Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13501–13600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
M/s.Power Soaps Limited v.M/s. C M Detergent
M/s. Power Soaps Limited filed a suit against M/s. C M Detergent alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('DK' and 'POWER') and copyright violation concerning the use of deceptively similar marks on detergent wrappers. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and accounts of profits. However, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit, leading the court to dismiss the case.
Kalpesh R Jain And 2 Ors v.Mandev Tubes Private Limited
Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit alleging that Hariom Metals & Tubes (the appellants) infringed its registered design for copper tubes, specifically claiming imitation of the unique bell-shaped ending. The plaintiff asserted substantial goodwill and market presence under trademarks like 'MT ECO SELF CONNECT'. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, upholding the single judge's finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Lupin Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Lupin Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's trade mark, TRI-VOBIT, was structurally and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, TRIVOLIB. Despite arguments regarding prior use of 'VOBIT,' the court ruled that the full marks must be compared, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off.
Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to restore its Indian Patent Application (No. 3584/DELNP/2015) for examination, which had been treated as abandoned due to failure to file the request within the prescribed time limit. The court examined the mandatory nature of the statutory deadlines and ruled against the petitioner's plea for restoration.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Shahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited
This appeal before the Bombay High Court challenged a trial court order that restrained the appellants from using the artistic label 'Military Santra' for selling country liquor. The appellants argued that the respondent-plaintiff had prior knowledge of the label since 2005 and was therefore acquiescent, invalidating the injunction. Furthermore, they contended that their own usage since 1975 established their copyright in the artwork. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the restrictive order and directing the trial court to expedite the disposal of the main Copyright Suit.
Aquapump Industries & Aquasub Engineering v.Texmo Industries
This Madras High Court judgment records a settlement reached between Aquapump Industries, Aquasub Engineering (Plaintiffs), and Texmo Industries (Defendant) regarding trademark infringement. The original suit sought permanent injunctions against the unauthorized use of the 'TEXMO' mark on various pump products and claimed damages/accounts of profits. Both parties successfully mediated their dispute, leading the court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Mediation Agreement dated February 21, 2017.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani, which sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark. However, before any substantive hearing on the merits of the infringement claim could take place, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Mohammed Mohideen (representing M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece) v.M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade
The Madras High Court dismissed the interim injunction applications filed by M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece against M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade, despite allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted a significant delay in filing the suit after receiving cease and desist notices from the defendant. Consequently, the judge found it inappropriate to grant an interim injunction at that stage, allowing the main suit to proceed for trial.
M/s Crocs Inc.Usa v.M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Crocs Inc.Usa, filed suits seeking permanent injunction against various defendants for infringing its registered designs (Nos. 197685 and 197686) related to footwear. The court heard and disposed of the interim injunction applications in favor of the defendants.
K.Ganesh Nadar / M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. / K.Ganesh Nadar
This Madras High Court judgment addresses two cross-suits concerning trademark infringement, passing off, and groundless threats related to the brand 'XTRA' in the FMCG sector. The court noted that the dispute was referred to mediation, which proved fruitful. Consequently, a common decree was passed based on a memo of compromise dated 17.02.2017. Under this agreement, the defendant committed to stopping the use of the infringing label and adopting an amended version moving forward.
M/S. Aero Club v.Mr. Sahibjeet & Anr.
M/S. Aero Club filed a suit alleging that Mr. Sahibjeet and others were selling counterfeit products bearing its trademarks, including WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE, and Woodland Label. The plaintiff claimed extensive use of these marks for over 25 years in manufacturing footwear and apparel. After the defendants failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court found they had no real prospect of defending the claim.
M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited v.M/S.KTC Ventures
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise settlement between M/S.Unisept Nourishments Private Limited and M/S.KTC Ventures regarding trademark infringement of 'LASSI HOUSE'. The parties agreed to drop the suit in exchange for specific terms, including a permanent injunction against passing off, payment of Rs. 1 lakh by the defendant, and mandatory changes to the defendant's branding (displaying 'KTC VENTURES' below 'Lassi House').
