Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 13901–14000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, .S.A. v.Sapan Kumar Bhatia & Ors
In this Delhi High Court case involving Nestle and Sapan Kumar Bhatia, the parties reached an amicable out-of-court settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants acknowledged Nestle's ownership rights over the 'MAGGI' trademark, domain name (www.maggi.in), and copyright in the logo and label. Consequently, the court allowed a compromise application, decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms, which included a final payment of ₹2,00,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB granting a plea of revocation made by private respondents. The dispute involved multiple patent infringement suits and corresponding revocation petitions/counter claims. The High Court addressed whether the Supreme Court's ruling on electing one remedy was affected by ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court.
M/S Reino Industrial Organics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Refnol Resins & Chemicals Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered trade marks (REINOL/RIO-REINOL) and passing off goods under the deceptive mark 'Refnol' or company name REFNOL RESINS & CHEMICALS LTD. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks amounted to infringement and passed off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer CropScience AG v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bayer CropScience AG appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for long-chain inulin. The rejection was based on a lack of novelty and inventive step, arguing that the compound was merely isolated from artichoke roots. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the specific chain length and higher degree of polymerization achieved by fractionalizing the inulin constituted a novel invention with beneficial results.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd.
The petitioners, registered proprietors of trade marks containing 'UltraTech' or 'Ultra', sought leave to combine their cause of action for infringement with a cause of action for passing off against the defendant. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that it possessed original jurisdiction and allowed the combination of both causes of action.
Times Internet Ltd. v.Time Broadband Services Pvt.Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Times Internet Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'timebroadbandindia.com' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's established brand, 'indiatimes'. The court emphasized the priority of adoption and the extensive reputation built by the plaintiff over its digital assets. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted, along with punitive damages.
Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v.RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Blue Cross Laboratories, granting an interim injunction against RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the marks 'CEDON' and 'CEFDON' were deceptively similar, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to combine both causes of action into the suit, dismissing the defendant's attempt to reject the plaint.
M/s. Innovativ Dezines v.M/s. Wooltop Design Private Limited
M/s. Innovativ Dezines appealed a previous order and decree regarding a suit against M/s. Wooltop Design Private Limited. The appellant sought to set aside the earlier judgment. Ultimately, the senior counsel for the appellant agreed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to raise all pleas on merits in the written statement.
Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Pradhan Herbal Company
This case involved a dispute between Babu Ram Om Prakash and Pradhan Herbal Company concerning the use of the trademark 'Diamond/Black Diamond' in relation to Henna Power (Mehandi). Following mandatory mediation, the parties reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The court accepted this agreement, decreeing the suit based on its terms, which prohibited the defendant from using the plaintiff's mark or similar labels.
Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.
Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. v.Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for amendment of the cause title, recognizing that the rights in the trademark 'ZOLAM' had been transferred from Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited via a sanctioned scheme of arrangement. The court found the plaintiff's case unimpeachable and ruled that the successor company was entitled to continue the legal proceedings without delay.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar of PPVFR Authority which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether the development and sale of hybrid seeds from these parent lines invalidated the novelty claim for the original parental lines.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Sushma Berlia & Ors. v.Kamal Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the registered trademark 'APEEJAY' used by an educational society. The suit was filed against a parents' association that had adopted the same name. The court held that even though the defendants were non-trading and non-profit, their use of the mark created a likelihood of public confusion, suggesting patronage or affiliation with the plaintiffs' school. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction preventing the unauthorized use of 'APEEJAY' by the association.
M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd, which sought to overturn an order directing it to change its company name. The court upheld the decision that the petitioner could not use 'Vardhaman' as part of its name because Respondent No. 4 held a registered trademark for the word. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and acquiescence during a marketing agreement, the High Court concluded that using the similar name amounted to an attempt to usurp the established business of the trademark holder.
sandisk corporation v.ms shivji electronics
Sandisk Corporation sued M/S Shivji Electronics for trademark infringement of its 'SanDisk' mark and logo, alleging the defendants were selling counterfeit SanDisk memory cards at significantly lower prices than authorized retailers. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and damages against the defendants’ counterfeiting activities in Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi.
