Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13801–13900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Vifor (International) Limited v.The High Court Of Delhi
This writ petition challenged the mandatory transfer of commercial disputes related to five key statutes—Patents, Trademarks, Designs, Copyright, and Geographical Indications—to the Commercial Division of the High Court. The petitioners argued that suits under these specific IP Acts should remain in their original forum, even if the value is below Rs. 1 crore. The court provided an interim order, holding that these cases shall not be transferred, while also directing Single Judges to consider amendment applications as per law.
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. v.Ankit Gupta
The plaintiff, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was operating a business using brand names ('Delhi Haat Mall' and 'New Delhi Haat') deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Dilli Haat'. The court found that the defendant's use constituted unfair competition and infringement, leading to the decree of permanent injunction and damages.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Mr Abhijeet And Anr
The case involves a dispute regarding the commercial launch of the product 'RIVAROXABAN' which is subject to the patent IN 211300 held by the plaintiffs. The defendants stated they are not proposing to launch the product during the patent's lifetime.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex patent dispute between F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. concerning Erlotinib Hydrochloride, a life-saving cancer drug. The court examined challenges to the validity of Roche's Indian Patent IN '774, particularly regarding inventive step over prior art (EP '226). While the court found that Cipla had raised credible doubts about the patent's validity, it ultimately restored Roche's suit for injunction but denied the immediate grant due to the approaching expiry date of the patent. Consequently, Cipla was directed to render accounts of its sales.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the jurisdictional scope of an ongoing patent infringement suit (CS No.3812/2014) between Novartis Ag and Cipla Ltd. The core issue was whether the case, despite its low pecuniary valuation, should be transferred to a subordinate District Court under the Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2015. The court ruled that because the defendant had filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, the matter must remain before the High Court's Commercial Division, irrespective of the suit's value.
Laxmi Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Akshar Food Products
Laxmi Snacks Pvt Ltd challenged Akshar Food Products for allegedly copying its distinctive packaging design, getup, and style used for ready-to-eat Namkeen products like Ratlami Sev. The appellant claimed their unique visual identity, including color scheme and mascot, was infringed upon by the respondent's similar product presentation. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement based on trade dress, it ultimately dismissed the appeals, directing the respondent to provide sales records for further scrutiny.
Tata Sons Limited v.Aniket Singh
Tata Sons Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and relief against Aniket Singh for alleged infringement of its rights to privacy, publicity, and passing off. The plaintiffs argued that their established goodwill and reputation, associated with the TATA brand, were being harmed by the defendant's actions. Given the defendant's failure to appear in court, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction and awarding punitive damages.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & Ors v.Dr.Bps Reddy & Ors
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants regarding infringement of Patent No. 203937 concerning DASATINIB API. The court addressed three applications: one to implead Hetero Labs Ltd., one to delete Dr. BPS Reddy, and one to implead Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland as the assignee. All three applications were allowed.
Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sudhir Bhatia
Midas Hygiene Industries challenged the Copyright Board's order that cancelled its copyright registrations for packaging material used on insecticide chalks. The core dispute revolved around whether the artistic work, when applied to a product, qualified as a 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby triggering the automatic cessation of copyright under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Midas argued that the label was merely an artistic work and not a design in the statutory sense. The Delhi High Court set aside the Board's finding regarding Section 15(2), but remanded the matter for fresh consideration on issues of originality, locus standi, and limitation.
Stephen Koeing v.Arbitrator Nixi And Anr.
This case involved a dispute over the domain name 'internet.in', which was registered by Koening, while Purohit held a trade mark for 'internet'. The core issue revolved around whether the domain name registration infringed upon the existing trademark rights. The Delhi High Court examined the arbitral award concerning this matter. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitration finding, emphasizing that the registrant has an obligation to ensure their domain name does not violate third-party rights.
M/s.Mahavir Home Appliances v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board; The Registrar of Trade Marks; Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/s.Mahavir Home Appliances, setting aside an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The core issue revolved around the validity of associated trademarks related to the 'RALLY' mark. A new affidavit submitted by the Registrar of Trade Marks contradicted the IPAB's finding that the marks had lapsed, thereby supporting the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the High Court remitted the matter back to the IPAB for fresh consideration based on the corrected factual position.
