Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13701–13800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
This case involved disputes between The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (a Copyright Society) and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. concerning the use of copyrighted musical and literary works on FM radio stations. Both parties challenged an arbitral award dated December 6, 2011, before the Bombay High Court. The core legal battle centered on whether the claims regarding licensing and royalty refunds were arbitrable or required adjudication by a Civil Court. The court ultimately set aside part of the original award concerning the claimant's right to broadcast due to lack of jurisdiction, while dismissing the petitioner's (claimant's) arbitration petition.
M/S Stellar Information Technology Private Ltd v.Mr Rakesh Kumar & Ors
The Plaintiff, a data recovery company, filed an application seeking an interim injunction against its former employees (Defendants) for allegedly using confidential information, trade secrets, and client lists to compete with the Plaintiff. The Defendants argued that any restrictive covenants in their employment agreements were void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, leading the court to dismiss the application.
Times Publishing House Ltd. v.Financial Times Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Times Publishing House Ltd. against Financial Times Ltd, addressing challenges related to the validity and rectification of the 'FT' trademark. The judgment clarified the interplay between civil suit proceedings and IPAB rectification petitions under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. Crucially, the court noted that since the IPAB had already ruled in favor of the respondent regarding the mark's validity, the issues raised by the appellant became academic, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.
M/S R G Oswal Hosiety Industries & Anr. v.Dindayal Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S R G Oswal Hosiety Industries regarding its trademark 'Dollar' in hosiery goods. The court found that the appellant failed to establish prima facie evidence of prior user or market dominance compared to the respondent. Despite citing previous case law, the appellants could not demonstrate sufficient sales figures or continuous use before 1989, leading the court to uphold the denial of interim relief.
Controller Of Patents & Designs v.Deputy Registrar, Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Controller of Patents & Designs challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had allowed the appeal of respondents against the rejection of a patent application. The dispute centered on whether the Controller failed to exercise proper discretion, specifically concerning the insufficient fee paid for all claims in the application.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited challenged an order regarding territorial jurisdiction in its trademark infringement suit against Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited. The core dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could file the suit in Chennai, given that the defendant claimed no sales or office presence there. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant's actions and disclosures indicated a sufficient connection to the local jurisdiction.
M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The suit was filed by M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. seeking a declaration that its cosmetic composition did not infringe Patent No.169917 and requesting a permanent injunction against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The court found that the subject patent had already expired in 2009, rendering the claims of infringement and the request for an injunction moot.
M/S Bright Enterprises Private Limited & Anr v.Mj Bizcraft LLP & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by M/S Bright Enterprises Private Limited against MJ Bizcraft LLP. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the use of 'PRIVEE' due to similarity with their mark 'MBD PRIVE'. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the generic word had acquired a secondary meaning specific to them in the hotel industry. Given the lack of evidence supporting distinctiveness and the principles allowing for summary dismissal of doomed suits, the suit was dismissed.
M/S Rspl Limited v.Mukesh Sharma & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's decision that dismissed an IP suit based on lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant, M/S Rspl Limited, had filed the suit under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act seeking injunction against alleged infringement and passing off by the respondents using the name 'GHARI TRADEMARK COMPANY'. The High Court Division Bench overturned the single judge's ruling, affirming that the court has jurisdiction given the plaintiff's corporate office and business activities within Delhi.
Akashaditya Harishchandra Lama v.Ashutosh Gowarikar And 4 Ors
The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion alleging that his creative work had been plagiarized. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient prima facie case due to an ever-shifting stand on what was infringed. Furthermore, the court criticized the plaintiff's conduct for publicizing the litigation in the media.
Mip Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG v.Westfield Retail Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court partially allowed this application, rejecting the plaintiff's claim regarding 'passing off.' However, it declined to reject the suit entirely concerning trademark infringement, allowing the matter to proceed to trial. This decision sets up key issues regarding both jurisdiction and locus standi for the plaintiff.