Vinod Verma v.State Of Punjab And Ors
The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding alleged patent infringement. The court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such claims, as the matter required detailed evidence and consideration of facts governed by the Patent Act.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder, filed a derivative action alleging that Defendant No.2 (Chairman/MD) obtained and applied for several patents in his individual name instead of in the name of Defendant No.1 (the company). The court examined whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the company.
K.R.Ravi Rathinam v.The Director General of Police, and others (listed as R.1 to R.11)
The appellant claimed his story 'Mullai Vanam 999', which he uploaded to YouTube in 2013, was illegally used and infringed upon in the film 'Lingaa' by respondents 7, 8, 10, and 11. The court initially held that a writ petition was not the proper remedy for such private disputes. However, considering the circumstances, the court directed the seventh respondent to deposit Rs. 10 Crores and allowed the release of the film 'LINGAA' upon initial deposit.
Amultek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed a challenge to an interim order preventing Amultek Software Solutions from using the name 'Amultek' due to trademark concerns raised by Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. The court allowed the application filed by Amultek, permitting them to temporarily change their name to Atek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd while reserving their right to contest the underlying infringement claims in the main appeal. This decision allows the litigation to proceed toward a final determination of trademark rights.
K.R. Ravi Rathinam v.The Director General Of Police and others
The petitioner, K.R. Ravi Rathinam, filed a Writ Petition seeking a detailed inquiry by police authorities into the alleged theft and unauthorized use of his story ('Mullai Vanam 999') in another film ('Linga'). The court dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute was private and that the appropriate remedy for intellectual property claims is through a Civil Suit or Criminal Law proceedings, not under Article 226.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court found that the authority rendered the decision without granting the petitioner's representative a proper opportunity to clarify objections, despite the petitioner having requested accommodation for his absence. Consequently, the impugned decision was set aside and the matter was remanded for a de novo hearing.
Educare Limited v.S.K. Sachdev
Educare Limited filed a suit against S.K. Sachdev alleging trademark infringement concerning its well-established school brand, 'SHRI RAM'. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's use of 'ShreeRam World School' and the domain name www.shreeram.in, which the plaintiffs argued was phonetically and conceptually identical to their mark. After considering the plaintiff's extensive reputation in the education sector, the court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the defendants' adoption of the name lacked bona fide intent.
M/S Dabur India Ltd. v.M/S Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction sought by Dabur India Ltd. against Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'PACHMOLA'. The court found that, based on prima facie examination of trade dress and product features, there was no immediate possibility of consumer deception or confusion between 'HAJMOLA' and 'PACHMOLA'. While not ruling on the merits of the full suit, the court directed the defendant to maintain and file quarterly sales accounts, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union of India & Ors.
The writ petitioner challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had revoked his patent for a 'Sealing Device' due to lack of novelty based on US prior art. The petitioner argued that his device possessed novel features, such as a transparent body and ribbed wire. The Calcutta High Court set aside the IPAB's order, finding that the Board erred in its assessment and reliance on expert opinion.
C.I.T v.M/S.Acqua Minerals P.Ltd
The dispute arose from an assessment where the Assessing Officer restricted the allowance of Rs. 2,90,602/- claimed by the assessee as royalty payment to M/s. Parle (Export) Pvt. Ltd for use of their trade mark 'Bisleri', classifying it instead as acquisition of a patent right under Section 35A. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred this question to the High Court.
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v.Jamshyad Sethna And Anr
The Delhi High Court permitted Banyan Tree Holding to amend its original suit for passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought to incorporate claims for trademark infringement based on new registrations that occurred during the pendency of the case. The court held that since the registration happened subsequently, and allowing the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy without causing prejudice to the defendants, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.M/S. Deep Industry
The Delhi High Court confirmed an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Rspl Health Private Limited against M/S. Deep Industry. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case, asserting that the defendant's use of the 'POSH' label was deceptively similar to its registered trademark and artistic work, 'XPERT.' Despite the defendant raising objections regarding jurisdiction and delay, the court found both arguments untenable, upholding the initial order against infringement and passing off.