M/S Mirza International Ltd v.M/S Pauls Foot Prints
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/S Mirza International Ltd and M/S Pauls Foot Prints based on a comprehensive settlement reached through court-annexed mediation. The defendant agreed to cease using the disputed mark 'RED TAPE,' deliver seized goods, and pay Rs. 65,000/- to the plaintiff. The Court formally accepted the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated October 14, 2015, thereby decreeing the suit.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd filed an action alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.'s SERGI 3000 infringes upon CTR's Indian Patent No. 202302, which covers explosion and fire detection technology for electrical transformers. Sergi denies infringement, claiming its product uses different technology, and also challenges the validity of CTR's patent based on prior art.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited
The suit was filed by Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited against Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent No. 189089 related to transformer explosion prevention. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing, arguing that their exclusive license agreement was unregistered and therefore invalid under Section 109 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Inception Media LLP v.Star India Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiff, Inception Media LLP, filed a Notice of Motion alleging copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality against Star India Pvt. Ltd., claiming ownership over a concept note for a TV serial titled "Ye Tera Ghar Ye Mera Ghar". The Plaintiff asserted that this confidential material was disclosed to Star India, which subsequently produced a similar promotional video. However, the Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding copyright and confidentiality.
Jasper Motors Private Limited v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw & Ors.
The plaintiff, Jasper Motors Private Limited, filed a suit regarding matters arising under the Patents and Design Act. The court initially faced issues regarding the admission of the plaint and whether proper leave had been obtained under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The court ultimately granted the necessary leave and admitted the plaint.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin, a key drug for Type II diabetes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing and selling generic versions like Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate under brands such as ZITA. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted infringement of the plaintiff's patent rights.
M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr
This Delhi High Court order confirms the settlement reached between M/S Relianc Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and M/S Reliance Life Sciences & Anr. The parties successfully mediated their dispute, leading to a decree that acknowledges the plaintiff's proprietary trademark rights. While the plaintiff agreed to waive damages, the defendants formally acknowledged the validity of the plaintiff's trademarks, resolving the litigation amicably.
Virbac Animal Health India Pvt Ltd v.Dahyabhai L Patel
Virbac Animal Health India Pvt Ltd appealed a lower court's decision to reject its plaint. The original suit alleged infringement of copyright and passing off of a trademark. The trial judge had rejected the suit based on Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, citing that the product was manufactured more than fifty times. Virbac argued that this limitation should not apply as their claim also involved trademark passing off, which is excluded from certain definitions in other IP statutes.
Shoppers Stop Ltd v.Shoppers Shop
In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Shoppers Stop Ltd and Shoppers Shop following a successful mediation process. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Shoppers Stop's exclusive ownership of the 'SHOPPERS STOP' trademark and 'SS LOGO'. As part of the agreement, the defendant agreed to cease using the marks and pay a sum of Rs. 6.00 lacs to the plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Messrs Marvellous & Anr.
The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Limited, filed an action alleging infringement of its patent (No. 265864) covering a biocide cartridge used in a gravity-fed water purification device. The court found that the respondent company was dishonestly using the patented cartridge device and granted an order restraining such use.
Priya Food Products Ltd. v.Satya Sai Agroils Pvt Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed a passing off dispute concerning the use of the mark 'Priya' for Soya Chunks. While acknowledging the respondent's prior general use of the mark, the court found that the petitioner had established significant and localized presence in the Eastern part of the country. Consequently, the court granted an interim protective order restraining the defendant from using the word Priya specifically in relation to Soya Chunks within that region.
Retail Royalty Company v.Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal concerning trademark infringement between Retail Royalty Company and Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited. While the court found that the word marks ('AMERICAN EAGLE' vs 'URBAN EAGLE') were not deceptively similar, preventing a full injunction on the name, it did find that the associated 'Eagle Devices' were deceptively similar. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from using the infringing devices and limited to using only the mark 'URBAN EAGLE', without adding qualifiers like 'AUTHENTIC'.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v.Italian Edibles Pvt. Ltd.