M/s. Cavinkaare Private Limited v.Panchaksharam Guru Moorthy
The Madras High Court addressed a complex dispute between M/s. Cavinkaare Private Limited and Panchaksharam Guru Moorthy regarding the trademarks 'KARTHIKA' and 'KARTIKA'. The litigation, which involved claims of infringement and passing off across multiple suits, was ultimately resolved through a Joint Compromise Memo. The court decreed C.S.No.204/2012 based on this compromise, granting Cavinkaare exclusive rights to the trademark in relevant goods and services while dismissing the counter-suit (C.S.No.467/2012).
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v.Essar Industries
In this trademark infringement suit concerning the 'MAGGI' brand, the Delhi High Court addressed applications regarding evidence submission. While rejecting a major application by the defendants to introduce extensive new documentation due to concerns over trial delay and adherence to Commercial Courts Act principles, the court did allow the defendants to summon witnesses for documents that had previously been shared with the plaintiffs. This ruling emphasizes judicial caution against late-stage document filing in commercial disputes.
Wonderful Developers Private Ltd. v.Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a conflict regarding when a trade mark infringement suit must be stayed pending rectification proceedings before the IPAB. The court clarified that merely filing a rectification application after an infringement suit has commenced does not automatically mandate a stay. Instead, the trial court must assess whether the plea of invalidity is prima facie tenable; if so, it should stay the suit to allow time for the IPAB decision. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural interplay between civil suits and IPAB rectification actions.
Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Merus N.V appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 467/CHENP/2011 by the Assistant Controller, which had been based on non-patentability grounds (Section 3(i) and 3(j)). The appellant argued that the amendments were permissible as they merely refined the claim to nucleic acid molecules while retaining the core invention. The High Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the scope of amendments.
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd v.R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd
M/S Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd filed a suit against R.K. Distilleries Pvt Ltd seeking permanent injunction and damages for alleged infringement and passing off of its trademark 'Officer's Choice'. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, registered trademarks across multiple classes, and proprietary rights in the associated trade dress. However, the court ultimately dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, noting that the cause of action arose primarily outside Delhi (e.g., Andhra Pradesh), despite the plaintiff having a branch office there.
G.Senthil Kumar & Helikx Trust/Training Institute v.Helikx HR Training and Business Consulting LLP & Others
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition concerning the delay in disposing of an interim injunction application related to a trademark infringement suit. The petitioners had filed Original Suit No. 48 of 2016 alleging trademark infringement and sought a temporary injunction via I.A.No.66 of 2016. Recognizing the prolonged delays, the High Court issued a directive to the lower court to expedite the disposal of the application within two months.
Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd v.C.C.E., Jaipur I
The appellant, engaged in fertilizer manufacturing, was assessed service tax on agreements with foreign service providers for design and consultancy services. The Department argued these fell under IPR services. The Tribunal ruled that since the technical know-how and engineering designs were not recognized as IPR under any Indian law at the time of the agreement, there was no taxable IPR service.
M/S Impact Metals Ltd., Bollaram v.M/S Msr India Ltd., Hyderabad
The Civil Revision Petition arose from a lower court's dismissal of an application seeking arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents sought permanent injunction and damages based on alleged infringement of proprietary technology, designs, trade secrets, and trademarks. The Court held that the entire dispute was arbitrable under the Manufacturing Agreement.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr. v.Techno Plast & Ors.
Dart Industries Inc, through its licensee Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement of their proprietary designs and copyrights related to the popular 'Tupperware' storage containers. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants were copying these unique designs, leading to confusion in the market. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove the distinctiveness of the product shape for trademark purposes, thereby lacking prima facie strength in their claims regarding design protection, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Staar Surgical Company v.Polymer Technologies International & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Staar Surgical Company's suit against Polymer Technologies International, which alleged passing off of intraocular lenses. The court found that the defendant's current trademark, 'EYEPCL,' was entirely distinct and not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's brand name, 'VISIAN ICL.' Despite previous interim injunctions granted on a different mark used by the defendants, the court ruled that the new mark failed to meet the test of confusion, especially considering the specialized nature of the medical goods.