Sunny Sales & Others v.Binod Khanna
The Calcutta High Court refused the plaintiffs' interim application for an injunction against the use of the trade mark 'LIPU' (and similarly 'SUNSHINE'). The court emphasized that while both parties claimed long-standing usage, neither had established exclusive rights. Given that both were importers sourcing goods from multiple manufacturers in China, and registration applications were recent, the court found no justification for granting an immediate injunction. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts throughout the litigation.
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v.Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
The respondent (Koninklijke Phillips Electronics) sued for permanent injunction against the appellants (Maj. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) regarding infringement of Patent No. 218255. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking revocation based on the plaintiff's failure to disclose foreign patent applications as required by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the omission was not an unequivocal admission of deliberate suppression and thus revocation is not automatic.
Fdc Ltd. v.Union Of India
FDC Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had set aside the Assistant Controller's initial ruling against the petitioner regarding the revocation of Indian Patent No.197822. The core dispute centered on whether IPAB should have decided the merits or remanded the matter, and specifically, whether directing a fresh Opposition Board was legally sound.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
The application sought permission to export 1 kg of API Sorafenib (Sorafenat), which was manufactured under a compulsory license granted to NPL. Bayer challenged this export, arguing it constituted a commercial transaction and violated the terms of the compulsory license. The Court ultimately held that the export for regulatory approval purposes falls within the exception provided by Section 107A.
Narendra Srivastava v.Ashok Chaturvedi
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging groundless threats based on a pending patent application held by defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 sought to be struck out as a party, arguing he had assigned his rights and was not involved in the alleged threat. The court dismissed this application, holding that since the claim derived from defendant no.1's original application and he resided within the court's jurisdiction, he remained a necessary party.
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited v.M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited filed a suit against M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd alleging infringement of several trademarks related to alcoholic beverages. The court addressed multiple interim applications, including those seeking liberty to sue for other unregistered marks and enlargement of time. Ultimately, the court partly allowed the applications, granting an interim injunction that restricts the Defendant from using identical or deceptively similar labels for specific products while permitting the use of generic terms without the protected prefix.
M/S.Grp Dairy Food Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court resolved a dispute between M/S.Grp Dairy Food Pvt. Ltd. and S.Sudhakar concerning the trademarks 'Udhayam' and 'GRB Udhayam'. The parties reached an amicable settlement through mediation, resulting in a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions by allowing the trademark registrations to continue, provided certain conditions outlined in the compromise are incorporated into the registry.
Tech Plus Media Private Ltd v.Jyoti Janda & Ors
Tech Plus Media Private Ltd filed a suit alleging that its former employees infringed upon its copyrights, passing off rights, and trade secrets by copying proprietary IT industry databases. The plaintiff claimed these detailed electronic databases constituted original literary works and confidential information developed over nine years. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit against the plaintiff, finding that it had failed to plead the material propositions of fact essential for succeeding in an action for copyright infringement.
Merck Serono S.A. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Merck Serono S.A. challenged the Controller of Patents & Design's decision to declare its patent application abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that it had actively pursued the application by responding to both the First and Second Examination Reports. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that active pursuit negates abandonment.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.Ramesh Chopra & Ors.
Instapower Ltd., dealing in energy-efficient lighting under the Insta Power brand, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration that Defendant No. 4's claims regarding sole ownership of LED aviation obstruction light patents were false. The dispute centered on conflicting patent rights concerning LED Aviation Obstruction Lights (AOL).
V2 Corp & Anr. v.Innovative Techpack Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and delivery for infringement of their registered JAR designs. The defendant challenged an ex-parte interim order restraining it from manufacturing or selling products with identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's designs. The court modified the existing interim order to allow the defendant limited use of certain features while maintaining the rest of the injunction.
