India IP Litigation
7,210 annotated decisions
Page 1 of 301 · 7,210 total
KRBL Limited v.LT Foods Limited & Anr.
KRBL Limited filed six connected cancellation petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking removal of trademark registrations for 'WORLD'S 1ST BIRYANI DAY', 'WORLD BIRYANI DAY', and 'WORLD'S BIRYANI DAY' registered in the name of LT Foods Limited across Classes 35 and 41. The petitions were filed under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court allowed the exemption applications and issued notice to the respondents, with the matter next listed for 23 September 2026.
Frimline Pvt. Ltd. v.Alniche Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Frimline Pvt. Ltd. filed a patent infringement suit against Alniche Lifesciences and another party concerning Patent No. IN 547960. During pendency, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 amicably resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated 13.04.2026 executed before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Defendant No. 2 filed an affidavit acknowledging the validity of the patent and undertaking not to use the product under the mark PALMOVA or any product with identical composition until patent expiry. The court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff while preserving Defendant No. 2's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act.
Natco Pharma Limited v.FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and Ors
Natco Pharma Limited filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 298645 (held by FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd.) to the extent of claim 12. Before the matter could be heard on merits, the parties amicably settled their inter se disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 31.03.2026. The Delhi High Court permitted withdrawal of the petition and disposed of all pending applications in light of the settlement.
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a patent revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 298645 held by Sulphur Mills Limited. Upon being confronted by the respondent with technical errors in the petition, including the name of Respondent No. 1, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. The court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record (in his personal capacity) seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the cost imposition portion of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in a trademark dispute involving the mark 'RewireX' (Application No. 6892520 in Class 5). The court held that the review was not maintainable as it was filed by the counsel personally rather than by the party, and found no merit in the contentions regarding the court's reliance on prior suppression findings. The court reiterated that filing counsel bear personal responsibility as officers of the court to ensure full and fair disclosure of documents in pleadings.
ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v.Fitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
ASR Market Ventures, operating a fitness and wellness platform under marks including FITFEAST (adopted in 2017 for nutrition and meal-planning services), sought cancellation of Fitship's registered trademark No. 5154387 in Class 30 (covering food products like high protein snacks) and an interim injunction to restrain its use. The Delhi High Court dismissed the injunction application, holding that ASR could not establish prior goodwill or reputation in the FITFEAST mark for goods in Class 30, as its use was confined to online nutrition advisory and meal-planning services rather than physical food products. The court noted Fitship's substantial turnover, continuous use since 2021, and the absence of any concrete evidence of actual confusion, finding that ASR failed the trinity test for grant of interim relief.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application for ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe defendant operating the fraudulent website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using Ashok Leyland's registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST to falsely represent affiliation and solicit dealership/franchise opportunities. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an interim stay until the next hearing date of 25.09.2026.
Asif Traders v.Lion Dates Impex Private Limited
The defendant/applicant in a commercial suit involving copyright and trademark disputes sought permission to file additional documents during trial, including a copyright application receipt, Form TM-C filed under Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, and a trademark registration certificate. The Madras High Court allowed documents 1-3 to be filed as additional evidence subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility, while directing the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs. Document 4 was not pressed by the applicant, and document 5 (Section 63 BSA Affidavit) was rejected for not being in proper format.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its opposition (No. 1179106) against a trademark application filed by respondent No. 2, which had been allowed by the Registrar while the opposition was still pending. Respondent No. 2 had no objection to the petition being allowed. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned trademark registration (No. 5345163) and remanded the matter to the Registrar for reconsideration of the application, ensuring the petitioner's opposition is duly considered before any decision on registration is taken.
VKC Nuts Private Limited v.Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited & Anr.
VKC Nuts Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of trademark registration No. 6656555 in Class 29 held by Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited. During proceedings, Respondent No. 1 voluntarily agreed to withdraw the impugned registration, while reserving its right to enforce common law rights through separate legal proceedings. The Court accepted the respondent's statement as binding and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr v.The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr
Gufic Bioscience Ltd and another filed a rectification petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of trademark registration no. 2533114 registered in Class 05 in favour of The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited. The court allowed the exemption application, condoned a one-day delay in re-filing, and issued notice to the respondents returnable on 8 December 2026. The matter is at the initial stage of proceedings.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'GOLDMEDAL' for electrical goods including wires and cables, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against two defendants. The plaintiff established its ownership through a chain of assignments dating back to 1979-80, with multiple registered trademarks across Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, and 35. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XIII-A CPC for summary judgment, finding that the defendants had no credible defence and had admittedly used the GOLDMEDAL mark on identical goods. A decree of permanent injunction was passed against Defendant No. 1 along with damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Amar Tulsiyan, Proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances v.Corona Plus Industries Limited
Amar Tulsiyan, proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances, sued Corona Plus Industries Limited for infringement of his registered trademarks SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS, and SHUDH PLUS ULTRA LABEL used in connection with pan masala, gutkha, tobacco, and mouth freshener products. The plaintiff also claimed copyright over the artistic artwork on the labels and sought relief against groundless threats issued by the defendant. The District Court rendered an ex-parte judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's use of identical/deceptively similar marks constituted infringement and passing off, and granted a permanent injunction along with a declaration that the threats were unjustifiable.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited has sued Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court for alleged infringement of its patents bearing Nos. 401417 and 298724, which relate to packaging technology. The defendant has filed a counter-claim seeking revocation of the suit patents and has also alleged suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. The court has settled the issues for trial, including questions on infringement, revocation, entitlement to permanent injunction, and maintainability of the suit, and has scheduled the matter for evidence.
Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 of the Controller of Patents, Chennai concerning Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objection. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, permitting the appellant to proceed with the patent appeal.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 29.01.2026 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs revoking Indian Patent No. IN323440. The second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and endorsed consent in the court bundle. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition, permitting the appellant to proceed with the appeal against the revocation.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent (Celagenex), owner of the registered mark 'NUREWIRE' (TM No. 4525594), had obtained an ex-parte injunction against the Appellant (Nugenesys) using the mark 'RewireX' (TM App. No. 6892520). The Division Bench found that the Respondent had suppressed material facts—specifically a cease-and-desist notice dated 29.10.2025 and a trademark objection dated 27.01.2026—while obtaining the ex-parte order. The Court held that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from equitable relief, vacated the injunction, dismissed the interim application, and imposed costs.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.
Flu Jeans Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of Registration No. 3987460 in Class 25 for the trademark 'FLUCOT'. The matter is at the notice stage, with the court issuing notice to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes and granting Respondent No. 2 six weeks to file a reply. The case will be next heard on 27 October 2026.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG sued Zydus Lifesciences for patent infringement concerning the compound Dabrafenib covered by Indian Patent IN'655. During the hearing, Zydus voluntarily undertook not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing Dabrafenib during the patent's validity, while preserving its Section 107A research use rights. In light of this undertaking, Novartis agreed not to press monetary reliefs, and the court decreed the suit in terms of the undertaking, which forms part of the decree.
Indus TMT Industries Ltd. v.M/s. Hoysala TMT
Indus TMT Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of TMT steel bars, sued M/s. Hoysala TMT for infringement of its registered designs for TMT rods featuring a distinctive honeycomb and X-rib pattern under the Designs Act, 2000. The defendant failed to appear despite service and the matter proceeded ex parte. The court found that the defendant's TMT bars bore a design deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered designs and granted a permanent injunction along with directions for destruction of infringing materials and rendition of accounts of profits.
Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors
Two Letters Patent Appeals were filed by Siddharth Vij challenging a single judge's order in petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the registered trademarks 'PONTA' (word mark no. 4134589) and its device mark (no. 4885149) in Class 9 for electrical goods. The appeals were disposed of based on mutual consent undertakings, whereby the appellant agreed to cease all manufacture of PONTA-branded electrical goods and exhaust existing stock of approximately 53,790 pieces through distributors by 31 March 2027, after which all use, promotion, and advertising of the mark must permanently cease. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark DAPLOGIN registered in Class 05 in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to its well-known coined mark DAPLO used for a Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus medication containing Dapagliflozin. The Delhi High Court held that both marks shared the same API and therapeutic use, and that phonetic and visual similarity between DAPLO and DAPLOGIN was likely to cause confusion, particularly dangerous in the pharmaceutical context. Applying the heightened standard of care in pharmaceutical trademark disputes as laid down by the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Court allowed the petition and cancelled the impugned registration.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Asustek Computer Inc & Anr.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Asustek Computer Inc. concerning Indian Patents No. 424507 and 338105. During pendency, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement with arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism, leading to withdrawal of the suit and the defendants' counter claim for revocation under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court permitted withdrawal with liberty to revive proceedings if the license agreement is terminated or expires, and ordered refund of court fees and return of confidential documents.
M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain
M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademark 'GULMOHAR' (Trademark No. 2240563 dated 28.11.2011), filed a first appeal before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2026 passed against it in a trademark infringement suit filed by Rajesh Jain. The appellant contended that summons were never properly served and that the trial court wrongly drew a presumption of service based on inoperative addresses, depriving it of the opportunity to defend. The court issued notice to the respondents and stayed the operation and execution of the impugned decree pending further hearing.