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The dispute involved a suit for patent infringement filed by Unilin Beheer B.V. against Balaji Action Buildwell. The defendant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that they had initiated revocation proceedings before the IPAB under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the issue of concurrent jurisdiction and granted liberty to the defendant to withdraw the IPAB proceedings and file a Counter-Claim in the suit.
M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited v.M/s.Balarama'S Incense Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of the mark 'WOOD' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered word mark 'WOODS'. The court affirmed that since both marks were used for identical goods (incense sticks) within the same trade channel, deception was inevitable. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions, ordering the surrender of infringing stock, and directing the defendant to render accounts.
Lens. Com, Inc. v.Ju J Friend International
The Delhi High Court reviewed an arbitration award concerning a domain name dispute under NIXI's INDRP. The court struck down the arbitrary direction to confiscate the disputed domain name, ruling that such power was outside the scope of the policy. However, the court clarified that merely cancelling the registration does not automatically grant ownership to the petitioner; the complainant must independently prove their rights in the generic term 'lens'.
Zenner International Gmbh & Co Kg And Anr v.Anand Zenner Company Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off concerning the trade mark 'Zenner'. The defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence despite repeated opportunities.
M/S Mont Blanc Simplo Gmbh v.Gaurav Bhatia And Ors
In this contempt petition filed by Mont Blanc against Gaurav Bhatia and others, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues related to enforcement. The court upheld the maintainability of the contempt action despite the availability of execution remedies, citing Supreme Court precedent (Rama Narang). Furthermore, the court granted directions for a local commission, appointing several advocates to inspect premises, inventory counterfeit products sold on www.montblancwriting.com, and seize infringing goods in violation of prior injunctions.
Marina Food Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an ex-parte injunction granted by the Trial Court against Marina Food Products Private Limited for using the trademark 'MARIE' in relation to biscuits. The court found that the initial order met the legal requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, as sufficient reasons were recorded regarding potential public confusion and harm. Furthermore, the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts was dismissed, confirming the trial court's authority to proceed with the trademark infringement suit.
Kleenage Products (India) Pvt.Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Kleenage Products, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew the trademark 'KLITOLIN'. The core issue was whether the mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been issued before the mark's removal. Since the respondents could not provide documentary evidence proving the issuance of this critical notice, the Court held that the removal was illegal and allowed the petitioner to renew the trademark.
Ansari Bilal Ahmadlal Mohd. (Appellant) v.Shafeeque Ahmed Mohammad Sayeed (Respondent-Plaintiff)
The Bombay High Court dismissed the defendant's commercial appeal, upholding the original plaintiff's claim of passing off. The court found that a strong prima-facie case existed for passing off, despite differences in calligraphy and design elements. Considering the target audience—laborers with imperfect recollection—the court ruled that the defendant's use of 'SUKOON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, thereby protecting the plaintiff's proprietary rights.
M/S Ravinder Singh & Sons v.M/S Evergreen Publications (India) Ltd & Anr.
The appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining M/S Ravinder Singh & Sons from publishing ICSE Class-X Examination Question Papers. The respondent had purchased the copyrights for these papers, and the court found that the appellant's publication was a near reproduction of the copyrighted material, including answers, thus constituting infringement.
M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S G D Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Zihwa Foods Pvt Ltd challenging a single judge's order. The appellant had sought to reject the original suit for permanent injunction on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked a registered trademark in Class 30, making the infringement claim unsustainable. The court upheld the initial decision, noting that when adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule II CPC (rejection of plaint), the court must rely solely on the averments made in the plaint.