NRB Bearings Limited v.Windsor Export
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of NRB Bearings Limited against Windsor Export, finding that the latter was infringing on its trademark and goodwill through deceptive use of a similar domain name. The court held that the defendant's minor spelling variant ('nrbearing.com') was intentionally chosen to attract customers associated with the plaintiff's well-known mark 'NRB'. Given the prima facie case and the risk of irreparable confusion, the injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v.Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Neon Laboratories Ltd. against Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the Defendants' use of the 'XYLOX Family' marks was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established 'LOX Family' marks, despite the addition of the prefix 'XY'. Consequently, the Court issued an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the rival marks and ordered the appointment of a Court Receiver over the infringing goods.
Symed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Sharon Bio-Medicine Ltd. And Ors.
Symed Laboratories filed a suit for permanent injunction against Defendants, alleging infringement of their patents (IN 213062 and IN 213063) related to novel processes for preparing Linezolid. Defendant No. 3 moved an application seeking amendment of its written statement, arguing that it was merely purchasing the product from the market and not manufacturing it using the patented process. The Court partly allowed the amendment.
Ram Pal Chauhan v.M/S County Apparels And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ram Pal Chauhan, proprietor of 'M/s. Classic Apparels,' who sued for passing off against M/S County Apparels and others regarding the trademark 'DEVIN.' The court found that the Plaintiff had established prior use and goodwill associated with the mark before the Defendants began using it to pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. Crucially, the judgment affirmed that a right of action for passing off exists even if the trade mark is unregistered, citing Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
Novartis Ag And Ors. v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 212815, which covers the compound Vildagliptin for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Plaintiffs claimed that despite no immediate launch by the Defendant, its listing of Vildagliptin as an API on its website posed a significant threat to their market share. Considering the potential infringement and the balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Ranbaxy from manufacturing or selling products containing Vildagliptin.
Bharti Airtel Ltd v.Airtelasia & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bharti Airtel, confirming a decree against Defendant No. 1 for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'AIRTELASIA' was identical and deceptively similar to Airtel's well-known mark 'AIRTEL,' leading to consumer confusion. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to transfer the domain name www.airtelasia.com to Bharti Airtel.
Manmohan Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v.Ganpati Plastic Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief regarding the use of the 'MONICA' trademark. The court found that despite the petitioner holding a registered mark ('MONICA GOLD'), the respondents could demonstrate prior and continuous user of similar marks ('MONIKA') dating back to 1986, predating the plaintiff's claimed usage date. Consequently, the court declined to grant an injunction but mandated the defendants to maintain and submit quarterly sales accounts for all products sold under the disputed trademark.
Arif Abdul Kader Fazlani v.Hitesh Raojibhai Patel & Co & 1
The plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2012. The court granted this permission, disposing of the main suit as withdrawn. However, the defendants' counterclaim, which sought the revocation of Patent No. 226534 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, was held to survive for adjudication.
Diageo Brands B. v.Khoday Breweries Ltd
Diageo Brands successfully secured an ad interim injunction against Khoday Breweries Ltd in a trademark infringement and passing off case. The Delhi High Court found that the defendants were using deceptively or confusingly similar marks, such as KHODEY BLACK & WHITE and VAT 999, which infringed upon Diageo's globally recognized portfolio of alcohol brands like Johnnie Walker and Guinness. This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing to use these infringing trademarks until the final outcome of the suit.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.South Konkan Distilleries
The Plaintiff, holding a registered trademark 'TANGO PUNCH', filed suit alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling country liquor in bottles embossed with the Plaintiff's trade mark. The Plaintiff claimed this constituted infringement and passing off. The Court found that the Defendant's use fell squarely within Section 29(3) of the Act, leading to the grant of injunctions.