Ok Play India Limited v.Mayank Aggarwal & Ors
Ok Play India Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights—including trademark 'OK PLAY', copyrights in drawings, and common law design rights—against several defendants for manufacturing and selling deceptively similar toys. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could assert IP rights over their toy designs without formal registration under the Designs Act. The court ultimately ruled that since the plaintiff had not obtained design registration, they were unable to secure interim injunctions against the alleged infringement.
Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories v.M/S Little Profit Trading Company
The Delhi High Court formally accepted an out-of-court settlement between the trademark proprietor, Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories, and M/S Little Profit Trading Company. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'BLUE HEAVEN' trademark and agreed to pay Rs. 3.00 lacs as damages. Furthermore, the defendant committed to surrendering all rights in the infringing mark and disposing of existing stock by a specified date, leading to the suit being decreed based on these terms.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed suit against SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The court granted permanent injunctions in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the defendant was not manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' from November 2015 onwards.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The defendant submitted that it had stopped manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' in November 2015 due to health hazards associated with Nitrobenzene. The court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant.
M/S. Selvel Industries v.M/S. Om Plast (India)
The plaintiffs, M/S. Selvel Industries and M/S. Sears Industries, filed a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief in an infringement action against M/S. Om Plast (India). The dispute centered on whether the defendant's plastic container infringed upon the registered designs held by the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to and infringed the plaintiffs' design.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders issued in a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent for explosion and fire detection technology.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four notices of motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit concerning explosion and fire detection technology for transformers. The court examined these 'contempt motions' but ultimately dismissed all four applications.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner, CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd., filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent, Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited, was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt motions,' noting they were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding the original infringement finding.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent on explosion and fire detection technology for transformers.
Kubota Corporation v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Kubota Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2342/CHE/2008), which concerned an 'operation parameter display system for working vehicle fitted with working implement'. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider the technical advancement over prior art and incorrectly applied Section 3(k).
Manugraph India Limited v.Simarq Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors.
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed preliminary issues concerning jurisdiction in two separate suits involving intellectual property rights. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action arose outside its local limits, citing precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court clarified the jurisdictional regimes under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, emphasizing that while plaintiffs have options to file suit, they cannot abuse these provisions by filing in a remote location lacking both defendants and a cause of action. Consequently, the court held that it possessed jurisdiction over both suits.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking procedural reliefs, including a fresh trial schedule and permission to examine additional witnesses. The case involves patent infringement allegations concerning mobile radio communication technology and questions regarding the FRAND status of the patents.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lava International Ltd for alleged infringement of its patented technologies. The core dispute revolved around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G telecommunications standards used in mobile devices. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of infringement. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Lava from manufacturing or selling the infringing products, while dismissing a counter-application filed by the defendant.
Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.
Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.
M/s.Advaith Bio Remedies v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
M/s. Advaith Bio Remedies approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention regarding the undue delay in processing their trademark application for 'BIO CARE' (Application No. 3040849). The petitioner, which manufactures Ayurvedic medicines, argued that the prolonged wait was negatively impacting their business operations. The court intervened by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to prioritize and dispose of the pending application as expeditiously as possible.
Vardhman Properties Ltd v.M/S Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted temporary injunctive relief in favor of Vardhman Properties Ltd against M/S Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors. The court found that the defendants' use of the mark 'VARDHMAN' was phonetically and visually identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark, leading to a prima facie case for infringement and passing off. This interim order restrains the defendants from using the name in a manner that suggests an association with the plaintiff's established brand, allowing the main suits to proceed.
Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. Jasola New Delhi v.M/S Action Construction Equipments Ltd. Dudhola & 3 Others
The appeal challenged an order from the Additional District Judge which granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from manufacturing and selling registered designs for tower cranes. The appellant argued that since a ground under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 was raised as a defense, the suit must be transferred to the High Court under Section 22(4).