M/s. Shell India Markets Private Limited v.Income Tax Department (represented by ITO International Taxation)
The assessee, Shell India Markets Private Limited, challenged the tax department's order holding that payments made for accessing copyrighted software constituted royalty and were liable for TDS. The Tribunal examined whether the payment was for a mere user right or a transfer of copyright rights. Following precedents favoring the assessee (specifically citing the Delhi High Court), the Tribunal held that the sale/transfer of software in this context is not taxable as royalty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessee was found not liable to deduct tax at source.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design (No. 263172) for ball point pens against M/S Arora Stationers, seeking permanent injunctions and damages. The court was asked to consider an interim injunction application based on the alleged infringement under the Designs Act, 2000. However, the Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial newness or originality in their design.
Kellogg Company v.Pops Food Products (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kellogg Company's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to remove its 'POPS' trademark from the register. The core issue was non-use, as the petitioner failed to provide evidence of bona fide use in India since 1989, despite claiming international adoption and goodwill. The court upheld the IPAB's finding that a prolonged lack of domestic commercial activity negates the right to maintain registration under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act.
M/S. Orient Bell Limited v.M/S. Royal Marketing
The plaintiff, M/S. Orient Bell Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s. Royal Marketing and M/s. Orient Cera Tiles for infringing its trademark 'Orient' and copyrighted logo 'Orient Tiles'. The court found that the defendants were engaging in passing off and infringement of the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed with relief granting injunctions and awarding damages.
M/S Bombay Plaster Industries v.M/S Jagdamba Plaster
M/S Bombay Plaster Industries appealed a trial court order that rejected its application for a temporary injunction against M/S Jagdamba Plaster, alleging infringement of its 'Hi-Tech' trademark and copyright. The appellant claimed its label had acquired significant goodwill and was being deceptively copied by the respondents using similar labels like 'Hi-Techi' and 'I-Tek'. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no manifest error in the trial court's decision regarding the temporary injunction, while directing the lower court to expedite the main suits.
Saregama Ltd v.The New Digital Media & Ors.
Saregama Ltd filed a suit alleging copyright infringement against The New Digital Media & Ors. concerning fifteen songs from various films. Saregama claimed absolute ownership of the sound recordings and underlying works based on assignment agreements predating 1994, asserting that they held the rights to digital exploitation. The court examined the validity of these pre-amendment assignments and the scope of the infringement claims. Ultimately, the interim injunction was modified: usage was restricted for three specific films, while the injunction was lifted for eight others, requiring those defendants to account for all revenue generated.
Godfrey Phillips India Limited v.P.T.I Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Godfrey Phillips India Limited against P.T.I Private Limited & Ors., finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid cause of action for trademark infringement or passing off. The court specifically noted that an owner of a composite registered label cannot claim infringement based solely on the use of a minor part (like a color scheme) by a competitor, citing Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, the judgment cautioned against using IP law to throttle competition and create monopolies.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr. v.Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant alleging imminent infringement of copyrights in component drawings and registered designs related to their 3DX Backhoe Loader. The defendant filed applications seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it lacked a cause of action, particularly after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew an injunction order. The court dismissed the defendant's applications, noting that the issues required a full trial.
M/S.Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd against Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors, finding that the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court held that the defendant's use of similar trademarks and packaging for liver tonic preparations amounted to both copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Vinod Jadhav
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp sought confirmation of an existing ex parte ad interim injunction against Vinod Jadhav and others, alleging that they were infringing on their registered patent for the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs established that they held a valid patent (No. 209816) and had previously secured a permanent injunction in a related suit. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly made out a prima facie case and confirmed the interim order, noting the defendants' attempts to delay the matter.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited & Ors.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited for infringement of its trademarks ('TOYOTA', 'TOYOTA INNOVA', 'TOYOTA DEVICE') and passing off using the mark 'Prius'. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, finding that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or market reputation for 'Prius' in India.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited & Ors.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited for infringement of its trade marks ('TOYOTA', 'TOYOTA INNOVA', etc.) and passing off using the mark 'Prius'. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, concluding that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'Prius' in the Indian market.
Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. v.Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. concerning its trademark registration in Class 42 against Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. The dispute centered on who was the prior user of the 'Royal Orchid' mark. Despite arguments regarding previous litigation, the Court found that the High Court's detailed consideration of evidence—which concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated first use and that confusion was possible due to similarity—was reasonable and justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision.