Radhe Krishna Products - A Partnership Firm v.Parshottambhai Dharamshibhai Lunagriya
This petition challenged a trial court's order rejecting the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which argued that the respondent's second civil suit was not maintainable. The petitioners claimed that since the respondent had previously restricted their claims to copyright infringement after filing an initial suit alleging both copyright and passing off, they could not file a subsequent suit for similar relief. The High Court ultimately upheld the trial court's decision, finding no fault in the impugned order.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Midley Pharmaceuticals Limied
This Calcutta High Court case involves a passing-off dispute between Sun Pharmaceuticals and Midley Pharmaceuticals concerning the trademarks CARDIVAS and CARVAS. The court framed ten detailed issues, focusing on whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of CARDIVAS, whether the defendant's mark CARVAS is confusingly similar or an imitation, and ultimately, whether the defendant is engaging in passing off. The case was fixed for settlement of these complex trademark infringement claims.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered design (No. 225589). The High Court set aside the original order, finding that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to produce the complete set of Yellow Pages necessary to establish the date of publication.
sandisk corporation v.raju aka bilal
Sandisk Corporation sued Raju A.K.A Bilal for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and delivery up concerning counterfeit SanDisk memory cards being sold in Delhi's Old Lajpat Rai Market. The defendant was selling inferior quality fake memory cards bearing the SanDisk trademark at significantly lower prices.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v.Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction alleging infringement of their patent (IN 200572) related to mobile communication handover decisions by the defendants, who manufacture and sell telecommunications equipment like Base Station Controllers. The court disposed of the application regarding the ad interim stay.
M/s.Vijay Industries v.Vijay Solvex Limited
M/s. Vijay Industries appealed against the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dimapur's order which returned their plaint. The suit alleged infringement of the 'SCOOTER' trademark and associated artwork by Respondent No. 1 (Vijay Solvex Limited) and its agent. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding jurisdiction.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v.MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted temporary relief in favor of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited against MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd., finding that the abbreviation 'M & M' enjoys protection as a registered trademark. The court issued a comprehensive injunction preventing the defendants from using the impugned marks, similar domain names (like www.mandmstores.in), or passing off their goods and services as those of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was mandated to delete 'MNM' from its corporate name within four weeks.
Mr Arnab Basu & Ors. v.Monginis Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court modified an existing ex parte interim order in the dispute between Mr Arnab Basu & Ors. and Monginis Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court acknowledged the long-standing use of the 'Monginis' brand by the plaintiffs since 1989, despite their manufacturing other products. To balance the interests of both parties, the court mandated that the plaintiffs must continue to dedicate at least 80% of their manufacturing capacity and display Monginis products in proportion within their outlets, ensuring no interference with the plaintiffs' business while protecting the defendant's brand rights.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India Through The Secretary; The Controller of Patents; Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Corporation challenged the order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which upheld the Controller's decision to grant a Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited. The license was granted for Bayer's patented drug, Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar), used in treating various cancers.
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited v.Regional Director - North Western Region - Ministry of Corporate Affairs
This Gujarat High Court order addressed a challenge to the Regional Director's decision, which had previously rejected an application under Section 22 of the Companies Act. The core dispute involved whether pending trademark proceedings should prevent the approval of a company name ('Sahajanand Laser Technology Private Limited'). The court admitted the appeal, recognizing that the distinct legal nature of the Companies Act application does not automatically render it sub-judice to ongoing trademark disputes.
Microsoft Corporation v.Mr. Rajeev Trehan
Microsoft Corporation filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages against Mr. Rajeev Trehan and others for the alleged piracy of its software products. The court examined evidence establishing that the defendants were loading Microsoft's copyrighted software onto computers they sold without permission. Given the defendants' failure to appear in court, the plaintiffs successfully made out a case for infringement.
Baroda Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision to dismiss a notice of motion seeking perpetual injunction against trademark infringement. The suit involved the trademarks 'VAL' and 'VALZ'. The High Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that there was no sufficient basis for immediate injunctive relief, noting differences in pronunciation, structure, and packaging between the two marks. Furthermore, the court emphasized the limited scope of appellate review over discretionary interim orders, directing the trial court to expedite the final hearing on merits.
