India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 10 of 311 · 7,456 total
State v.Amar & Anr.
The State prosecuted Amar and Umesh Chand Sharma for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging they were found in possession of counterfeit Gillette foam bottles bearing falsified trademarks at shops in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The prosecution's case was primarily rooted in the testimony of the complainant, Titu Sharma, who during examination as PW-1 failed to depose as per the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused persons and the case property. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both accused persons.
Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks Government of India Trademarks Registry
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing on 22 September 2026, with no substantive ruling or detailed reasoning provided in the order.
Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous 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 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended by the Tribunals, Reforms Act, 2021) seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which revoked the grant of Indian Patent No. IN323440 (filed on 22.03.2017 with Indian application No. 201741010111). The counsel for the second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and made an endorsement to that effect. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition as prayed for, with no costs.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a trademark dispute between Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of 'Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy', and Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited, both operating in the insurance sector. The Plaintiff had obtained an expansive interim injunction from a Single Judge restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'KATARIA' in any form. After the Defendant's appeal to the Division Bench set aside this order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter directing the Defendant to seek vacation before the Single Bench. The Bombay High Court varied the interim order, allowing the Defendant to retain its corporate name but prohibiting it from acting as a market intermediary in gems and jewellery insurance, and imposing conditions on its domain name and website usage.
Smt Anita Kharbanda Trading As Prem Di Hatti v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court dealing with two connected trademark matters. The parties jointly submitted that they were at an advanced stage of settlement, and the court listed the matter for the next date. No substantive ruling was made on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar v.State of Maharashtra And Anr.
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2026 registered with the State Excise Department, Kagal, District Kolhapur, for offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Applicant contended he was arraigned solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, while the prosecution alleged his involvement and that he received money in his account, with the owner of Canus Packaging stating the Applicant managed the company's day-to-day affairs. Since the Applicant cooperated with the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required, the application was disposed of.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.
This is a petition filed by Flu Jeans Private Limited 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 Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted six weeks to Respondent No. 2 to file a reply. Notice was directed to be issued to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes, returnable on 27.10.2026.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr.
This is an order of the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, had been granted an ad interim injunction on 05.08.2026 restraining the Defendants from using the trademarks 'GOLA', 'GOLA SIZZLERS' and 'GOLA RESTAURANTS'. The Defendants' appeal against the injunction was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.08.2026 without interfering with the injunction, with a direction to the Single Judge to finally dispose of the pending applications. The Court listed the applications for final hearing on 20.08.2026.
State v.Mohd. Nafees
The case involved allegations that the accused, Mohd. Nafees, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious articles bearing the falsified trademark of 'HP' in violation of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademark Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case as the complainant, examined as PW-2, did not depose in accordance with the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused or the case property. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Indus TMT Industries Ltd. v.M/s. Hoysala TMT
Indus TMT Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of TMT steel bars operating under the brand 'INDUS', sued M/s. Hoysala TMT for infringement of its registered designs (Design Nos. 283226, 338410, 338411, 338412) relating to TMT rods with a honeycomb and X-rib pattern. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing TMT bars under the name 'Hoysala 550 SD TMT Building Heritage' using a design deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, amounting to infringement and passing off. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was placed ex parte, leading the Commercial Court at Bengaluru to grant a permanent injunction, order destruction of infringing materials, and direct the defendant to render accounts of profits.
Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors
These Letters Patent Appeals challenged an order dated 05.06.2026 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and a device mark registered in Class-9 in the name of the appellant, Siddharth Vij. The parties arrived at mutual consent terms, with the appellant undertaking to cease manufacturing, exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2027, and refrain from any further use, promotion, or advertising of the marks thereafter. The Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the affidavits, binding the parties to their undertakings, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks 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 Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark 'DAPLOGIN' (Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05) registered in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The Petitioner claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the coined trademark 'DAPLO' since 2020 for pharmaceutical products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court held that 'DAPLOGIN' was deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark 'DAPLO', and allowed the petition, directing cancellation of the registration of 'DAPLOGIN'.
Vishal Aggarwal And Ors v.State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
The petitioners sought quashment of FIR No. 336/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi, for offences under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, arising from allegations of selling counterfeit Raymond branded clothes. During pendency of proceedings before the JMFC, the complainant company (M/s Raymond Limited) settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.08.2026, and respondent no.2 stated he did not want any action against the petitioners. The State also did not oppose the quashing, and the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
State v.Manmeet Singh Anand and Ors.
This case involved three accused persons charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly dealing in counterfeit CEAT inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution failed to produce its star witness, the complainant, whose firm was found to have been non-operational for 11 years, and the Legal Manager of CEAT Ltd. who authorized the complaint also never appeared. The Court acquitted all three accused, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
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 the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The court allowed the withdrawal of the suit and the defendants' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patents, granting liberty to both parties to initiate fresh proceedings if the License Agreement is terminated or expires.
M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain
This is a first appeal filed by M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2026 passed in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark 'GULMOHAR' (Trademark No. 2240563), while the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts alleging infringement. The appellant contended that summons were never properly served, as service was effected on invalid/inoperative addresses, leading the trial court to wrongly draw a presumption of service. The court issued notices to the respondents and stayed the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
Kanti Bhushan v.Kushal Singh
The petitioner Kanti Bhushan filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge-I, Mandi), which had set aside the trial court's status quo order granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition, holding that the First Appellate Court had improperly converted itself into a trial court and reassessed the matter without first finding that the trial court's order suffered from perversity.
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited v.Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited, part of the RSPL Group, sued Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited for trademark infringement under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and registration of the trademark 'UDAN' in Class 05 for sanitary napkins (Registration No. 1595657, dated 29.08.2007), while the defendant used the deceptively similar mark 'UDAAN' for pharmaceutical products. Since the defendant failed to appear, the court rendered an ex-parte judgment granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark, and ordering delivery up of infringing goods for destruction, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd. v.M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sh. Sandeep Garg, Mrs. Mansi Garg, Mr. Rishabh Garg)
The Plaintiff, M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd., filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, and damages against its former authorized dealer, M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'SCS' and passing off. The court found that the Defendants had infringed the 'SCS' trademark by selling counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiff's mark, and granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining such use. However, the court declined relief regarding the 'Sanchar' word mark, delivery up of infringing goods, and damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs, holding that the Plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Assistant Controller Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in Indian Patent Application No. 202117018485. A separate application seeking condonation of a 9-day delay in refiling the appeal was allowed. Notice was issued to the Respondent, who accepted notice and was granted one week to file a reply, with the matter listed for hearing on 01.09.2026.
Haw Par Corporation Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This matter concerns an application (GA-COM/1/2026) filed by Haw Par Corporation Limited on 5th August, 2026, seeking restoration of its earlier application (IPDATM 252 of 2023), which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. Before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division, the Court noted that service of the restoration application was not yet complete. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.