Skechers Usa Inc & Ors v.Pure Play Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Skechers against Pure Play Sports, finding prima facie evidence of passing off. The court noted that the defendant's footwear was a substantial imitation of the plaintiffs' GOwalk 3 series, specifically citing copied trade dress elements like the unique outsole design and 'Goga Mat' technology features. This preliminary ruling suggests that the defendants were consciously imitating Skechers' distinctive look to mislead consumers about the source of their products.
Shomenath Roy Chowdhury v.Eskag Pharma Private Limited
This case involves a dispute over a patent held by Shomenath Roy Chowdhury for a therapeutic composition used in wound healing, marketed as 'Dresin'. The petitioner alleged that Eskag Pharma Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Sufrate TP', constituting infringement. While the petitioner sought an immediate injunction, the court recognized the need to hear the defense, which primarily argued that the ingredients were well-known in the medicinal field. Consequently, instead of granting an outright ban, the Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the respondent's stock.
Ahmed Hussain. B & Sebille Educations Private Limited v.Sh.Sunil Jethi & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition seeking rectification of the Trademark Register. The petitioners, owners of 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' in the education sector, successfully argued that the respondent's subsequent trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINZ,' was deceptively and phonetically similar to their prior registered mark. The court found that the adoption of the impugned mark was an attempt to deceive the public and capitalize on the petitioners' established goodwill, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
M/s Bharat Iron Foundry And Ors v.M/s Sadhu Singh & Sons Iron & Steel Rolling Mills
The Punjab-Haryana High Court overturned an interlocutory injunction that had restricted the defendants from manufacturing and marketing their products without 'collaboration' with the plaintiffs. The court found that the restrictive interpretation of the deed of assignment was unsustainable, especially given the parties' conduct over two decades where the mark was used independently. Consequently, the application for interim relief was rejected, allowing the appellants to continue their operations.
Solmec Earthmovers Equipments v.Registrar Of Trademarks
Solmec Earthmovers Equipments approached the Gujarat High Court seeking directions to restore or renew its trademark 'SOLMEC' (Registration No. 929232). The petitioner argued that a lack of proper documentation had delayed the filing, but confirmed that renewal applications were filed on the day of the petition. The court disposed of the Special Civil Application by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and pass an order regarding the pending renewal application.
Chandra Sekar v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Chandra Sekar challenged orders dismissing his two patent applications (Nos. 8846/CHENP/2011 and 8907/CHENP/2011) because the request for examination was filed late. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to calendaring errors and negligence on the part of the Indian agent, not his own.
A.P. Organics (P) Ltd., Ludhiana v.Assessee
The assessee claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as revenue expenditure for using the brand name "RICELA" from Ricela Health Foods Ltd., but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed it, treating it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payment was merely a license fee and thus a revenue expense.
Eveready Industries India Ltd v.Roshanlal Jain & Anr
In this trademark dispute, Eveready Industries India Ltd filed a suit alleging both trademark infringement and passing off against Roshanlal Jain & Anr. The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint subject to seeking leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The court granted leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and directed the defendants to respond regarding the application for Clause 14 leave, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Nirali Shail Patel & 1 v.M/S Ellorapark Hospitals Pvt Ltd
This Gujarat High Court order addresses a Civil Revision Application challenging the validity of a trademark suit. The applicants argued that since the plaintiff's trademark was unregistered at the time of filing, there was no cause of action under Section 27 of the Trademark Act. Citing Supreme Court precedent (K. Narayanan & Anr.), the court determined that this issue required further consideration and scheduled a hearing.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
Genentech Inc. and its affiliates filed suit against the Drugs Controller General of India and others, challenging the approval granted for TrastuRel, a purported biosimilar version of their drug Trastuzumab. The plaintiffs contended that TrastuRel had not undergone adequate testing as required under Indian law before being launched. The Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining the defendant from marketing the product without proper trials while setting conditions for future regulatory approval.
Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Roche Products, the originator of the biological drug Trastuzumab (marketed globally under HERCEPTIN®), filed a suit seeking injunction against competitors launching purported biosimilars like CANMAb and HERTRAZ. The plaintiffs contended that these drugs were being misrepresented as 'Trastuzumab' or similar to HERCEPTIN®, without following proper regulatory guidelines for biologics. The court issued an interim order, restraining the defendants from making misleading claims and using proprietary data until the final decision on bio-similarity is reached.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
This appeal concerned the enforcement of a PFA from an arbitration award, which mandated the respondent to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests in specific Indian Patents (Nos. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008) to the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the required deed of transfer, thereby fulfilling its obligation under the PFA.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
The dispute arose from an arbitration award requiring M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation (appellant) to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests of Indian Patents No. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008 to M/S Euro Apex B.V. (respondent). The respondent challenged the execution, but the Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the transfer deed as per the modified request from the respondent themselves.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
Ericsson sued Xiaomi for infringing several patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technology used in mobile devices. The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of a prior interim injunction by alleging concealment of material facts. The court found that Ericsson failed to disclose its agreement with Qualcomm regarding CDMA applications, leading to the vacation of the interim order concerning two specific patents.
M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited v.Radhey Shyam Agencies
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, who is the registered proprietor of the 'ASHOKA' trademark. The plaintiff sought protection against defendants for alleged infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their edible oil products. Given that the plaintiff holds a valid registration and has established a strong prima facie case regarding market confusion, the court restrained the defendants from using the disputed mark pending the final outcome of the suit.
Polycon Industries Pvt. Ltd v.The Union Of India & Ors
The petitioner challenged an order directing it to change its name because the 4th respondent claimed ownership of the trade mark "POLYCON". The court quashed the impugned order, finding that the Regional Director improperly invoked retrospective powers under Section 22 of the Companies Act and failed to consider factors like different product classifications (Class 17 vs Class 19) and distinct geographical markets.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.
Delhi Public School Society v.Dps World Foundation And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Delhi Public School Society against Dps World Foundation And Anr. The court restrained the defendants from using the registered trade mark 'DPS' or any deceptively similar mark, citing infringement and passing off. While the plaintiff sought protection for its crest logo under copyright, the court denied this specific relief due to lack of evidence regarding continuous use. This ruling sets a precedent for protecting established educational brand identities in litigation.
Ipeg Inc. v.Kay Bee Engineers
Ipeg Inc. appealed a trial court order that rejected its suit claiming copyright infringement against Kay Bee Engineers. The plaintiffs asserted ownership over the unique artistic drawings of their 'Loader/Receiver' machine, arguing that the defendants copied these works to manufacture similar products. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision. The court found that the appellants failed to establish a clear and genuine cause of action, particularly regarding the transfer of copyright ownership.
Department Of Income Tax v.Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health ...
The appeal was filed by the Department of Income Tax against an order regarding assessment year 1997-98. The core dispute involved whether the Rs. 4.5 crore compensation received by Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health upon termination of the 'ENO' and 'Fruit Salt' trademark license agreement constituted a taxable income or capital receipt.
M/S Symphony Ltd v.M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd
M/S Symphony Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a dispute concerning air cooler designs against M/S Summer Cool Home Appliances Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff sought to clarify discrepancies regarding the dates of use and registration for various registered design models, such as 'Sumo' and 'Winter'. The court examined whether these amendments were necessary for proper adjudication or merely an attempt to resile from previous admissions. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, finding that it served only to clarify existing pleadings without fundamentally altering the nature of the suit.
Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.Mr. Raymond Bickson, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer
The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition filed by Jiva Institute against Mr. Raymond Bickson regarding the alleged misuse of the 'JIVA' trademark. While acknowledging that the defendants had violated previous injunctions by using the mark on various goods, the court ultimately gave them the benefit of doubt. The judgment allowed the respondents to continue using the mark for their spa services and certain related items, provided they strictly avoid using it for soaps, cosmetics, ayurvedic products, or other allied/cognate goods, thereby balancing trademark protection with commercial reality.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Psycoremedies Ltd.