M/s.Aloha India v.Brilliant Academy
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit against Brilliant Academy alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'ALOHA' and copyright violation concerning its education books and study materials. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages for passing off, and surrender of infringing stock. Although the suit qualified to be heard by the Commercial Division under relevant statutes, the plaintiff subsequently requested withdrawal.
Maja Cosmetics & Anr v.Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
Maja Cosmetics filed a suit alleging that Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its registered trademark 'VI-JOHN' in relation to alcoholic beverages. The court ultimately found that the defendant's use of 'V-JOHN' was deceptive and infringed upon the plaintiff's mark, passing a decree in favor of Maja Cosmetics.
Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by the plaintiff seeking a stay of infringement proceedings while rectification/cancellation proceedings against the defendant's trademark were pending. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act requires the issue of invalidity to be formally raised and framed in the suit before a stay can be granted. Since the plaintiff failed to press this issue during the framing of issues, the application was dismissed, emphasizing procedural adherence over subsequent actions.
Mutha Brothers & Ors v.Arjun Singh Rajguru & Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off involving the marks 'RADIUM' and 'SPEED RADIUM'. The petitioners successfully established a strong prima facie case, demonstrating that the respondents were imitating their unique artistic get-up, color combination, and layout on packaging. Consequently, the court granted an interim order, appointing a Special Officer to inventory the infringing products while the main litigation proceeds.
M/s Hotel Swagath v.M/s Hotel Swagath East Court
The appellant, M/s Hotel Swagath (registered partnership firm), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s Hotel Swagath East Court for infringing its registered trademark and passing off. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application, which was subsequently challenged in this appeal.
Munish Kumar Singla Trading As: Chakshu Food Products v.Jollibee Foods Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Chakshu Food Products, setting aside a restrictive ex-parte injunction granted against it by the trial court. The core issue was whether Jollibee Foods Corporation could enforce its trademark and copyright rights over a bee image when it had not commenced business in India despite having registered the marks since 2005. The Court ruled that without actual use or entry into the Indian market, an ex-parte injunction against a local competitor is unwarranted, emphasizing principles from cases like Milmet Oftho Industries.
Ramesh Mardia & Anr v.M/S Koxan India & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ramesh Mardia, setting aside a previous single judge's order that had granted an injunction against him. The court recognized the complexity of the trademark ownership dispute concerning 'Mardia Cables,' which involves multiple assignments and prior registrations. To expedite the lengthy litigation, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence on a day-to-day basis, allowing the trial process to move forward.
M & K Technologies v.Hi-Tech Carbons and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
M & K Technologies filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's order cancelling design registration no. 190949. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the High Court due to the appellant failing to appear and filing a memo stating there were no instructions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Neelkanth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Neelkanth Minechem
This judgment addresses a jurisdictional challenge raised by petitioners against a trademark infringement suit filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The core dispute was whether the case qualified as a 'commercial dispute' exclusively triable by a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court ruled that since there was no evidence in the plaint suggesting the subject matter value exceeded the statutory threshold of one crore rupees, the suit remained maintainable before the District Court.
M/S Adiga Sweets v.M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court upheld a prior injunction decree in favor of M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd against M/S Adiga Sweets. The core issue was whether the use of 'ADIGA'S SWEETS' by the appellant constituted passing off against the respondent, who had established goodwill using variations of 'ADIGA'S' since 1993. The court found that due to the common food industry context and phonetic similarity, an average consumer is likely to confuse the two businesses, thus affirming the finding of passing off.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.
Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
Praveen Kumar Maakar v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark applicant, Praveen Kumar Maakar, setting aside an order that deemed his application for 'FRONTIER BAKERY' abandoned. The core issue was whether he received a Notice of Opposition filed by M/s Frontier Bakery Pvt. Ltd. Despite evidence showing dispatch to a related service, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim that he never received the notice. Consequently, the applicant was granted an eight-week window to file his counter-statement.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
M/S Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for infringing its registered design related to TMT steel bars. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant copied the unique double-rib surface pattern of their patented bar, which was protected under Design Act, 2000 (No. 250968). The defendant countered by arguing that the design was based on a public domain British Standard and lacked novelty. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Kamdhenu Limited, finding a prima facie case for infringement.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vivek Kochher & Anr challenging an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that rectified the trademark 'KYK'. The court upheld the finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the mark since the dates claimed in their registration applications. Consequently, the court affirmed the IPAB's conclusion that the original registration was obtained based on a false statement and fraud, favoring the respondent, KYK Corp.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
The plaintiff, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for patent infringement against Xiaomi Technology. The current application sought the constitution of a confidential club to allow filing of highly sensitive patent licensing agreements necessary for determining FRAND issues.
Lifestyle Equities CV v.QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addresses intra-court appeals concerning a business relationship between Lifestyle Equities CV (owner of the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark) and QDS entities. The core dispute revolved around an agreement governing the organization and support of the BHPC brand in apparel, leading to litigation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by Lifestyle while dismissing the counter-appeal by QDS, affirming that the disputes are arbitrable.
A.Rajendran v.Thenandal Studios Limited
The appeal was filed by A.Rajendran against an order dismissing his application for injunction, which sought to restrain respondents from using the title 'Mersal' (an adopted version of 'Merrasalaitan'). The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove that the subject title had acquired any goodwill or reputation.
Saregama India Limited v.Eros Digital Fz Llc
Saregama India Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Eros Digital Fz Llc, alleging copyright infringement and default payments following the expiry of a content license agreement. The core legal battle revolved around whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court examined Clause 29 of the License Agreement, which explicitly mandated that disputes arising from the contract must be heard exclusively by the High Court of Calcutta.
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.HRCN Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against HRCN Cable Network alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music, sound recordings, and cinematographic films. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership through assignment deeds and copyright certificates, proving that the defendant was illegally broadcasting their content on cable television networks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against further infringement and awarding the plaintiff compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-.
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Ea Water Pvt Ltd & Ors
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Ea Water Pvt Ltd was illegally copying and misusing its proprietary literary work, 'India Water Review' (IWR), which covers water sector news. The plaintiff demonstrated that IWR is a recognized source of information in the Indian water industry. Despite initial legal notices, the defendants failed to cease the infringement or appear before the court. Consequently, the Delhi High Court found prima facie violation and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Michele Caboni v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of certain sections and rules of the Patents Act, 1970, primarily arguing that the rules did not provide an opportunity to be heard before rights were closed, and that no appeal was prescribed against orders under Rule 137. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the statutory provisions.
Mohd Anesur Rahaman v.Mosarraf Hossain And Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Mohd Anesur Rahaman, to amend his plaint in a trademark dispute. The amendment was necessary because the plaintiff had successfully registered the 'ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL' trademark during the pendency of the suit. This allows the plaintiff to formally pursue infringement claims based on the newly secured registration. The court emphasized that such amendments are allowed under principles of justice and equity to ensure all rights are properly adjudicated.
Ahuja Radios v.H K Sound Electronics & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ahuja Radios, finding that the defendants were engaged in trademark infringement and passing off by selling counterfeit Public Address Systems (PAS) under a deceptively similar mark. The court emphasized that the defendants' deliberate evasion of court proceedings warranted punitive damages. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions and an award of ₹3,00,000/- in damages.
Abp News Network Private Limited & Anr v.Pobi Infrastructure Private Limited & ...
The Calcutta High Court decreed a suit filed by ABP News Network against Pobi Infrastructure, resolving the dispute through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The defendants acknowledged that the mark "Shera Bangali" is a well-known trademark of the plaintiffs and committed not to use it for their upcoming or future film ventures. This judgment underscores the importance of pre-litigation settlements in IP disputes involving brand reputation.