Nestle filed a suit against Italian Edibles alleging passing off and misuse of its well-known trademark, "MAGGI HUNGROOO." The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that their business was conducted outside Delhi. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Nestle, holding that since the plaintiff had an office in Delhi, the goods were advertised on a website accessible in Delhi, and there was an imminent threat of market entry in Delhi, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.K.Balashankar
In a case concerning the salt market, Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully secured a permanent injunction against K.Balashankar after both parties entered into a compromise agreement. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, affirming that the defendant must cease using the deceptively similar mark 'ANANDIPURNA' and its packaging. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks and copyrights in the FMCG sector.
M/s Kay Cee Exports v.Nentex Woollens
The petitioner filed a civil revision challenging an order that dismissed the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint. The defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the suit was barred under the Copyright Act, Design Act, and Patents Act. The High Court found no relief under these Acts was explicitly claimed in the plaint, thus upholding the lower court's orders.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr v.Piyush Somani & Anr
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court allowed Microsoft Corporation to secure its intellectual property rights against Piyush Somani. The parties reached an out-of-court agreement where the defendants formally recognized Microsoft as the proprietor of the 'MICROSOFT' trademark. Furthermore, the court directed NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the domain name www.microsoft.co.in to Microsoft, effectively resolving a complex dispute involving both trademark infringement and cybersquatting.
Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal (Alias Ashok Panchal) v.Hitesh Vishnuprasad Panchal
The appeal was filed under Section 19(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that there was an inordinate delay (more than two years) between the conclusion of the hearing and the delivery of the final order regarding registered design no. 222514.
Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited v.Mr.Nitin Blaggan & Ors.
In a significant resolution, Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited successfully concluded its dispute against Mr. Nitin Blaggan & Ors. by reaching an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this agreement, which confirmed that Bestochem is the rightful owner of the trademark 'FLUWEL' for pharmaceutical preparations. In exchange for this confirmation, the plaintiff agreed to forgo claims for damages and costs, bringing a long-pending infringement case to a definitive close.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.M/S Best It World (India) Private Limited (iBall)
Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against iBall for infringing its patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies. The court considered arguments regarding the execution of a FRAND agreement and the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents.
Ashiana Housing Ltd. v.M/S Total Property Solutions
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ashiana Housing Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against M/S Total Property Solutions for infringing its trademarks and copyrights. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks and replication of proprietary content on their website caused confusion among the public. Furthermore, given the defendant's ex-parte conduct and deliberate infringement, the court awarded punitive damages of Rs. 3 lac and costs to the plaintiff.
Dr. Ambujaksha Mahanti v.Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd.
The petitioner filed an application seeking revocation of leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. The court found that the cause of action related to damages caused to a vehicle, which occurred outside the court's jurisdiction in Kolkata. Consequently, the leave was revoked.
Matrix Laboratories Ltd. v.Income Tax
The assessee, Matrix Laboratories Ltd., appealed against the Assessing Officer's order regarding various deductions. A key issue was whether patent infringement income received from Les Laboratories Servier related to 'Perindopril' could be included in export turnover for Section 10B deduction. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of superannuation contributions.
Gap(Itm) Inc And Anr v.D.K. Srinivas
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Gap(Itm) Inc and D.K. Srinivas based on an out-of-court negotiated settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in the 'GAP' trademark and agreed to specific undertakings. Furthermore, the defendant committed to paying Rs. 25 lacs in damages should they breach these future agreements, effectively resolving the dispute.
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Group
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction and passing off against Royal Group regarding the use of similar trade marks ('HAEMOFORTE' vs 'HAEMO FORTE') in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed prior user rights, but the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that its operations were based outside Delhi. The Court ultimately found that since neither party had a presence or cause of action arising within Delhi, it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India And Others
Bayer Corporation appealed an order allowing Nacto Pharma Ltd. (NPL), a compulsory licensee, to export its product 'Sorafenat' outside India for clinical trials. Bayer alleged this violated the terms of the compulsory license granted under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court directed that instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the underlying writ petition be disposed of expeditiously by impleading relevant regulatory authorities.