The civil suit was filed regarding the alleged infringement of a trademark. The parties subsequently entered into a Memo of Compromise, resolving all disputes between them.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson challenged the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which had initiated investigations based on complaints from Micromax and Intex. The core dispute revolved around whether the CCI possessed jurisdiction to examine claims related to royalty payments for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Ericsson argued that patent-related royalty issues fall exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970, not the Competition Act, 2002. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the jurisdictional boundaries of the CCI in this context.
Wind World (India) Limited v.Enercon GmbH
Wind World (India) Limited challenged an arbitral tribunal's order that directed them to produce documents and granted interim measures. The dispute arose from various agreements, including the Intellectual Property Licensing Agreement. The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it contrary to law.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/S.Bajaj Auto Limited
The applications were filed by Bajaj Auto Limited (the defendant) seeking to eschew various documents marked as exhibits in a suit where TVS Motor Company Limited (the plaintiff) claimed non-infringement of Patent No. 195904. The court held that most objections regarding document admissibility could be deferred until the time of final arguments, except for specific objections concerning photocopies and newspaper clippings.
Ritika Private Limited v.Biba Apparels Private Limited
Ritika Private Limited filed a suit against Biba Apparels Private Limited claiming infringement of copyright and violation of trade secrets related to its garment designs sold under the RITU KUMAR brand. The plaintiff asserted originality in its sketches and drawings, which were adapted for various garments. However, the court found that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as the designs were capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, but had not been so registered.
emami limited v.patanjali ayurved limited
Emami Limited sued Patanjali Ayurved Limited for infringement of its registered trademark 'Kesh King' and design of a bottle, alleging that Patanjali’s ‘Kesh Kanti’ was deceptively similar and copied the bottle design, creating confusion among consumers. The Petitioner claimed significant turnover (Rs. 305.44 Crores) after acquiring rights to both the trademark and design.
S.K.Janimiya (M/s.Crescent Therapeutics Ltd.) v.Mr.Narender Pal; Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks; Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by S.K.Janimiya challenging an adverse order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the trademark OLAPIN. While noting the petitioner's lackadaisical conduct and delay in presenting evidence, the court ultimately set aside the IPAB's finding that no documents were filed. The matter was remitted back to the IPAB for a fresh examination, allowing them to consider the records and take further evidence.
Essel Propack Ltd. v.Essel Kitchenware Ltd. And Anr
Essel Propack Ltd. filed a suit seeking injunctions for trade mark infringement and passing off against Essel Kitchenware Ltd. The court considered the convoluted litigation history and arguments regarding sufficient cause for interim relief. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, finding that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient cause.
Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited v.Sulthana Restaurant
The plaintiff, Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited, filed Original Applications seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Sulthana Restaurant, from passing off or infringing its registered trade mark 'SULTHAN'S BIRIYANI'. The defendant argued that the names were not deceptively similar, that they cater to different customer classes, and that the name 'SULTANA' is a common universal term. The Court dismissed the applications, finding no deceptive similarity and ruling in favor of the respondent.
Desai Haribhai Jeshangbhai v.Ministry Of Power - Govt Of India
The petitioner, who is a retired Assistant Agriculture Engineer and holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking assistance with his pending patent application related to electrical power production engineering. The Central Electricity Authority requested details of a working model for the innovation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner must take further steps to submit a prototype/working model.
Pfizer Products, Inc & Anr v.Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pfizer Products, Inc. in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. The court found that the defendant was illegally selling a drug under the deceptively similar trademark BEQSULE against the plaintiff's registered mark BECOSULES. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendant adopted an identical trade dress (white and reddish orange color combination) to mislead consumers, leading to a decree of injunction.
Qarshi Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Abdul Mueed & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Qarshi Industries challenging the denial of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Hamdard in a passing off suit. The court found that given the complexity of the arguments—including issues regarding the descriptive nature of the Urdu words 'JAM-E-SHIRIN' and potential suppression of facts related to Pakistani trademark disclaimers—the prima facie case was not strong enough for an immediate injunction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, requiring both parties to complete their pleadings before further relief could be considered.