Salzer Electronics Limited v.S.G.Controls & Switchgear (P) Ltd.
Salzer Electronics Limited appealed against a single judge's order that dismissed its applications seeking temporary injunctions regarding alleged infringement and passing off of its registered patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it lacked necessary details and discussion on the merits of the case.
Dr. Aloys Wobben and another v.Yogesh Mehra and others
Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others (Respondents), who were also filing revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court examined whether these two actions could proceed concurrently.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra
Dr. Aloys Wobben filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others, despite them having already filed numerous revocation petitions before the IPAB challenging his patents. The Supreme Court addressed whether these two proceedings could run concurrently.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application challenging a prior ex-parte injunction restraining M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling a respiratory protection device, which was claimed to infringe Patent No. 211175 held by 3M Innovative Properties Company. The court examined the prima facie case presented by the plaintiff regarding the infringement of their patented flat-folded personal respiratory device. Given that the defendant had been using the impugned device since April 2011 and had made considerable investments, the court found the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries challenged an order that returned its patent infringement suit against Natco Pharma Limited, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around whether the process patent infringement claim was limited only to exports from Hyderabad or if it extended to the apprehension of marketing within Delhi. The court held that since the plaint pleaded an apprehension of sale/marketing in Delhi, the court possessed jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored.
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. v.Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Procter & Gamble against an interim injunction granted to Anchor Health & Beauty Care. The court upheld the protection of Anchor's trademark 'ALLROUND,' finding that the phrase 'ALL-AROUND PROTECTION' was not merely descriptive but indicated a peculiar quality and feature unique to Anchor's product. This ruling reinforces the principle that suggestive marks, even if related to general product characteristics, can be protected against imitation.
Nokia Corporation v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel
Nokia Corporation filed a suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement against Bharat Bhogilal Patel, who claimed that Nokia's use of laser marking technology infringed his patents. The court examined evidence showing that the laser engraving process is a known and available technology since 1957, and found that the defendant's actions were groundless threats.
Whirlpool Of India Ltd v.Videocon Industries Ltd
Whirlpool, a manufacturer of washing machines, sued Videocon Industries for infringing its two valid design registrations (Nos. 223833 and 223835) through the 'Videocon Pebble' brand, alleging that the Defendant's product was visually indistinguishable from theirs. The dispute also involved whether infringement or passing off actions could be maintained against a party who held a registered design.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Shree Ganesh Garments
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Shree Ganesh Garments alleging clandestine manufacturing, storing, distributing, and retailing apparel under deceptively similar trademarks to 'Levi's'. The plaintiff claimed ownership of several registered trademarks related to its clothing line. The court found the defendant guilty of blatant trademark infringement and granted comprehensive relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Holland Company Lp & Anr v.S.P. Industries
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant, alleging infringement of their copyright over the industrial drawings and designs of 'Automatic Twist Locks' used by Indian Railways. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that engineering drawings are not artistic works under the Copyright Act and that applying for design registration invalidates any existing copyright.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. v.Sandeep Chohan @ Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit involving 'Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.' The court noted the delay (40-50 days) between when the plaintiff became aware of the alleged misuse and when the suit was filed. Despite citing precedents that allow injunctions despite delay, the judge held that because the delay was relatively short, granting an immediate ex-parte order would cause greater mischief to the defendants than waiting for them to be served notice. Consequently, the court denied the interim injunction and directed proper service of summons.
Tekla Corporation v.Survo Ghosh
The plaintiffs, Tekla Corporation, sued the defendants for unauthorized installation and use of their copyrighted software, Tekla Structures. The defendants raised a defense of 'copyright misuse,' arguing that the plaintiffs' licensing terms were restrictive and anti-competitive. The court rejected this defense, holding that Indian law does not recognize copyright misuse as a valid statutory or equitable defence.