Aktiebolaget Skf And Ors v.Zakir And Ors
In this Delhi High Court judgment, the dispute between Aktiebolaget Skf and Zakir was resolved through a negotiated settlement involving Defendant No. 5. The court accepted the mutual agreement, which included Defendant No. 5 providing undertakings to the plaintiffs regarding the delivery of goods and acknowledging their trademark ownership. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms, allowing the plaintiffs to take possession of the infringing goods for destruction.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh v.M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Assessing Officer's order disallowing royalty payments made by M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd. to Tarun Mohan for using the brand name 'phoneytunes.com'. The court held that since Tarun Mohan merely licensed the trademark, and the company was a separate legal entity, the payment of royalty was permissible as business expenditure.
Sanjeev Goel v.Neelkanth Polytech Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sanjeev Goel against a trial court's rejection of his injunction request concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Although the appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider his claim of passing off, both parties agreed on a path forward: expediting the suit. The court disposed of the appeal by issuing strict directions for the timely filing of evidence and witness testimonies, ensuring the matter could be concluded quickly.
M/s Raj Son Agro Engineers Regd v.M/s Kalsi Metal Works Private Limited
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order that allowed a trademark infringement suit to proceed. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could sue in its own jurisdiction based on registered trademark rights, or if the admission that certain goods were unregistered would limit the case to 'passing off.' The court ruled that even if treated as a passing off action for unregistered marks, the plaint contained sufficient averments regarding clandestine sales within the court's territorial jurisdiction to sustain the suit.
Acme Tele Power Limited v.Intelux Electronics Private Limited
Acme Tele Power Limited filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against Intelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of IP rights. The matter was transferred to the High Court due to a counter-claim for patent revocation under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw all pending suits and the court dismissed the original suit and counter-claim as withdrawn.
Novartis AG v.Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging that Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited was infringing its Indian Patent No. 212815 related to Vildagliptin API and formulations. The dispute was resolved after the defendant submitted an affidavit undertaking to cease all infringing activities, leading the court to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company And Ors.
This appeal involved Shilpa Medicare Limited challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a patent infringement suit filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. The core dispute centered on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that Shilpa's manufacturing unit was located outside Delhi. Bristol-Myers argued that the threat of infringing products being sold or offered for sale in Delhi, through generic partners like Natco, established sufficient cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the original order, finding no infirmity with the jurisdictional ruling.
Novartis AG v.Union of India
Novartis AG challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which allowed a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Wockhardt Limited. Novartis argued that the IPAB exceeded its jurisdiction and violated procedural rules by permitting additional grounds and documents in the patent revocation case. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding it within its powers to regulate procedure based on principles of natural justice.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft v.M/S Appsone Consulting India (P) Ltd.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against M/S Appsone Consulting India for infringing its copyrights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were illegally providing training programs using their proprietary SAP ERP software modules without authorization, despite having specific license agreements in place. The court found the defendants liable for unauthorized use and granted the plaintiffs permanent injunction along with punitive damages.
Win Plast Ltd v.Symphony Ltd
Win Plast Ltd appealed an order passed in Civil Suit No. 2 of 2015 regarding alleged infringement of a registered design related to an air cooler. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and the basis of the interim relief, arguing that the suit was based on mere apprehension and should have been filed in Mumbai. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order.
Nacto Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Nacto Pharma Limited challenged the actions of a respondent authority regarding the grant of a patent to another party. The petitioner alleged that the authority proceeded with merit-based objections without first addressing preliminary objections concerning a breach of Patent Rule 55 (4).
S.M.Anand Vel v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs which deemed his patent application abandoned because it was not put in order within the prescribed time. The petitioner argued that since multiple sets of fresh objections were raised during the examination process, the abandonment could not be applied. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration.