Noraris AG v.Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Noraris AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (No. 212815) concerning Vildagliptin API and formulations against Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The plaintiffs initially prayed for a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and delivery up of stock.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Jagdale Industries Private Limited
Sanofi-Aventis challenged the registration of Jagdale Industries' trademark 'CALDALE,' arguing that it was deceptively similar to their own mark 'CARDACE.' The Madras High Court examined the phonetic similarity and potential for consumer confusion, especially given that both products are prescription medicines. Ultimately, the court found no remote possibility or slightest chance of confusion, dismissing Sanofi-Aventis' appeal and upholding the trademark registration.
Research Foundation, Sci., Tech. & Eco. & Anr. v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India to challenge patents related to wheat in international forums, citing concerns over biodiversity protection and biopiracy. The court noted that the specific patent challenged had since been revoked by the European Patent Office.
Visakha Chemicals v.The Central Government Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an IPAB order regarding trademark invalidity. The judgment affirmed the Full Bench's ruling that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on pleas of trademark registration invalidity, even within the context of an infringement suit. Furthermore, the court clarified the conditions under which an infringement action may be stayed pending rectification proceedings, emphasizing that a civil court must find the plea prima facie tenable before staying the suit.
Aura Synergy India Ltd. v.M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction request filed by Aura Synergy India Ltd. against M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trade name 'AURA' for metallic false ceiling products. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' application. The judgment highlighted that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts and made misstatements regarding their business history and relationship with the defendants, leading to the vacation of the ex-parte injunction.
Adidas Ag v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court overturned an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision that had dismissed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'RESPONSE'. The court held that the IPAB's interpretation of 'person aggrieved' was contrary to law, especially when marks and goods are identical. Furthermore, the High Court found factual inconsistencies in the IPAB's assessment regarding the petitioner's use of the mark. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the IPAB for a fresh hearing.
Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sanjay Kapur & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the tea seller, Mr. Sanjay Kapur & Anr., finding that Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. had infringed upon their trade dress. The court held that despite minor variations, the overall get-up and striking similarity between the packaging—specifically the fabric sleeve used over a rectangular cuboid packet—was likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces that the overall visual impression of a product's packaging is a critical factor in assessing trade dress infringement, even when trademarks are displayed.
Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v.Lavera Gmbh And Co.Kg
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Lavera Gmbh, affirming that Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. was a dishonest adopter of the trademark 'LAVERA'. Despite initial contradictions regarding trans-border reputation, the court found that Lavera's international registration and intent to market in India entitled it to protection. The judgment emphasizes that dishonesty at the inception of mark adoption is fatal, even if subsequent use by the alleged infringer continues.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt., Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed appeals against an order concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark rights. The dispute centered around Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.'s use of labels incorporating 'GLUCON-D VOLT' for their tangy orange flavoured glucose-based energy bites. The parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading to the disposal of the Original Side Appeals.
Cipla Limited v.F. Hoffman La Roche Limited
Cipla Limited appealed against a final judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and directed that the case be fixed for final disposal on March 16, 2016. The court also clarified that while existing interim proceedings would continue, no final orders could be passed without its leave.
Jagatjit Industries Limited v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
The dispute involved a conflict over the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'. The appellant (Jagatjit Industries Limited) sought to register an identical mark, leading to opposition by respondent No. 4 (a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A.). The case progressed through various legal challenges regarding the validity and rectification of the registration certificate.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Guruji Enterprises' challenge against the removal of its trademark 'GURUJI'. The petitioner argued that the Registrar failed to issue a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) before cancellation. However, the court found that since the Respondent stated the Form O-3 was sent by post in 2008, the law presumes service upon delivery, making the writ petition inappropriate for resolving factual disputes regarding receipt.
