India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 107 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited appealed the rejection of its application to rectify the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. The core dispute revolves around whether Reckitt & Colman's use of a similar mark, specifically 'DRAIN XPERT POWDER', constitutes infringement or grounds for rectification. The appellant argues that the slight variation in spelling and presentation is deceitful and confusingly similar to their registered trademark. The court has listed the matter for further hearing to consider these complex arguments regarding similarity and deceptive intent.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to initiate trademark rectification proceedings against Alkem Laboratories. The core issue was challenging the validity of the Defendant's registered mark, ALSITA, in Class 5. The court accepted notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing, allowing the parties time to file their respective responses.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. v.Dhruvil Damajibhai Zadafiya As D D Fashion & Anr.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. initiated proceedings before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of a trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner argued that their internationally registered and long-standing wordmark, 'NUTRAFOL,' relates to over-the-counter hair growth products. The court accepted the petition and directed the issuance of notice to the respondents, setting the stage for further litigation regarding the validity and use of the mark.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.Shubhom Juneja
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against Shubhom Juneja regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off of whisky. The court found a prima facie case based on the near-identical nature of the trade dresses and packaging used for 'Royal Green' and 'Royal Queen' whiskies, coupled with phonetic similarity between the names. This order temporarily restricts the defendant from introducing further products in the confusing manner.
Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals & Anr. v.Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals challenging a Single Judge's order that had set aside a trademark rectification order. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent received proper notice of the rectification proceedings before its trademark was removed from the register. The court ultimately found no error in setting aside the initial review petition, emphasizing that ambiguity regarding service should benefit the party seeking relief.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order deeming abandonment of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539) under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner claims they received no information regarding the response deadline for the first examination report and that the failure was due to lack of communication from the Second Patent Agent (SPA).
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Paratek Pharmaceuticals challenged an order rejecting its patent application for a tetracycline compound. The High Court found the rejection order bad in law because it failed to consider the appellant's responses and submissions, and because it introduced new objections (claims 9-24) not raised during the hearing notice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter.
M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses & Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd., which sought the removal of a trade mark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because the Registry's attempt to serve notice on the petitioner failed due to an incorrect address. Crucially, the Court allowed the petitioner to revive the petition since the failure was attributable to the Registry's inability to effect service.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Fluorinated Polymer and Surface Treating Agent Composition' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the controller had cherry-picked claims and failed to address the final amendments, leading to an avoidable litigation. The High Court allowed the appeal.
Januki Kumari J.B. Rana And Ors v.M/S Modern Industries And Ors
The plaintiffs, partners in M/s Kiran Shoes Manufacturers (Nepal), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes under the plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDSTAR". The court found that the defendants were infringing the trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their products. Consequently, the suit was decreed with an injunction and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Ibrum Technologies v.The Controller of Patents
Ibrum Technologies appealed the dismissal of its patent application for an Intelligent Indoor Air Quality Monitoring System. The rejection was based on non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, but the appellant argued that the Controller's proceedings were flawed because their oral submissions were interrupted mid-argument. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The parties presented joint issues to the Delhi High Court. The court framed multiple issues concerning the validity of Indian Patent IN 233161 based on various grounds (prior art, inventive step, etc.) and whether the defendant's manufacture/sale of Eltrombopag Olamine infringes this patent.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Balaji Soap Factory
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Balaji Soap Factory regarding the infringement of its artistic work, specifically the VIM label. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the court on February 1, 2024.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple appeals filed by The State of Jharkhand against various respondents. These appeals were decided based on the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous precedents. The court provided further clarifications and directions while settling these complex patent-related disputes.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.) on January 31, 2024. The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling addresses various disputes arising under patent law within the state.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order dated 11.11.2016 concerning Patent Application No. 6334/CHENP/2009, which related to polyamide materials with high fluid barrier properties. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and was obvious in view of prior art documents D5 and D6.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of a series of interconnected Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.). The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling provides clarity and specific directions across multiple patent disputes involving various parties, thereby concluding the appellate proceedings.
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute v.President And Fellows Of Harvard College
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute challenged an arbitral award that directed the transfer of its domain name, <kashmirharvard.edu.in>, to President and Fellows of Harvard College. The dispute arose from a complaint filed under the INDRP alleging trademark infringement due to the confusing similarity between the domain name and the globally recognized 'HARVARD' mark. The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award, finding that the domain was identical to the trademark and caused confusion, thereby dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order regarding its patent application for a polyamide material with high fluid barrier properties. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art D5 and D6. The court examined the teachings of both prior arts and concluded that combining them would lead to an obvious invention.
Freebit AS v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS, a Norwegian corporation, filed an infringement suit against Exotic Mile Private Limited (operating under the brand "Boult") alleging that their products infringed Freebit's registered patent IN'748 for an improved 'C'-shaped earphone interface. The appellant sought an interim injunction but it was rejected by the Single Judge on grounds of non-disclosure and potential patent invalidity. This appeal challenged the rejection, but the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision regarding the denial of interim relief.
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited v.Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India initiated a civil suit against Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan alleging trademark infringement and passing off regarding the use of similar names in the hotel and food business. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, long-standing usage since 1974, and registered trademarks for 'VASANTA BHAVAN.' Although the defendant was set ex parte, the court proceeded based on the plaintiff's evidence to address claims of deceptive similarity and irreparable harm.
Aryan Educational Society v.C.D. Goyal Foundation
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Aryan Educational Society against C.D. Goyal Foundation. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for an ad-interim injunction notice, noting that the defendant was allegedly using a similar mark ('The Aryan School') in Haryana despite the plaintiff holding a registered trademark. Furthermore, the court formally registered the suit and granted various procedural exemptions to facilitate the ongoing litigation.
Ajay Goyal v.Anil Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement case filed by Ajay Goyal against Anil Verma & Anr. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking an injunction, recognizing claims of deceptive similarity between 'SUFIYANA' and 'SUFIYAMA', alongside copying of trade dress and artistic work. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing products and materials, ensuring the continuation of the suit while addressing urgent concerns regarding trademark infringement.
V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v.Rajesh Kejriwal
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction restraining V.R. Industries Private Ltd. from using the trademark 'GOLDEN GATE.' The respondent, Rajesh Kejriwal, holds registered trademarks for this name across various food and chemical classes. Despite the appellant claiming prior use and pending cancellation proceedings against the registration, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Commercial Court's exercise of discretion regarding the injunction. This decision reinforces the weight given to existing trademark registrations in preventing potential infringement.