Reckitt Benckiser Health Care (India) Pvt. v.Emami Ltd & Ors.
The appeal challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court, which restrained the defendant from displaying an advertisement for 'MOOV' that compared it to the plaintiff's product, ZANDU BALM. The High Court examined whether such comparative advertising amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd, an MSO operating in Bihar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was extensively using its repertoire of copyrighted music and films on its cable network channel without obtaining necessary licenses. Despite repeated notices, the defendant continued the infringement, leading to the court proceeding ex-parte. The Delhi High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting punitive damages and costs due to the willful nature of the violation.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc And Anr v.M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction against M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. However, following a decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arose in Mumbai. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the Bombay High Court.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Mercury Electronics & Anr
The dispute concerns the validity of several registered patents. The defendant challenged the validity of these patents in their counter-claim. The court addressed the legal issue of who must prove the patent's invalidity.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute centered on whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court ruled that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at that location, they must file there.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
The dispute concerned the proper territorial jurisdiction for filing a suit related to copyright infringement. The appellant (IPRS Ltd.) argued that Section 62 of the Copyright Act conferred a right to file a suit where it carries on business, regardless of the cause of action's location. The Supreme Court ultimately held that while a plaintiff can sue where they carry on business, if the cause of action also arises there, they must file in that place, dismissing the appeals.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute revolved around whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court clarified that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at their location, they must file there.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal v.M/S Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd.
Revenue appealed an order regarding the recovery of demurrage and detention charges from a patent holder (Shri S. Ramkumar) who had executed a bond during customs clearance suspension due to alleged infringement by dual SIM mobile phones. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner (Appeals)' order was correct in allowing the enforcement of the bond for recovering these ancillary liabilities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr.D. Shah
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Mr. D. Shah and others for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937. The patent covers DASATINIB, an anti-cancer molecule used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Given the defendants' admission of infringement and the risk of irreparable harm, the Delhi High Court allowed the injunction applications, maintaining the status quo during the trial.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr. J.D. Joshi
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937, which covers the anti-cancer drug DASATINIB. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants intended to launch generic products violating their exclusive patent rights. Given the prima facie evidence of infringement and the irreparable harm the plaintiff would suffer, the court granted an interim injunction to maintain the status quo during the trial.
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd v.Krishna Mehta & Ors
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Krishna Mehta & Ors, alleging that the defendants were illegally imitating and selling products featuring motifs and designs similar to those owned by Eicher Goodearth. The plaintiff claimed ownership of various designer collections like Serai and Falcon, asserting their rights under copyright and design laws. The court examined the similarity between the parties' products and the alleged deceptive use of intellectual property.
Jasper Motors Private Ltd. v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw & Ors.
The plaintiffs, holding a patent for an eco-friendly, battery-operated rickshaw design, alleged that the defendants were illegally importing, exporting, and selling the patented idea. Despite the lack of representation from the defendants, the court found them liable for infringing the patent.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited sought an interim injunction against Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark and tag line infringement regarding their glucose-based energy products. Wipro claimed that the defendant's use of 'VOLT' and similar tag lines was a deliberate attempt to trade on its goodwill associated with 'BOLTS.' However, the Madras High Court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, finding that Wipro had not established a prima facie case at this stage. The court held that the issue of protecting descriptive taglines like 'ANYTIME ANYWHERE' requires extensive evidence and must be decided during the full trial.
M/s.Simco Thread Mills v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, Geographical Indications, Designs
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/s.Simco Thread Mills regarding the delay in processing its application for a change of constitution related to its registered trademark, SIMCO (label). The court directed the relevant Trademark Registry officials to process Forms TM-24, TM-33, and TM-34 pertaining to the trademark expeditiously, ensuring compliance with legal procedures. This ruling provides relief by mandating timely administrative action from the IP authorities.
Bharat Balar v.Rajendra Distributors
The appeal concerned a suit filed by Bharat Balar alleging infringement of their registered design and passing off against Rajendra Distributors. The court facilitated an agreement between both parties to expedite the trial process and set aside certain adverse observations made in a previous common order.
