India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 108 of 295 · 7,068 total
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed an injunction seeking to prevent Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd. from unauthorizedly using its proprietary Fantasy Sports Mobile Application (EXCHANGE22). The Plaintiffs claimed that their unique game structure, components, and user interface were protected under copyright law. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately found no prima facie evidence of copyright infringement by the Defendants. Consequently, the court vacated the ex parte injunction previously granted to the Plaintiffs.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr Basant Kumar Makhija & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that since the defendants raised a defense based on their registered mark (Section 30(2)(e)), and the plaintiff pleaded the invalidity of that registration, the plea was deemed prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Court framed an issue challenging the validity of the defendant's trademark and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the plaintiff to file a rectification petition.
Kalsi Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications while continuing the main appeal challenging a trademark registration. The court condoned the appellant's delay in re-filing the appeal and allowed an application for exemption from producing certified copies of documents. Crucially, the court issued notice to the Respondent No. 2 regarding the challenge to their 'KALSI' mark registration, which was previously granted by the Registrar.
Omrf Pipes And Products v.Itarsi Pipe Sales & Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against pipe manufacturers who were allegedly passing off their products. The court held that while the appellants lacked formal trademark registration for the specific color combination, the similarity between the 'RIVERLINE' (appellant) and 'METROSTAR' (respondent) product colors and shapes had the potential to mislead an ordinary purchaser. Consequently, the High Court granted the interim injunction, emphasizing that courts should assess potential consumer confusion from the perspective of a common person.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Intervet International B.V. v.Veko Care Private Limited
The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 283279, which covers the active ingredient 'FLURALANER' used in veterinary drugs like 'Bravecto'. The dispute involved the defendant promoting a counterfeit product under the mark 'FURALINE'. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement and filed a joint application.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against the manufacture and sale of Sitagliptin products by the Defendant. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated September 15, 2023, which was recorded by the Court.
Hartek India Pvt Ltd v.Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim injunction in favor of Hartek India Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited. The court noted that the defendant's use of 'HARTEKDSS,' despite the added suffix, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'HARTEK.' This order serves as a crucial early victory for the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the confusingly similar name while the full suit proceeds.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
Flamagas S.A. v.Ashok Bafna and Bafna Agencies
Flamagas S.A. filed a civil suit against Ashok Bafna and Bafna Agencies, alleging infringement of its registered designs and trademarks concerning cigarette lighters. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and an accounting of profits due to the sale of similar 'BAIDE/TOYO' lighters. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit.
Ufo Moviez India Ltd v.M/s.Real Image Media Technologies Private Limited
Ufo Moviez India Ltd filed a petition to revoke Patent No. 202969 before the Madras High Court. The court observed that the term of the said patent expired on 18.10.2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
The review petitions sought reconsideration of an earlier court order that had negated a preliminary objection to the maintainability of two applications. The core dispute revolves around alleged non-compliance by the respondent with directions, specifically concerning the payment of 'entire royalty amount' as mandated by previous orders.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its Divisional Application, arguing that the parent application lacked claims relating to multiple distinct inventions. The High Court addressed the legal questions regarding the maintainability of divisional applications under Section 16 of the Patents Act.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals filed by the BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. against the rejection of its 'BSA' trademark applications by the Registrar of Trademarks. The dispute involved conflict with Tube Investments of India Ltd., which uses 'BSA' for bicycles and related products. Recognizing the potential for confusion but also the distinct nature of their businesses (software vs. cycles), the Court directed both parties to coordinate and delineate their respective goods and services. This step aims to allow both entities to secure trademark registration without future litigation.
Salik Mukhtar And 4 Others v.M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt Ltd, upholding a lower court's order granting a temporary injunction. The suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the product 'Musa Ka Gul Super'. The High Court found that the plaintiff-respondents had established a prima facie case of infringement based on their registered trademarks and copyrights, concluding there was no legal impediment to maintaining the injunction pending the final trial.
Noumi Ip Pty Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Noumi IP Pty Ltd. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application 'MILKLAB,' which was deemed highly descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant argued that the mark relates to various milk-based products. Following arguments, the Court did not rule on the merits but instead sought instructions from the Appellant regarding potential remedies, such as amending the application into a logo/device mark or agreeing to a disclaimer concerning the word 'MILK'.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Jubilant Generics Limited And Anr
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories filed a suit seeking an injunction against Jubilant Generics for allegedly infringing on its trademark 'RAZO' with the mark 'RAZOEASE'. Following the filing, the Defendant proactively acknowledged an inadvertent mistake and issued assurances to immediately cease all manufacture and sale under the disputed mark. The court accepted these undertakings, leading to the disposal of the injunction application and directing the parties to file consent terms for closure.
Starpharma Pty Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Starpharma Pty Ltd appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 10044/CHENP/2013, which covered a method and gel formulation for treating bacterial vaginosis. The appellant argued that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and complete specification. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Chinese University Of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4812/CHENP/2012), which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed invention—a process for fetal genomic analysis from maternal samples—was an unpatentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that determining foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not 'diagnostic' in the statutory sense, allowing the patent application to proceed to grant.
T.V.Nagarajan v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4863), which was refused by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed in vitro method, used to measure sequence imbalance in biological samples from pregnant women, qualified as a non-patentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
UPL Limited v.Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. was manufacturing and selling a product containing the composition protected by UPL's Indian Patent No. IN 428514. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons to the defendants, and directed parties to file pleadings and respond to the interlocutory injunction application.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural disputes raised by PepsiCo in its appeal against a trademark rectification petition filed by Parle Agro. The court noted that the primary grievance concerned the alleged departure from prescribed procedures under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While acknowledging concerns about the fast-tracking of the original application, the Court allowed PepsiCo to file its reply and evidence within a specified timeframe, subsequently postponing the hearing date for the rectification proceedings.