Sandeep Jaidka v.Mukesh Mittal & Anr.
Sandeep Jaidka filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mukesh Mittal & Anr. for infringing his registered patent (No. 231895) related to multi-sensory '4D' effects used in cinema halls. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were willfully using his patented technology, which combines hardware and software to synchronize heating, cooling, and aromatic effects with movie scenes. While the plaintiff asserted infringement, Defendant No. 2 filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity based on prior art. The court denied the interim injunction but expedited the trial, setting conditions for the defendants regarding financial disclosures and security deposits.
Diageo Brands B. v.Sh. Sanjay Jain
The plaintiff, Diageo Brands B., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and dilution of its famous trademark JOHNNIE WALKER. The defendants were manufacturing and selling clothing under the deceptively similar mark 'JOHNY WALKER'.
M/S. Jagdamba Impex v.M/S. Tristar Products Private Ltd.
M/S. Jagdamba Impex filed appeals challenging a trial court order that restrained them from manufacturing combs using a specific Teeth Cutting Machine, claiming the machine infringed upon their copyrighted industrial drawings. The plaintiff asserted that the drawings were original artistic works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. However, the Delhi High Court set aside the injunction, holding that the suit was misconceived because it deliberately ignored the binding provision of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, which dictates when copyright is lost through industrial application.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education v.Time Coaching/Education & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management Education (TIME) against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the use of the mark 'TIME' by the defendants was a blatant attempt to ride on TIME's hard-earned goodwill, especially given its extensive reputation in the coaching industry. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions, ordering the cancellation of the infringing domain name, and awarding damages.
M/S Manoj Selas And Locks v.The Bihar State Electricity Board
M/S Manoj Selas And Locks challenged an order that blacklisted them for two years and forfeited their Bank Guarantee after they were rejected from a tender. The dispute centered on whether the petitioner possessed a valid design certificate (Design No. 198589) required by the Board, which the Board disputed.
General Electric Co. v.Controller Of Patents Designs
General Electric Co. filed an appeal regarding TMA No. 4 of 1999 before the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner argued that the appeal should be transferred to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) due to amendments in the Trade Mark Act, 1999.
Dolphin Laboratories P. Ltd. v.Deputy Registrar Of Trademark
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dolphin Laboratories P. Ltd. against the Deputy Registrar of Trademark. The petitioner argued that the appeal should be transferred to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) due to amendments made to the Trade Mark Act, 1999. Consequently, the court recorded the disposal of TMA No. 2195 of 1995.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Kumar Pratap Anil & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent No. 189089 related to transformer explosion prevention technologies. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the plaintiff's alleged exclusive license was invalid, back-dated, and unregistered.
Pathiath Babu Rajendran Since Deceased v.Asst. Registrar Of Trade Marks & 2
The appeals challenged the orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which directed the removal of four registered trade marks belonging to the appellant. The appellant argued that it was denied a proper hearing and that the proceedings were improperly handled after transfer under Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the IPAB's finding that the appellant had waived its right due to deliberate inaction.
Standard Corporation India Ltd. v.Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.
The appeal challenged an order that rejected a claim filed by Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. against Standard Corporation India Ltd. The suit involved allegations of copyright infringement and passing off related to tractor drawings. The appellant argued the suit was barred because the design had been used more than 50 times without registration under the Designs Act, 1911.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Lunar Rubbers Private Limited
Nike Innovate C.V. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel several trademark registrations held by Lunar Rubbers Private Limited, citing non-use. Nike demonstrated extensive use and recognition of its 'LUNAR' technology across various footwear lines in India since 2009. The court found that the petitioner had discharged its initial burden of proving non-use, and despite the onus shifting to the respondent, Lunar failed to provide satisfactory evidence of continuous commercial use during the relevant five-year period. Consequently, the trademarks were ordered removed from the register.