United Phosphorus Limited v.Ajay Garg And Another
United Phosphorus Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 190476 and 202013, along with claims for damages. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party conducted business in Delhi. The Court ultimately ruled that since no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, the plaint was returned to be filed in the appropriate forum.
Sartaj Singh Pannu v.Gurbani Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
Sartaj Singh Pannu filed a petition seeking orders to restrain Gurbani Media Pvt. Ltd. from releasing the film 'Nanak Shah Fakir' without giving him credit as the sole Director. The court examined the service agreement and concluded that, at the present stage without further evidence, it was not possible to conclusively hold that Pannu was the sole director or that he had been coerced into waiving his rights.
M/s Best IT World (India) Private Limited v.M/s Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ)
Best IT World (iBall) filed an information alleging that Ericsson, a major holder of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), was abusing its dominant position. The allegations included refusal to identify infringed patents, forcing the Informant into onerous Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and imposing royalty rates contrary to FRAND terms.
Jyoti Kapoor v.Kunal Kohli
The Plaintiffs, claiming to be the author and first owner of the copyright in the original screenplay 'R.S.V.P', filed suit alleging infringement of copyright and breach of confidence against the Defendants for producing a film titled 'Phir Se' using their script without consent. The court found that the Plaintiffs had a strong case and granted an ad-interim injunction to prevent the release of 'Phir Se'.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
Kanishk Sinha challenged the implementation of an amended notification under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which brought 'E-rickshaws' within its ambit. The petitioner also claimed infringement of his patent related to technology for battery operated e-rickshaws.
The Delhi Network Of Positive People v.Union Of India
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the practice of pharmaceutical companies abusing Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that filing identical divisional patent applications was used to keep patents alive and obstruct access to affordable medicines, particularly ARVs for HIV/AIDS patients. While acknowledging the merit in the grievance regarding process abuse, the court ultimately held that it could not issue directions requiring the Executive to amend statutory rules or interfere with the domain of administrative procedure, instead directing the respondents to consider rule amendments as a representation.
M/S Ganesh Tea Centre v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning an impugned search certificate issued under the Copyrights Act, which was challenged by M/S Ganesh Tea Centre due to alleged prior rights in an identical mark. The court directed the Registrar to continue the underlying trademark proceedings while simultaneously staying the issuance of any registration certificate related to the disputed mark. This interim order protects the petitioner's interests pending a full determination of the conflicting IP claims.
M/S. Jai Durga Electricals v.Mex Switchgears Pvt Tld.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing specific directions to expedite the trademark matter. The court mandated that the Deputy Registrar re-hear the parties and allow them to lead fresh evidence. Furthermore, strict timelines were set for both petitioner and respondent to file their respective evidence in reply and rebuttal, ensuring a structured path toward final adjudication.
Symphony Ltd v.Wim Plast Ltd & 2
Symphony Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the piracy of its registered designs for Air Coolers. The defendants were accused of marketing and selling products with identical design, shape, and configuration. The court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of the plaintiff, leading to the continuation of the interim relief.
Suresh Kumar Garg v.Pramod Kumar
Plaintiff, a sole proprietor manufacturing edible oil under M/s Aggarwal Oil Mills, filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendant for infringing his trade mark numeral 1. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and use since 1981, while the defendant argued that '1' is a common expression and denied any similarity or deception.
M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Nalli Silk House A/C
This Madras High Court case involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty and Nalli Silk House A/C. The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to dispose of the suit based on the compromise memo. Under the agreement, the defendant committed to changing its business name from 'NALLI SILK HOUSE' to 'NALLAPPA SILK HOUSE' and ceasing all use of the infringing trademark by December 31, 2015.
M/S.Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant challenged the refusal of design registration (Application No. 233798) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller overlooked previous judicial observations regarding consistent application of registration parameters and incorrectly assessed the originality of the bottle design.
