Seeds challenged the patent's validity, arguing it fell under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, which excludes plant varieties and essentially biological processes from patentability. The court ultimately held that the subject patent was unpatentable, allowing Nuziveedu's counter claim to succeed. However, while dismissing Monsanto's suit for patent enforcement, the court upheld existing contractual obligations regarding trait fee payments under the sub-license agreements.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A & Anr v.Shree Shankeshwar Utensils & Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Nestle's application seeking a stay of its trademark infringement suit against Shree Shankeshwar Utensils. The core issue was whether filing a rectification petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the validity of the 'MAGGISUN' mark required prior permission from the Civil Court, even while the main suit was pending. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that approaching the IPAB for rectification is an independent statutory right and does not require leave from the civil court. Consequently, the infringement proceedings were stayed until the IPAB decides on the validity of 'MAGGISUN'.
Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited v.Modi Hitech India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited against Modi Hitech India Ltd. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark VAC-PAC for welding electrodes, arguing it was an arbitrary and fanciful mark. However, the court found that the abbreviation 'VAC-PAC' derived from descriptive terms (Vacuum Packaging) could not be protected as a trademark. Citing settled law, the court ruled that the suit constituted an abuse of process of law and dismissed it with significant costs imposed on the plaintiff.
Ferrero Spa & Nr v.M/S Ruchi International & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ferrero Spa & Nr, finding that the defendants were infringing upon the well-known 'Ferrero Rocher' trademark and trade dress by selling look-alike chocolates under the brand 'Golden Passion.' Despite being aware of previous injunctions, Defendant No.2 continued to sell these infringing products. The Court awarded damages of ₹10.00 Lac against Defendant No.2, emphasizing that parties who evade court proceedings cannot benefit from their non-participation.
Maya Sharma v.Unique Law Publication House & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Maya Sharma, granting a permanent injunction against Unique Law Publication House & Ors for passing off. The court found that the defendants used deceptively similar trademarks ('UNIQUE' and 'UNIQUE 20') and copied the plaintiff's distinct trade dress on law books. Given the identical goods (law books) and channels of trade, the triple identity test was satisfied, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a patent infringement suit against Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation, claiming that their machines infringe Patent No. IN271425, which covers automated technology for locating inclusions in rough gemstones. The plaintiffs argued this invention was crucial for maximizing the value of diamonds by optimizing cutting and polishing processes. However, during the hearing on the temporary injunction application, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit seeking protection against the infringement of its patent (No. 271425), which covers automated technology for locating inclusions in rough diamonds. The plaintiffs claimed their invention revolutionized the diamond industry by providing accurate 3D imaging and cutting plans to maximize stone value. While the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient for granting a temporary injunction, it issued specific interim restraints against the defendants regarding bubble removal devices and sales of infringing machines.
Snecma v.Union Of India And Anr.
Snecma challenged two communications from the Union of India's Patent Office, which rejected its request for patent examination. The initial rejection cited incorrect fee payment methods (cheque instead of demand draft), while the second communication claimed the request was filed beyond the 48-month statutory limit. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Snecma, quashing both communications and directing the Patent Office to process the request for examination.
Manyavar Fashion Private Limited v.Manyavar Creations Private Limited
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed writ petitions filed by Manyavar Fashion Private Limited challenging a lower court's decision to issue only an emergent notice instead of granting immediate temporary injunctions. The petitioners sought protection for their registered trademark 'Manyavar' and copyrighted artistic work against alleged infringement and passing off by the defendants. The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the trial court to expedite the hearing on all interim applications and pass appropriate orders promptly.
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd
Ashoka Distillers & Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Ads Spirits Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off related to country liquor. The defendant argued that since the impugned product was restricted and sold only within Haryana, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defense, finding that both parties operated in Haryana, thus necessitating filing the suit in a competent court there.
M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Limited. v.M/s.S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise in an infringement suit concerning the bottle design and label color scheme for gingelly oil. The parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably, leading the court to pass a compromise decree. Key terms included the first defendant voluntarily amending its label by enlarging the logo and altering other features, agreeing to destroy remaining unused labels within three months, and ceasing deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's product.