Muthukani Diravidakani & Rakkappan Muthukani (Trading as M/s Anil Appalam & Chips) v.K.S.Raja, The Registrar of Trade Marks, and The Registrar, Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court allowed the petitioners, who trade as M/s Anil Appalam & Chips, to file a Review Petition against an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2013. The court granted this permission and further directed the IPAB not to strictly enforce the limitation period if the review petition was filed within two weeks of the High Court's order. This procedural relief allows the petitioners to challenge the original decision regarding their trade mark registration.
CBZ Chemicals Ltd v.Kee Pharma Ltd
CBZ Chemicals Ltd filed a petition against Kee Pharma Ltd claiming deprivation of USD 350,000 related to an agreement for the sale of a process design to manufacture Atorvastatin. The court admitted the petition but deferred the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator, giving the respondent one month to pay the due amount with interest.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Anr v.Sandeep Chohan Alias Sandeep Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Drs Logistics regarding the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS' and associated domain names. The court granted a mandatory injunction directing the deletion or transfer of an offending domain name to the plaintiff. Furthermore, due to the defendants evading court proceedings while continuing their infringing activities, the court awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- plus interest.
Suru International Pvt. Ltd v.B.Braun Melsungen AG
Suru International Pvt. Ltd filed a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 210062. The Madras High Court set aside the IPAB's order to the extent that it had remanded the matter back to the Controller General of Patents & Designs, directing the IPAB to decide the issue de novo.
M/S All Well Formulations v.M/S Swathi And Co.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal, upholding the trial court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of M/S All Well Formulations. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Turky Plus Olive Oil' and its unique tin design by the defendant. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar, noting that the plaintiff's current suit was based on a registered mark, unlike a previous unsuccessful attempt concerning an unregistered mark. Consequently, the trial court was directed to expedite the final decision of the underlying infringement suit.
Rajat Agarwal & Anr. v.Quadrific Media Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This case involves a dispute over the intellectual property assets, specifically the trademark 'Spartanpoker', its logo, and the domain name 'Spartanpoker.com'. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the High Court concerning these assets, while the defendants subsequently filed a related suit (TS No. 5 of 2017) in the District Judge's court. To prevent conflicting judgments and streamline the legal process, the Calcutta High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer the Alipore suit to be heard alongside the original High Court proceedings.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., upholding a limited interim injunction granted to Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd. The court found that while the appellants held registered rights in 'Central Park', the respondents demonstrated bona fide prior use and substantial investment in their project, balancing equities in favor of the defendants. Consequently, the court allowed the respondents to continue using 'Rustomjee Central Park' provided the prominence of 'Central Park' was maintained.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd & Ors.
M/S Instapower Ltd., a company specializing in energy-efficient lighting systems, filed a suit alleging that M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd and others were infringing its registered design patents for aviation warning lights. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive market presence and proved that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products. Despite the defendants failing to contest the case effectively, the court found infringement.
Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Rishabh Lohia & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd in a passing off suit against Rishabh Lohia & Anr. The court found that the defendants dishonestly adopted the trade name 'Optimus' for pharmaceutical products, causing confusion in the market. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions and awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- due to the defendant's evasion of court proceedings.
Bharatbhai Padmakant Raut v.Madhu Silica Pvt Ltd
The respondents filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the petitioners' manufacturing and trade of various grades of silica was illegal, mala-fide, and void ab initio. The petitioners challenged this by seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing it was barred by law and lacked jurisdiction. The High Court rejected the petition, finding that there was a cause of action based on the alleged transfer of secret data.
Dura Roof Private Limited v.Dyna Roof Private Limited
The Gauhati High Court allowed appeals filed by Dura Roof Private Limited, setting aside temporary injunction orders previously granted to Dyna Roof Private Limited. The court found that despite claims of similarity, the marks 'Dura Roof' and 'Dura Lume' were phonetically and visually dissimilar enough from 'Dyna Roof' and 'Dyna Lume' that there was no likelihood of public confusion. Consequently, the court held that a prima facie case for trademark infringement was absent, allowing the original title suits to proceed on their merits.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Www.Timeseducation.Co & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Triumphant Institute Of Management, to implead Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byju's) as a necessary party in its trademark infringement suit concerning the domain name 'timeseducation.co'. The court found that the proposed defendant had an admitted association with the impugned domain via a telephone number linked to them, making their presence essential for a just decision. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint and subsequently deleted two original defendants from the array of parties.