NTT DoCoMo Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office; The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office; The Union of India
NTT DoCoMo Inc. challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to revive its Patent Application No.4851/CHENP/2007. The application was mistakenly withdrawn due to a clerical error committed by the petitioner's erstwhile patent attorneys, who interchanged the numbers of two related applications. The court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner was an innocent party and should not suffer injustice.
Neo Milk Products Private Limited v.Neo Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Neo Foods Private Limited (the registered trademark owner) against Neo Milk Products Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had established a reputation for its registered mark 'NEO' under Class 29, and the defendant's use of the identical mark in relation to milk products was likely to dilute the distinctive character of the original mark. Crucially, the court dismissed the defense of prior use (Section 34) because the appellant failed to provide prima facie evidence of continuous usage predating the plaintiff's registration.
M/s.Shiva Tobacco Company v.Md.Zaheeruddin
The Madras High Court dismissed a review petition filed by M/s. Shiva Tobacco Company challenging the cancellation of their trademark registration (No. 1330146). The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) overlooked evidence of prior adoption and use dating back to 1962, citing Supreme Court precedents. However, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record, noting that the IPAB had already concluded there was insufficient material to prove continuous user since 1962, thereby upholding the cancellation decision.
Consolidated Contractors International Company S.A.L. v.Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd & Ors
This case addressed an application filed by Consolidated Contractors alleging wilful disobedience of a court order, specifically regarding the continued use of their logo by the defendants. The plaintiff had sought permanent injunctions for passing off and copyright infringement. The court examined whether the usage was intentional or merely inadvertent, referencing established legal precedents on contempt.
hitkari potteries ltd v.hitkari ceramics private limited
Hitkari Potteries Ltd. sued Hitkari Ceramics Private Limited for infringement and passing off, alleging unauthorized use of the trademark 'HITKARI' in the defendant’s trading style, domain name (www.hitkariceramics.com), and business related to bone china crockery products, despite the plaintiff having established a long-standing reputation and significant investment in the mark.
Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. v.Quality Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., confirming the permanent injunction against Quality Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was illegally using a deceptively similar mark, thereby capitalizing on the goodwill established by 'Nature Fresh.' Furthermore, due to the defendant's deliberate evasion of court proceedings, the plaintiff was awarded damages amounting to Rs. 5.0 lacs.
Venkatraman Das v.M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited
This civil suit was filed by Venkatraman Das seeking permanent injunction against M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited for allegedly infringing his registered patent on a 'Disposable Armpit Perspiration Pad' (Patent No. 181248). The defendants challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the product was old and lacked novelty or inventive step. After examining the prior art, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any genuine innovation over existing knowledge. Consequently, the suit for infringement and rendition of accounts was dismissed.
Groupon, Inc. v.Mohan Rao And Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Groupon, Inc., granting an injunction against Mohan Rao and others for passing off the trademark 'GROUPON'. The court emphasized that priority is determined by earlier use rather than mere registration date when a suit for passing off is filed. Given Groupon's extensive international goodwill and prior usage since 2002, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar variations.
Suresh Chand Purwar (Karta) v.Vivek Purwar & Ors.
This appeal challenged a trial court's decision to return a plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, which held that the Delhi courts lacked territorial jurisdiction over trademark infringement claims concerning 'HARI' and 'HARISONS'. The appellant argued that the trial court made a finding of fact on disputed sales without allowing parties to lead evidence. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that jurisdictional questions must be decided after both parties have had the opportunity to present their case through evidence.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The dispute involved multiple suits where both parties objected to each other's advertisements, alleging disparagement. The ads compared products like Dettol antiseptic liquid, Vim cleansing liquid, Lifebuoy soap, and Dettol cleaning liquid regarding their germ-killing or protective effects.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain patents belong to Defendant No. 1 and requesting Defendant No. 2 to assign them without compensation. The applicants, who hold shares in Defendant No. 1, sought impleadment as party defendants, arguing the suit was a derivative action benefiting minority shareholders. The court dismissed the Chamber Summons, finding that the interests of the plaintiff and the applicants were not common or rival.