India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 105 of 299 · 7,167 total
Burger King Company Llc v.Ranjan Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong standing of Burger King Company LLC, declaring its trademark 'BURGER KING' to be well-known in India. The court relied on extensive global usage, massive promotional investment, and local market presence (over 400 outlets) to establish secondary meaning. This ruling significantly strengthens the brand's protection against unauthorized use by defendants operating under similar names like 'Burger King Family Restaurant'.
Sunstar Overseas Ltd. v.Hello Minerals Waters Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sunstar Overseas Ltd. seeking rectification of the trademark 'HELLO' (No. 666671). The court noted that despite repeated attempts to serve notice and ensure appearance, neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared in court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
India International Technical Institute v.Terala Educational Society
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by India International Technical Institute seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'SANSKRITI,' held by Terala Educational Society. The court noted that the mark's last registration was valid only up to March 23, 2020, and its renewal had long expired. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register within one month.
Burger King Company Llc v.Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.
S3G Technology Llc v.Sourcetrace Systems India Private
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 328489. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
SELFDOT TECHNOLOGIES (OPC) PVT. LTD. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appeal challenged an order rejecting a patent application (No. 201843023004) on the ground that the applicant contravened Section 39 of the Patents Act, leading to deemed abandonment under Section 40. The appellant argued that since the parent invention was first filed in India and the breach was technical, not substantive, the rejection should be overturned.
Lipotec, S.A. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Lipotec appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 7314/CHENP/2009) for 'Regulatory Compounds For Pigmentation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step, citing prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller disregarded experimental data and detailed submissions.
Bcs S.P.A. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bcs S.P.A. appealed the Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for an 'Agricultural Driving Mechanism and Related Tool'. The appellant argued that the rejection order was unreasoned, merely reproducing extracts from prior art without proper analysis. The High Court agreed, finding the order bereft of reasoning, and set it aside.
GOTO Technologies USA, Inc. v.Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of GOTO Technologies USA, Inc., allowing petitions to cancel several trademark registrations held by Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy. The court found that the respondent had adopted the prominent 'GOTO' part of the petitioner’s established mark without justification. By demonstrating its long history and market presence, the petitioner successfully countered arguments regarding delay or lack of prior registration.
M/s. A. Murugan v.M/s. Union of India
M/s. A. Murugan filed an Appeal (Patents) challenging the order that granted Patent No. 267238, which was based on Application Number 126/CHENP/2008. The appeal sought to revoke the patent and dismiss the application. However, the court noted that the patent had not been renewed after July 7, 2021, rendering it non-forceful.
Black Berry Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Black Berry Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Application No.6579/CHENP/2011. However, the appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Global Medikit Limited v.B.Braun Melsungen Ag
Global Medikit Limited filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) before the Madras High Court, seeking to rectify or revoke Indian Patent No. 210062. The court noted that the patent's term had already expired on August 18, 2018.
Jaisica International v.The Registrar of Trade Marks; Crystal Cook-N-Serve Products Pvt. Ltd.
Jaisica International filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order of abandonment concerning its device mark 'KRYSTAL'. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the case, the appellant voluntarily chose to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the matter as withdrawn without passing any substantive orders regarding costs.
Ved Prakash Malhotra (M/s. S.P. Products) v.M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an opposition against a trademark application ('BLACK GOLD'). The court analyzed claims of similarity and prior use between 'BLACK N GOLD' (appellant) and 'BLACK GOLD' (respondent). While acknowledging the marks are nearly identical, the court found that the respondent successfully established honest concurrent use dating back to 1992. Consequently, the respondent was granted the benefit of Section 12, but their rights were narrowly restricted solely to henna hair dye products.
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nripendra Kashyap Esco Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application (737/DELNP/2009) for a wear assembly. The rejection was based on lack of distinct invention and inventive step. The High Court quashed the rejection, holding that objections must be restricted to those provided in writing, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Saint-Gobain Abrasives appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent Application No. 201941052276 for a NONWOVEN ARTICLE. The appellants argued that the rejection based on lack of disclosure, definitiveness, and obviousness was unsustainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for re-consideration.
Insecticides (India) Limited v.Anu Products Limited
Insecticides (India) Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent (IN 316801), which covers an insecticidal composition. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement via mediation, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms.
Lacoste S.A. v.Sheetal Fabrics
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Sheetal Fabrics alleging infringement of its trademark LACOSTE, passing off, and violation of copyrights in relation to garments and accessories. The court found that the defendant adopted and used trademarks deceptively similar to Lacoste's, causing loss to the plaintiff's reputation.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Prk Productions Llp
Himalaya Wellness Company filed a suit alleging trademark infringement against Prk Productions LLP over the use of 'VIMALAYA' in their film 'Aachar & Co.' The Plaintiffs argued that this usage distorted their established brands like 'HIMALAYA', 'Liv.52', etc., causing consumer confusion. Despite initial denials by the Defendant, the Court found strong evidence supporting the similarity and registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was formally registered, and summons were issued to compel the Defendant to appear and defend the allegations.
Anjay Bansal v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the rejection of a device mark registration applied for by Anjay Bansal. The initial refusal was based on the mark being non-distinctive or merely descriptive. However, the court found that the appellant successfully demonstrated long-standing use since 2005 through submitted invoices and annual reports. Citing the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court ruled that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use, allowing it to proceed to advertisement.
Tibra Collection v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Tibra Collection filed suit against several unauthorized sellers operating on the Meesho platform (run by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited) for copyright infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were selling counterfeit garments that copied their designs and misusing their copyrighted photographs. After initial interim injunctions, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit against the infringing sellers (Defendants 2-6), formalizing the undertaking which included a payment of Rs. 10 lakh to Tibra Collection and permanent cessation of all infringing activities.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The matter involved Natco Pharma Limited and Bristol Myers Squibb Company regarding Indian Patent No. IN 247381, which covers Factor Xa Inhibitors used in the pharmaceutical preparation APIXABAN. The parties amicably settled their disputes via an agreement dated August 8, 2023.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Hetero Healthcare Limited And Anr
In a complex trademark dispute, Sun Pharma sought permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare regarding the alleged infringement of its mark 'LETROZ' by 'LETERO'. The court allowed the Defendants to challenge the validity of Sun Pharma's marks through a rectification petition under Section 57. Crucially, the court clarified that while invalidity can be challenged, the primary suit for passing off will proceed independently, leading to framing of multiple issues covering both infringement and validity.
M/S Malhotra Book Depot v.M/S Mbd Industries And Anr.
Malhotra Book Depot filed a suit against Mbd Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off due to the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'MBD' for non-metallic building materials. The Plaintiff held multiple registrations for 'MBD' across various classes related to publishing. During mediation, the parties agreed that the Defendants would change their mark to 'JMVD'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending interim injunction applications, allowing the Defendants to continue operating under the new mark.