BDA Ltd. v.National Industrial Corporation Ltd.
The appellant filed an application before the Controller of Patents and Designs for cancellation of Registered Design No.182771 under Section 19 of the Act. The Registrar had previously rejected this application, and since more than ten years had passed, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v.Bombay Rayon Fashions Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. against an order that vacated its ex-parte injunction. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'VOGUE' by the appellant and 'LINEN VOGUE' by the respondent in relation to magazines versus fabrics/apparel. The court held that the respondent's catalogues, which merely advertised their goods, did not constitute a commercial act of publishing for sale, thus finding no merit in the claim of infringement or passing off.
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals v.Union Of India
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals challenged an order passed by the Controller of Patents, arguing that the authority failed to consider superior data regarding their improved product version. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the impugned order was statutorily appealable, the petitioner must utilize the available statutory remedy.
K.Manivannan v.The Chairman Intellectual Property Appellate Board, The Controller of Patent & Designs, M.Mani
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 204322, granted to M.Mani (the third respondent), arguing that the invention was already publicly available or anticipated by his own earlier work. The petitioner sought revocation of the patent before the High Court.
M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v.M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Patent No.265920 in the Commercial Court. Due to the defendant filing a counter-claim for revocation, the suit was transferred to the High Court. The core issue before the court was whether this transferred patent dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
P.Maheswari (Propx. Venu Biriyani Hotel) v.Dindigul Venuu Biriyani
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by P.Maheswari against Dindigul Venuu Biriyani regarding the use of deceptively similar trade names for biryani services. Although the initial claim sought permanent injunction and damages, the court ultimately decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) signed between the parties. This resolution allowed both parties to settle their dispute outside of a full trial.
Kela Handloom & Co. v.Susanta Debnath
Kela Handloom & Co. filed a suit against Susanta Debnath and others, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'ASMA' and associated artistic work in textile goods like lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise reached between the parties.
Holland Company Lp And Anr. v.S.P. Industries
The plaintiffs claimed ownership and copyright over the industrial drawings of the Automatic Twist Lock (ATL) system, alleging that the defendant copied these drawings to manufacture spare parts for ATL devices used by Indian Railways. The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly given that the drawings were published and available in the public domain.
Bhushan Goyal (Proprietor, Chanda Softy Ice Creams) v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Mars Incorporated
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Bhushan Goyal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and Mars Incorporated. The petitioner had sought to quash an order related to the renewal of a trademark registration granted to Mars Incorporated. However, before any substantive ruling on the merits, the petitioner voluntarily moved to withdraw the petition, leading to its dismissal.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. v.Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
Sarin Technology Limited v.Piyush Dantara & 2
The court heard arguments regarding the framing of issues in a civil suit concerning patent infringement. The court accepted the suggested issues and framed them for further proceedings.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.Omex Cables Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, despite the plaintiff claiming trademark infringement and passing off against 'OMEXGOLD.' The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2006 when it filed a trademark opposition. Due to this significant delay in approaching the court (from 2006/2015 until 2017), the court held that the plaintiff was disentitled to discretionary relief, citing established legal precedents regarding laches and acquiescence.
Modi- Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The court found that the IPAB overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. Citing Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court held that the use of an associated trade mark can be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark. Consequently, the court set aside the IPAB's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
Philco Industries & Ors. v.The Dy. Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Philco Industries challenged the registration of a bowl design (No. 205014), arguing that it lacked novelty as it was common in trade and had been previously sold by them. The Deputy Controller rejected this cancellation petition, finding no cogent evidence of prior publication or use. The Calcutta High Court upheld the Controller's decision, agreeing that Philco failed to discharge its onus of proving prior art, thereby affirming the design registration.