M/S Okaya Power Ltd v.M/S Aqua Healer & Ors
M/S Okaya Power Ltd filed a suit against M/S Aqua Healer & Ors alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'MINJET', along with claims of passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using similar names or designs. After reviewing the pleadings, the court found that there were no prospects for the defendants to successfully defend the claim. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was allowed, and the suit was decreed in favor of M/S Okaya Power Ltd.
M/S. Epsilon Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the renewal of the trademark 'LOKPRIYA EASY NOTES.' The court held that despite procedural lapses, such as a delay in payment of surcharge, the Trademark Registry was entitled to grant the renewal because the application was filed within the statutory six-month grace period. This judgment emphasizes that strict adherence to procedure should not automatically invalidate a registration when the core requirements are met.
M.Ponnusamy (Sole Proprietor of Sasi Match Works) v.Latha Match Industries
M.Ponnusamy, representing Sasi Match Works, filed a suit against Latha Match Industries and others alleging infringement of his registered trademark 'GOPAL' and copyright in its artistic label. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendants allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'GOKUL'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Dolby International Ab v.Das Telecom Private Limited
The suit concerns patent infringement related to High Efficiency Advanced Audio Coding Technology. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to introduce a defense claiming that they were authorized users because the plaintiffs had licensed the technology to M/s Google INC, from whom the defendants obtained licenses. The court dismissed this amendment application.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries v.M/S Pearl Thrmoplast Pvt. Ltd.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging violation of its registered design (No.245-249) concerning a 'Jug'. The defendant challenged the suit, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as their primary business operations were outside Jodhpur. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that since the infringement and sale of the goods occurred within the court's jurisdiction (Jodhpur), part of the cause of action arose there, thereby establishing the court's competence to hear the matter.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., finding that the defendant, Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('Apollo', 'Apollo Pharmacy') and committed passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks or services. Furthermore, the plaintiff was awarded costs and directed the defendant to surrender all infringing materials and render accounts of profits.
M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendant, Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('ULTRA') and committed passing off. The court held that since both parties operate in the same market (tiles) and target similar consumers, the use of a deceptively similar mark was unacceptable. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, orders for destruction of infringing materials, and directions for accounting of profits.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.R.Shankar (Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food)
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against R.Shankar for passing off. Despite the defendant submitting an affidavit stating they had closed their business, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunctive relief under summary judgment proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade names and trading styles in the food service industry.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Dindigul Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The plaintiff had initially sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles. However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'Thalappakatti' brand, M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas filed suit against Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food alleging passing off and seeking permanent injunction. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit entirely. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the litigation as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd. The suit, which alleged passing off based on similar trade names, was decreed with a permanent injunction. Although the plaintiff initially sought damages and surrender of goods, they subsequently withdrew those specific prayers after the defendant provided an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, resulting in its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori. The suit, which was initially filed for passing off, resulted in a summary judgment decreeing the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. This decision protects the established goodwill of the plaintiff's 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel' brand against deceptive use by the defendant.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against TKB Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using similar trade marks and trading styles. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Biriyani, Chicken, Mutton and Fast Food. The plaintiff had sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off their trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the suit, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thiru A.Aboobacker
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thiru A.Aboobacker. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal without costs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Bismi Thalappakattu Briyani, which sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the 'Thalappakatti Biriyani' trade mark. However, before any substantive arguments were heard, the plaintiff withdrew the suit upon instruction from their client. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food Corner. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging deceptive similarity in their respective trade marks and trading styles related to biryani products. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the case, leading to its dismissal by the court.
M/s.Lyca Productions v.J.Manimaran
M/s. Lyca Productions filed an appeal seeking an injunction against J. Manimaran (and others) for allegedly infringing on their film title 'KARU', which they claimed to have registered with a Film Producers Guild in 2011. The core dispute revolved around whether this guild registration conferred exclusive rights over the title, especially when the opposing party had also invested heavily and was readying its release. The Madras High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, ruling that such guild registration does not grant exclusive use of the title without statutory backing.
Upl Limited v.Pradeep Sharma & Anr
Upl Limited filed a suit claiming infringement of three patents related to a stable synergistic herbicidal composition (Sulfosulfuron + Metsulfuron Methyl WG). The defendants challenged the validity of these patents. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.