India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 108 of 311 · 7,456 total
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Mohan Kumar Kotana
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs (Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.) an interim permanent injunction in their suit against Mohan Kumar Kotana. The case involves alleged infringement of Tata's intellectual property rights related to its mineral water products, 'TATA COPPER+' and 'TATA WATER PLUS'. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing goods and materials, and demand disclosure of sales records, significantly advancing the plaintiffs' claim for protection against IP misuse.
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the ongoing trademark dispute between Taco Bell Corp. and Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises. The court granted certain procedural exemptions while directing parties to adhere strictly to commercial courts rules regarding document submission. Crucially, the main petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing mark (Registration No. 3628356) was advanced, with notice issued to the respondents to file their response within four weeks.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The Plaintiffs are seeking to permanently restrain the Defendant from infringing their Indian Patents related to construction elements. The Defendant is accused of trading in products that are copies of the Plaintiffs' patents.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Lalit Kumar Jaggia
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit against Lalit Kumar Jaggia seeking permanent injunctions due to the alleged infringement of its registered trademarks, including 'LEVI'S', 'Two Horse Logo', and associated designs, as well as copyright violation in its labels. The court found the defendant guilty of flagrant infringement and decreed the suit for permanent injunction along with awarding punitive damages.
Rajesh Sultania And Anr. v.Arun Kumar Murarka
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rajesh Sultania and Anr. which challenged the rejection of a plaint in an infringement suit brought by Arun Kumar Murarka. The Petitioners argued that the Respondent lacked standing to sue for trademark infringement because he was not the registered proprietor of 'YEH KHILA YEH KHILA.' However, the Court found that the comprehensive nature of the Respondent's claim—which included both copyright and trademark infringement—disclosed a valid cause of action. Furthermore, the court noted an assignment deed supporting the Respondent's ownership claims, concluding that the preliminary rejection of the plaint was correct.
Axon Enterprise, Nic v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Axon Enterprise against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'AXON'. The court found that through strategic use of consent letters and modifications to the description of goods (including disclaimers), the objections raised regarding conflicting marks could be overcome. Consequently, the registration application was directed to proceed to advertisement before acceptance, paving the way for eventual registration.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against the Joint Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a compound used in treating viral diseases and tumors. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d).
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Tiba Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent (IN269841) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted exemption from advance service, noting that the Defendant had not yet launched infringing products. Furthermore, the court passed detailed orders allowing for an ex-parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to search premises and seize any infringing stock.
Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd. v.Idam Natural Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd., a leading FMCG manufacturer, against its defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and disparagement. The court found that the Plaintiff's distinctive trade dress and registered mark 'SECRET TEMPTATION' were being referenced negatively in an advertisement. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 was restrained from broadcasting the impugned video, and Defendant No. 2 (YouTube) was directed to block/takedown the offending content.
M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd v.Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute regarding the proper forum for trademark rectification proceedings between Prestige Estates Projects Ltd and Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that when an infringement suit is pending, questions concerning the validity of a trademark registration should be handled by the High Court, not solely by the Registrar of Trademarks. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of all related rectification petitions from the Registrar's office to the High Court for adjudication.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Sheik Azeez-Ur Rahaman Trading as Kramson and The Registrar of Trade Marks
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals filed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'KRAMSON' from the register. The court noted that the first respondent's mark had expired due to non-renewal. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition but granted liberty for it to be revived should the registration be renewed by the respondent.
M/S Eat Hearty Private Limited v.M/S Jagdamba Incorporation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to M/S Eat Hearty Private Limited, who holds registered trademarks for 'BURGRILL'. The petitioner sought restraint against the respondent, despite a terminated franchise agreement, due to continued unauthorized use of the mark at an outlet in Vadodara. Citing the termination and evidence of ongoing infringement, the Court restrained the respondents from operating the specific outlet or using the trademark until arbitration commences.
R Indira Devi v.G Satyaki
The appeal challenged a trial court judgment regarding copyright infringement and passing off concerning literary works. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an assignment letter from his father, while the defendant contested the claims. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court passed an order addressing two interlocutory applications filed by the defendant. The first application led to the addition of a specific issue concerning the validity of Patent IN 233161 under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The second application modified the schedule for leading evidence.
E R Squibb And Sons Llc v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the Defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 340060, which covers the drug Nivolumab. The court examined the patent's validity and prima facie case before issuing interim directions.
M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd. v.M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd., to implead two additional parties—M/s Satnam Mart Private Limited and M/s JK Print Pack—in its ongoing trademark infringement suit against M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs. This move was based on evidence gathered during a local commission inspection, which revealed that the defendant's infringing products were manufactured by Satnam Mart and printed by JK Print Pack. The court proceeded to issue summonses to these newly added defendants, ensuring the litigation can proceed against all responsible parties.
havells india limited v.azad singh
Havells India Limited sued Azad Singh for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that Azad Singh's use of 'REO-LT' on low tension wires deceptively imitated Havells’ registered trademark 'REO'. Havells claimed significant brand recognition and consumer confusion due to the similarity between the marks.
Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu Kompanija v.Mr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.
Vidli Restaurants Limited v.Alok Sovind Chandewar
Vidli Restaurants Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Application seeking dispute resolution related to its Franchise Agreement with Alok Sovind Chandewar. The core of the dispute involved Vidli alleging that the Respondent was using a deceptively similar mark, constituting trademark infringement post-termination of the agreement. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application, ruling that since Vidli was merely a licensee and not the owner of the trademarks, it lacked the legal standing to initiate arbitration over the alleged infringement.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a subcutaneous anti-HER2 antibody formulation. The rejection was based on the product lacking inventive step and being known in the market. The court allowed the appeal, noting that the original decision failed to address 11 out of 12 claims independently.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed an impugned order dated February 19, 2019, passed by the Controller of Patents which denied its application (No. 10246/DELNP/2012). The appellant argued that the denial was based on new grounds (lack of enablement) and non-speaking reasons, violating natural justice.
Regenesance B.V. v.Union of India
Regenesance B.V. challenged the Patent Office's order that deemed its patent application abandoned because it failed to reply to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The petitioner argued that the timeline should not be treated as inflexible, especially when procedural delays are common in the patent office process. The Madras High Court agreed, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must promote and preserve scientific temper, allowing for a reasonable view of the matter.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Rathinasamy Gomathy and Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. against an existing trade mark registration. The petitioner sought the removal of the impugned device mark, arguing deceptive similarity to its 'GOLD WINNER' brand. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for maintaining the suit. Specifically, the court held that the non-use period prescribed under Section 47(1)(b) had not lapsed following the withdrawal of an earlier petition, and the cause of action under Section 47(1)(a) was barred by prior litigation.
Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology Corporation Limited v.G.Parthasarathi
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology. The petition sought to remove or rectify the registration of Trade Mark No. 1958762, specifically requesting that the applicant be recognized as the proprietor via assignment. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on the scheduled date, the petition was dismissed for default.