India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 104 of 311 · 7,456 total
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr v.Satyajit Herma & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Peak Xv Partners Advisors India LLP, restraining the defendant from using specific domain names bearing the 'PEAK XV' mark. The court recognized the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the brand, despite the defendant claiming ignorance regarding trademark registration. Furthermore, the parties were directed to participate in mediation to seek an out-of-court settlement.
M/s.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. v.Antony Adams
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing and passing off their trademarks 'Kalyan' and 'Kalyanjewellers' through the domain name <kalyanjewellers.com>. The court also issued a mandatory order directing the cancellation and subsequent transfer of the disputed domain name to the plaintiff, affirming the principles of cybersquatting remedies.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Methods and Apparatus for Estimating Departure Time'. The rejection was based on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned proceedings too cryptic and lacking in reasoning, leading it to allow the appeal.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of patent application No. 201617029499. The appellant argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles and that the invention, which aids in smoking reduction, should not be barred under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act.
Chestnut Heights Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Nandini Lall & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple rectification petitions filed by Chestnut Heights Resorts Pvt. Ltd. against Nandini Lall & Anr., seeking cancellation of the 'JILLING' trademarks. Recognizing that these new petitions dealt with the same set of marks already under consideration in another proceeding, the court opted for judicial efficiency. The bench ordered the consolidation of all related matters to be heard together before a specific judge.
Fiitjee Ltd. v.Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend existing Trademark cancellation petitions. The core issue was the merger of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 following an amalgamation order passed by the NCLT in 2019. The court allowed the formal amendments, permitting only the surviving petitioner (Fiitjee Ltd.) to continue the proceedings against Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd., while noting the delay in filing.
D T Media And Entertainment Private Limited v.Premchand Palety
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a dispute concerning the use of educational ranking parameters. While the main suit was registered, the court issued critical interim directions regarding trademark usage and competition. The defendant was directed to immediately cease using identical language and numerical order for survey parameters that overlap with the plaintiff's 'EDUCATION WORLD' brand, while also agreeing to pre-litigation mediation to seek an amicable resolution.
R.K.Steel Industries Partnership Firm v.R.K.Impex India Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by R.K.Steel Industries seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by R.K.Impex India Private Limited. The court found that there was considerable visual similarity between the two marks, specifically due to the shared 'R.K.' letters and the display of screw sizes on the label. Given this striking resemblance, the court ruled that the mark registered in 2019 could confuse consumers and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register.
Motwane Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Union of India
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Motwane Private Limited, holding that the petitioner's right to renew its trademarks was not extinguished despite a significant delay. The court emphasized that since the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, any automatic rejection based on time limits is invalid. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness and due process must be followed by the Registry before removing marks from the register.
Salish Sham Viswan v.Singing Artists Association Kerala
The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Salish Sham Viswan, who held a trademark registration for 'Singing Artists Association Kerala.' The court set aside an administrative rejection that claimed jurisdiction was lacking because the petitioner's entity was assumed to be registered under the Charitable Societies Act. The judgment clarified that the core issue is whether the name and logo are protected by the Trade Marks Act, allowing the Registrar to reconsider the complaint regarding potential infringement by the respondent.
Amayse As v.Joydeb Mukherjee & Anr
Amayse A/S alleges that Joydeb Mukherjee is infringing its patent related to advertisement elements during a cricket match. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's products are infringing upon their patented technology.
Avita International Ltd And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed by Avita International Ltd challenging the rejection of its PCT application (PCT/1B2017/051404) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court granted exemptions for filing documents but directed that notice be issued to the respondent, listing the matter for further hearing.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited filed an appeal challenging the order that rejected its post-grant opposition against a patent granted to Philip Morris Products S.A. The court issued notices and set the matter for further hearing.
A.K. Al Muhaidib And Sons v.Chaman Lal Sachdeva And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, removing the mark 'AL-WALIMAH' (TM No. 523217) from the register. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark in relation to goods in Class 30 for a continuous period of five years. Given the lack of evidence of genuine commercial use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the removal of the mark.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories, setting aside an order by the Trade Mark Registry that had declared its opposition to a rival mark ('LIBOSE') as abandoned. The core issue was whether the Registry properly served the counter statement to the appellant. The court held that since the Registry failed to provide concrete proof of service—relying only on a website notification—the principle of natural justice was violated, necessitating the remand of the matter.
Narinder Kumar M/S Kundan Trading Company v.Surinder Pal M/S Kundal Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the 'KRANTI' trademark, which was registered in favor of the respondent. The case faced significant procedural hurdles due to the death of the original respondent and subsequent difficulties in locating legal representatives. Given the complex status of the parties, the court issued notices to the former counsel and the trademark agent to determine if any family members claim rights to the impugned mark.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court found that Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited was in prima facie contempt of a previous court order by expanding its operations under the 'DR. REDDY'S' mark, even if those new centers were directly owned rather than franchised. The Court ruled that the original undertaking to maintain status quo was intended to prevent any proliferation of business under the contested mark, regardless of ownership structure. Consequently, the Defendant was served with a show cause notice regarding contempt.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd
Nokia Technologies OY filed a patent infringement suit against Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd and others, claiming infringement of their patent related to mobile telecommunications. The case involved multiple hearings and ultimately led to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Amit R Gowda v.C.Kiran Trading As A And A Fitness Training Center; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Amit R Gowda seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 3065086 in Class 41. The court noted that the Registry's notice to the petitioner was returned as undeliverable, making it difficult for the court to proceed with the matter. Although the petition is closed, the petitioner retains the right to revive it upon receiving proper notification.
Made Easy Education Private Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing infringement issues concerning educational video content on Telegram. While the defendant, Telegram, has complied with previous takedown orders, the plaintiff continues to face proliferation of infringing links and source code issues. The court allowed the plaintiff time to present technical evidence regarding these persistent infringements, while reserving a discussion on dynamic injunctions for future hearings.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.
Villain Lifestyle Private Limited v.Mr. Vipul Dhankher
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the trademark infringement suit dismissed, upholding the maintainability of the case. The court recognized that the plaintiff's apprehension—based on the defendant's filings for registrations and oppositions using a similar mark 'VILEN'—constitutes a valid cause of action under the doctrine of quia timet. This ruling provides strong judicial backing for proactive IP protection against imminent infringement threats.