Tryton Medical Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Tryton Medical Inc. challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to examine its National Phase Patent Application, which had been rejected due to a minor delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously allowed the appeal and directed the Controller to proceed with examination. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, mandating compliance with the IPAB's orders.
T.K. Shawal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
T.K. Shawal Industries Pvt. Ltd. challenged the registration of Design No. 252082, arguing that the scarf's surface pattern lacked originality and was anticipated by prior knowledge or publication. The court examined evidence regarding prior sales invoices and Wikipedia documents but found no cogent proof of novelty infringement. While dismissing the cancellation petition, the High Court noted an apparent clerical error in the certificate of registration date and directed the Controller to make the necessary correction.
yahoo inc v.mr rinshad rinu ors
Yahoo Inc sued Mr Rinshad Rinu and others for infringement of its YAHOO trademark in Class 39, alleging deceptive use in a trading name (yahookochi.com) and business operations. The defendants used the Yahoo mark and logo, claiming they had invested significantly in promoting it.
M/S. Munjal Showa Limited v.Commissioner Of Central Excise & St, Delhi (Gurgaon)
M/S. Munjal Showa Limited challenged demands for service tax levied on royalty payments made to M/s. Showa Corporation, Japan, concerning the transfer of technical know-how and IP rights (Patent, Utility model, Brand Service, Design, Trademark). The Tribunal ruled that since the relevant trademarks and designs were not registered in India under Indian law at the time, the services did not fall under IPR service as defined by the Finance Act, 1994. Furthermore, since the agreement was executed before the levy came into force, the demand was unsustainable.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation
The petitioners allege infringement of their patent for a method of evaluating gemstones by the respondents, who are accused of secretly using the patented components in their machines and devices.
Sarine Technologies Ltd v.Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation & 13
Sarine Technologies Ltd filed a suit alleging that the respondents willfully infringed its copyright in the 'AdvisorTM' rough gemstone planning software. The petitioner claimed the defendants developed and used pirated versions of the software to provide inclusion scanning services to third parties. The High Court issued an order directing the appointment of Commissioners to inspect the computer systems and hard disks of Respondent Nos. 1 and 12.
hindustan unilever limited v.shree mehta chemicals indore pvt ltd
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUFL) sued Shree Mehta Chemicals (Indore) Pvt Ltd for infringement of its registered trademark 'SURF/SURF EXCEL' and copyright in the artwork on its detergent powder packaging, alleging that Shree Mehta’s ‘SANAN’ detergent packaging used a deceptively similar colour scheme, getup, and artwork. HUFL claimed significant sales and reputation associated with the SURF EXCEL brand.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Guddu
Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully sought interim protection against Guddu, alleging that the respondent was manufacturing and selling soaps under the brand 'New Liberty' with trade designs, graphics, and color schemes deceptively similar to Lifebuoy. The court recognized the distinctive 'trade dress' of Lifebuoy in the competitive FMCG sector. Given the high potential for consumer confusion among unwary buyers, the Calcutta High Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the infringing goods and granted an interim injunction to preserve the petitioner's market reputation.
AVMH Corporation v.Subu Trade Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected a plea to dismiss a trademark suit. The respondent sought injunctions regarding their 'SACHA MOTI' trademark for food products, while the petitioners argued the suit should be dismissed due to parallel proceedings in the Delhi High Court and before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The High Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no illegality in allowing the suit to proceed.
Subhas Chand v.Mahesh Chandra Agrawal & Others
Subhas Chand, proprietor of M/s Panchhi Petha Store, filed a suit alleging that defendants were infringing his registered trademark and copyrighted labels by using 'New Panchhi Petha Store'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar colors, imagery (lady with umbrella), and trade name was intended to deceive consumers. Given the plaintiff's established reputation and goodwill in manufacturing quality sweets like Petha and Dalmoth, the appeal succeeded, upholding the finding of infringement.