Amit Jain v.Ayurveda Herbal & Ors
Amit Jain filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ayurveda Herbal and others for infringing his registered designs used on plastic bottles and tubes for cosmetic products. The plaintiff claimed ownership through assignment of several design registrations. However, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the designs were not novel or protectable under Section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff was penalized for failing to disclose details of a prior withdrawn suit.
M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. v.Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai
The dispute concerned whether the royalty paid for music embedded in master CDs should be included in the assessable value when M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. manufactured duplicate CDs on a job work basis. The appellant argued that since they only copied the content and did not exploit the intellectual property, no royalty could be charged. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant.
M & H Management Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Shankar
M & H Management Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for passing off their goods and services by using the 'Anantara' trade mark, which is held by the plaintiff. The court partly decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions but rejecting the claim for damages.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Vignesh Refineries
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed suit against M/s.Vignesh Refineries alleging infringement of its registered trademark (GOLD WINEER) and copyrighted pouch design. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of 'SKS GOLD' packaging, which was deemed infringing by the plaintiff. Both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, amicably settling their differences.
Mr.Veeramani Kannan v.M/s Super Audio (Madras) Private Limited
The singer (plaintiff) sued the music company (defendant) alleging that the defendant commercially exploited and streamed songs from the album 'Shiva Murugan Paamalai' without permission or royalties, violating the performer's rights under Section 38A of the Copyright Act. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had assigned all his performance rights for a lump sum consideration in an agreement dated 15.04.2015.
Mw Eat Ltd v.New Masala Zone & Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Mw Eat Ltd against New Masala Zone & Anr, resolving a dispute over trademark infringement. Although the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement where the defendants agreed to cease using their name, the court formally granted the decree. The judgment specifically restrained the defendants from using 'New Masala Zone' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to restaurants and hospitality services, thereby protecting the plaintiff's trademark 'MASALA ZONE'.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
This appeal involved a minority shareholder, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, challenging Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and its Managing Director (Defendant No. 2). The core grievance was that Defendant No. 2 had obtained several patents in his individual name despite using the company's substantial research and development infrastructure and investment. The plaintiff argued these patents belonged to the company, asserting a fiduciary duty breach by the MD. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief, finding no compelling reason to grant protection based solely on apprehension.
Symphony Limited v.Roman Marketing & 12
The Gujarat High Court granted interim relief in favor of Symphony Limited concerning the manufacture and sale of aircoolers. The court considered an agreement involving the custody of a cooler mould and referenced a prior restraint order from the Mumbai High Court against one of the respondents for trademark infringement and passing off related to the design. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff while the appeal proceeds.
M/s.Varsha Productions v.Shivaji Rao Gaikwad
The appeal arose from an interlocutory order concerning a suit filed by the respondent, Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (Rajinikanth), seeking to restrain M/s.Varsha Productions from using his name, image, or style in their film project 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth'. The parties subsequently reached a settlement.
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc v.Sharekhand Limited
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement agreement reached between The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc and Sharekhand Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement of the trademark 'MAXTRAD'. Under the settlement, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed not to use the deceptively similar mark 'MAXTRADE'. Consequently, the court decreed the suit based on these terms, concluding the litigation.
Ashim Ghosh v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner challenged the Controller's action of treating his patent application (No. 1350/DEL/2007) as 'Deemed to be Withdrawn'. The withdrawal was based on the assumption that the request for examination was not made within the prescribed period, despite the petitioner having filed Form-18 correctly and within the time limit. The court found that the clerical error in the covering letter did not invalidate the timely filing of the substantive examination request.
M/S Today Tea Ltd v.M/S Aggarwal Tea Co.& Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit between M/S Today Tea Ltd and M/S Aggarwal Tea Co. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The defendants agreed to pay a balance sum, cease using the disputed trademarks ('T-STAR' vs 'TODAY/TODAY STAR'), and further committed to destroying all infringing tea and coffee packaging material at a designated premises under court supervision. This judgment underscores the effectiveness of mediation in resolving complex IP disputes.
Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
Plaintiffs, a production house, filed suit alleging that their concept notes and literary works for a TV series titled 'Badki Bahu' were shared with Defendant No.1 under confidence. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants subsequently produced a serial, 'Badi Devrani', based on this confidential material and infringed their copyright. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction to protect the Plaintiffs' material.
Rohini Seeds Private Limited v.Reshma Chemicals Private Limited
The appeal challenged an order that granted a temporary injunction restraining Rohini Seeds Private Limited from using numbers 2222 on its seed packings, based on Reshma Chemicals Private Limited's claim of trademark infringement (R.S.2222). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of confusion or irreparable injury.
M/S Bilcare Limited v.M/S Associated Capsules Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a trademark suit (TM-75/2011) against the defendant. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall previous orders, primarily to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The court dismissed this application, finding it devoid of merits and intended for dilatory tactics.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals regarding the patented drug Sitagliptin. MSD alleged that Glenmark's products, marketed as Zita and Zitamet, infringed upon its patent (Indian Patent No. 209816), which covers a key molecule used to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, granting an interim injunction in favor of MSD, thereby restraining Glenmark from further selling or distributing the infringing products while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Sivanesan & Co. v.M/s. Kanchan Home Appliances and others
The Madras High Court granted an absolute interim injunction in favor of M/s. Sivanesan & Co., who held the registered trademark 'Premier'. The court found that the defendants' use of 'Premier Dezire' constituted both infringement and passing off, causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation. This decision underscores the importance of continuous usage and established market presence when enforcing trademark rights.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Intex Technologies (India) Limited for infringing eight patents related to advanced telecommunication technologies, specifically AMR, 3G, and EDGE. The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The court granted several stringent interim orders, including restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing devices and directing Customs authorities not to allow the import of such products.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel & 2
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel and others concerning Patents Nos. 218301 and 221999. The defendants challenged the validity of these patents by filing a counter-claim for revocation. This order framed various issues, including novelty, inventorship, infringement, and entitlement to injunctions.
Tata Sons Ltd v.Neil Sombuntham & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against Neil Sombuntham and others for infringing on the well-known 'TATA' trademark. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain name 'www.tatamassage.com' constituted misappropriation and an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the Tata brand in the global market. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or domain name, and the court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name to the plaintiff.
Atlas Plastic v.C G Enterprise
Atlas Plastic filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against C G Enterprise for infringement of its registered designs. Atlas Plastic subsequently filed an application seeking to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding the cancellation petition status of one of the defendant's impugned designs.
M/S Rspl Health Pvt. Ltd. v.Giani Ram Mittal & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement of its trade mark XPERT and copyright, claiming prior adoption in respect of laundry products. The defendants countered by asserting their own established use of the 'SAGAR' trademark and arguing that the marks were dissimilar. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd v.Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors
In a case concerning trademark infringement, Gsm (Operations) Pty Ltd successfully reached an out-of-court settlement with Jai Kumar Sethia And Ors. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership of the 'BILLABONG' trademark and agreed to cease using the infringing mark 'BILLABANGS'. Furthermore, they paid a sum of ₹2 lacs as damages in full and final settlement. The court formally decreed the suit based on these mutually accepted terms.
Medical Technologies Limited v.M/S Neon Laboratories Limited
The Gujarat High Court addressed Letters Patent Appeals concerning interim orders related to a trademark registration dispute. While not delving into the merits of the infringement claim, the court granted the appellant (Medical Technologies Limited) liberty to approach the Single Judge to seek an early hearing and suitable modification of the existing interim orders. This decision allowed the parties to pursue their claims without being unduly influenced by the appellate ruling.
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Metro International Cardiac Centre & Ors
The plaintiff, Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd, filed a suit seeking an injunction against the defendants for using the 'METRO' trade name/trademark in respect of medical services. The plaintiff claimed extensive goodwill and reputation associated with its hospitals under the METRO brand. However, the court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the plaintiff lacked a prima facie case and there was no evidence suggesting the defendant was a dishonest concurrent user.