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises v.Sh. Subhash Arora
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a water jug (No. 235010). The court considered an application for a preliminary injunction, noting that the defendant had previously failed in its attempt to cancel the registration based on prior publication. Given that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without protection, the court granted the interim injunction.
Sanofi Aventis v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Sanofi Aventis filed a suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to blood thinning medicines. The plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint to reflect significantly increased damages, as the losses mounted over the seven years the suit was pending. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct the cause of justice, especially when correcting valuation based on evolving market realities.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr v.Bull Machines Pvt Ltd
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a suit against Bull Machines Pvt Ltd, aiming to enhance the suit's valuation and the quantum of damages claimed due to ongoing copyright and design infringement. The plaintiffs argued that despite previous arrangements, the defendant continued manufacturing and selling infringing backhoe loaders. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial disputes require a flexible approach to ensure justice.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (Plaintiffs) seeking to amend their plaint to enhance the suit's pecuniary valuation. The plaintiffs, who had initially valued their passing off suit at a lower amount, sought to reflect the actual high market value of their intellectual property rights. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for correction is made out.
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Deepak Anand & Ors
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a passing off/disparagement suit against Deepak Anand & Ors. The plaintiff sought to enhance the valuation of the suit from Rs.21,00,800/- to Rs.2,00,00,800/- based on reassessed damages and goodwill attached to its brand 'Snapdeal'. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should examine such applications from a commercial angle, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (the plaintiff) seeking to amend its plaint to enhance the valuation of a commercial dispute. The suit, originally concerning passing off, was valued low, but due to re-assessment of potential damages and profits, the plaintiffs sought to increase the value significantly. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning a suit filed under Section 142 of the Trademark Act. While addressing procedural matters, the court granted ad-interim relief in favor of the appellant (Cadila Healthcare Limited). This interim order mandates that the respondent (Micro Labs Limited) must provide at least one week's prior written notice before initiating any legal proceedings related to the dispute against the appellant.
M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. v.Mr.Jonathan Brady & Anr.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed a suit to be settled out of court. M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. successfully convinced the court to enforce an agreement with Defendant No. 1, Mr. Jonathan Brady. The settlement confirmed that 'ULTA PULTA' is the intellectual property of the plaintiff and resulted in the decreeing of the original suit based on the agreed-upon terms.
Sh. P.C. Roy and Smt. Samita Roy v.The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; M/s S & S Chemical Works
The plaintiffs, who developed a Thermo Reactive Plastic foam Resin based on phenol formaldehyde compositions, sued the Ministry of Defence and M/s S & S Chemical Works for violating their trade secrets. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants leaked this confidential information to defendant no. 3, allowing it to manufacture similar goods. The court found that the plaintiffs successfully proved the leakage of trade secrets but failed to prove the issue regarding rendition of accounts.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed a suit for injunction alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its patent. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that while the Single Judge found infringement, the Division Bench had stayed the order due to pending objections under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing parties to continue being governed by an earlier court order.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Saurabh Katar And Others
Eicher Motors Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Saurabh Katar and others. The plaintiff sought to significantly enhance the claimed damages from Rs. 21 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, citing fresh listings of counterfeit products found on the defendants' website. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, noting that it did not alter the nature of the suit and was supported by cogent material available during the pendency of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent No. 236630, which covers the product D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit due to market evidence showing widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had challenged the validity and filed a revocation counter-claim, the court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the continuation of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Bharat Rasayan Ltd & Anr.
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit against Bharat Rasayan Ltd alleging infringement of Patent No. 225306 concerning the product TRANSFLUTHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint, primarily to enhance the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, citing market evidence of widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had already challenged the patent's validity through a revocation counter-claim, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the suit to proceed with enhanced claims.
Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.The Indian Hotels Company Limited
This case involves a dispute over the trademark 'JIVA' between Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture and The Indian Hotels Company Limited. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off. In the present application, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction for rendition of accounts/damages from Rs. 25 lac to Rs. 1 crore, based on re-assessed damages. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial courts should adopt a flexible approach when correcting valuation errors.