India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 109 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath v.M/s.Hotel Swagath, Dhanturi Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath against M/s.Hotel Swagath and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought to remove or cancel the trademark 'HOTEL SWAGATH' (Device) registered in Class-43. The court noted that the proprietors of the petitioner hotel had passed away, leading to the withdrawal of a related infringement suit by the first respondent. Consequently, the Transfer Original Petition was dismissed as abated, though it can be revived by legal heirs.
Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Sew-Eurodrive, setting aside the Trademark Registry's order that declared their marks 'SEW' and 'SEW-EURODRIVE' abandoned. The court criticized the Registry for failing to provide timely alerts regarding procedural changes posted only on its website, noting that applicants cannot be expected to monitor the site 24/7. Consequently, the applications were restored to the file of the Trademarks Registry to proceed based on their merits.
M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Sivakumar G.Nalli
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Sivakumar G.Nalli and others regarding the 'Nalli' brand. Despite extensive evidence presented by the plaintiff, including proof of long-standing reputation and registration, the court dismissed the core prayers seeking permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages. The judgment highlights the high burden required for a successful infringement claim in civil court.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Scales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Scales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petition sought the removal and expungement of two trademark registrations ('Tintometer') based on grounds including wrongful registration and non-use. However, due to the petitioner's counsel failing to provide instructions, the court dismissed the entire petition for default.
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' application to implead WhatsApp LLC in a trademark infringement suit concerning deceptive online investment schemes. The court found prima facie evidence that certain administrators of the 'Peak XV 1026' WhatsApp group were using the Plaintiff's trademark and images of their Managing Directors to create an impression of authenticity. Consequently, WhatsApp was directed to block access to the implicated accounts and provide subscriber information to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Vinay Kumar Gupta
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and distributing infringing apparel using deceptively similar trademarks to its registered brand 'LEVI'S'. The court found that the defendant adopted the trademark/label 'Levi', leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms Dolphin International Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar Khatri
The plaintiff, an export company, filed a suit against its former employee, Vinod Kumar Khatri, alleging that he breached his employment contract by disclosing confidential business secrets and client information to a competitor. The plaintiff sought damages of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the alleged irreparable loss.
Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Mimozax Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, Patent Office Chennai
Mimozax Co. appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-obesity composition derived from Acacia, which was refused based on several grounds including reliance on undisclosed prior art. The High Court found that the Controller failed to provide all relevant materials to the appellant and emphasized the doctrine of fairness in patent proceedings.
Amba Motorcyles Thr. Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor / Top MotoComponents Private Limited v.Mahavir Prasad
In a significant development for trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to replace one plaintiff with its successor-in-interest, Top MotoComponents Private Limited, who had acquired the assets and liabilities related to the 'TOP' trademark. Furthermore, the court subsequently accepted a joint application from both parties, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of a comprehensive settlement agreement. This outcome provides clarity on succession in IP disputes while finalizing the underlying commercial dispute.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. IN331314, titled 'PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF HALOGENATED CARBOXYLIC ANHYDRIDES', which was granted to Respondent no. 1. The petitioner claims that the patent ought not have been allowed due to various prior art and prior use evidence.
Bawa Masala Co Pvt Ltd v.Bawa Masala Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Trademarks Office's decision regarding the abandonment of an opposition. The core issue was whether service effected via email to a correct address constituted sufficient legal notice, allowing the opposition timeline to begin. Despite arguments that sending an email is a recognized mode of service, the court ruled that mere dispatch creates only a presumption, which can be rebutted by the recipient demonstrating non-receipt. Since the opponent successfully proved they never received the counter statement, the appeal was dismissed.
Tajinder Soap And Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks Registry At New Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking cancellation of a trade mark registration, finding that the renewal was administratively irregular and illegal. The court noted that the mark had lapsed in 2007, and despite subsequent public notices offering opportunities for revival, the owner failed to act. Crucially, the court found that the Registry erroneously revived the expired mark after nearly fourteen years through an interlocutory petition, leading to its cancellation.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.Devender Kumar
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging infringement of its Suit Patent (IN384184) concerning a liquid composition of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant launched an imitation product named 'Pendamic' which matched the claims of the patent. Based on the prima facie case established, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
Living Seed Technologies Llp. v.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Riddhi Siddhi Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark suit against Riddhi Siddhi Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai. The court examined the jurisdiction clause and confirmed that Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, grants this court jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business location. Consequently, the court held that no special leave was required and made the petition absolute.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.C.K. Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Kamal Electricals And Sanitary
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a suit against Kamal Electricals and Sanitary regarding trademark infringement. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai, while the defendants were operating outside the court's jurisdiction in Telangana. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
M/S SNS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v.Mohammed Naim
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S SNS Products Private Limited against Mohammed Naim. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of spices under the 'SHAN-E-DELHI' brand, sought protection against the defendant who was using substantially similar packaging and the mark 'Proud-ek-Minar'. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established their case for infringement, noting the similarity in trade dress and the defendant's prior purchase of the plaintiff's products. Consequently, the defendant is temporarily restrained from using the infringing materials and must disclose all existing inventory.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Mr Ashish Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Mr. Ashish Singh and others. The Plaintiff, a statutory body protecting the 'KHADI' mark, alleged that Defendants were deceptively using similar marks like 'KHADI ORGANIC' on various products and websites to exploit public goodwill, particularly around religious events. The Court found a prima facie case for infringement and passed orders restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under infringing marks and mandating the suspension of the associated domain name.
Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Sangeeta Jaiswal
The Madras High Court closed two Original Petitions filed by Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd against Sangeeta Jaiswal regarding the rectification/cancellation of registered trademarks (Nos. 3207838 and 3207840). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the petitioner's agreement that the respondent would proceed with separate applications to cancel the marks. The Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite the cancellation process.
Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents, which rejected a second divisional application (grandchild application) because its claims were deemed to conflict with those in the original grandparent application. The appellant argued that filing the divisional application was necessitated by objections raised by the Controller. The High Court held that since the filing was a consequence of an objection, the division should be assessed on its own merits.
Amir Biri Factory & Ors. v.Mohd. Aslam
The Calcutta High Court vacated an injunction previously granted to Amir Biri Factory in favor of Mohd. Aslam. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, specifically regarding restrictions on their trademark's use and geographical limitations (West Bengal only). Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued they were a prior user operating outside West Bengal, challenging the basis of the injunction. This decision significantly weakens the plaintiff's ability to enforce their registered mark against the defendant.