India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 11 of 295 · 7,068 total
Marico Limited v.Minolta Natural Care
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application in a commercial IP suit filed by Marico Limited against Minolta Natural Care. The court noted that the plaintiff had presented a strong prima facie case for infringement covering trademark, copyright, design, and artistic work based on rival products. While the defendant sought time to explore an amicable settlement, the court granted a short adjournment but made it clear that if no resolution is reached by the next date, the interim application will proceed to final hearing.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed petitions seeking the revocation or removal of Indian Patents Nos. 356246 and 397206 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that these patents are part of Respondent No. 1's H.265/HEVC patent portfolio, and accordingly listed the petitions for further hearing.
S Chand And Company Ltd v.Kaushal Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by S Chand And Company Ltd against various booksellers and e-commerce platforms. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court issued an ad interim injunction directing Defendant No. 5 (Flipkart) to immediately take down listings of counterfeit books infringing on S Chand's registered trademarks and copyrighted works. Furthermore, the court provided procedural directions for serving summons and verifying the addresses of the various defendants.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Ankit Chaudhary Alias Ankit Sheoran
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'Dream 11'. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead NameCheap, Inc. and the unknown domain registrant as new defendants, recognizing the need to pursue those controlling the infringing domain 'dreamtips11.com'. Furthermore, the existing interim injunctions were extended and reinforced against these newly added parties, mandating them to cease trademark misuse and disclose relevant KYC details.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against M/S Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of marks like 'FLY HIGH INSTITUTE' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FLY HIGH'. Given the high reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's mark, the court held that immediate restraint was necessary to prevent irreparable harm from infringement and passing off.
Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters in the appeal filed by Ja Sterile Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court disposed of an application seeking exemption from filing certain documents, directing that certified copies of illegible materials be submitted within four weeks. The main appeal petition, challenging a prior order by the Trademark Registrar, was subsequently listed for further hearing on January 15, 2026.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Sankalp Recreation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and others. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'SCHEZUAN CHUTNEY', infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given that the products are edible goods, the Court adopted a stringent approach to prevent consumer confusion and potential health risks. The injunction restrains the defendants from using any identical or similar marks until further proceedings.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant, T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., challenged demands raised by the Department regarding service tax on royalty income received for allowing group companies to use their registered logo 'TTK'. The dispute centered on whether this usage constituted a taxable Intellectual Property Right (IPR) service or was exempt under copyright law.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant firm, dealing in consumer durables and healthcare products, was assessed service tax on royalty income received for allowing its group companies to use its 'TTK' logo. The appellant argued that since the logo is registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, it qualifies for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the demand was unsustainable and citing relevant exemptions and prior judicial decisions.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. v.Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. in its trademark infringement suit against Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal and others. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, recognizing the risk of defendants concealing infringing operations, the court allowed an exemption from advance service, permitting the immediate filing of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of goods.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
Ykk Corporation v.Kc Sapra & Ors.
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Ykk Corporation against Defendant No. 3 based on an amicable agreement reached during litigation. The defendant admitted to the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress rights (including 'YKK'), agreed not to use deceptively similar marks or counterfeit goods, and committed to handing over seized infringing products. Furthermore, the settlement included a payment of damages/costs by the defendant and established strict compliance mechanisms, including future audits.
Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited, directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew the trademark 'CRISPRO'. The court found that the failure to send the mandatory renewal notice (FORM RG-3) to the Petitioner's updated address constituted a violation of statutory rules. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and mandated the timely completion of the renewal process.
Danone And Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.Alvo Life Sciences And Ors & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark infringement suit involving Danone And Pacific Holdings and Alvo Life Sciences. The court formally decreed the suit against defendants 1 through 7 based on a previously executed Memorandum of Compromise, which included payments and undertakings to cease infringing use. Furthermore, the court accepted an offer from defendant 11 to settle the dispute, directing them to deposit damages, thereby facilitating a resolution for all parties involved.
Filmtec Corporation & Anr. v.Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani Owner At Messrs Jal Blue Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Filmtec Corporation and Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani and others following a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged ownership of Filmtec's trademarks (FILMTEC®, DUPONT, etc.) and copyrights, agreeing to cease all infringing activities. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included injunctions against Defendants 2 and 3 and payment of litigation costs by Defendant No. 1.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Pratap Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Castrol Limited's appeal, recognizing that the respondent was engaged in blatant counterfeiting of its motor oil brand. The court emphasized the severe public safety risk associated with substandard counterfeit engine oils. Consequently, the court directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inventory and take custody of the infringing products, granting immediate relief to protect the appellant's market and consumers.
KT&G Corporation (Xx) v.YY
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement in the tobacco sector, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction and permitted the appointment of Local Commissioners. The plaintiff, KT&G Corporation, sought protection for its renowned ESSE brand against counterfeiting. The court facilitated the execution of commissions to seize infringing products while ensuring procedural fairness, setting the stage for a full trial.
Akashdeep Enterprises Through Lrs & Anr v.Ella Foundation
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Akashdeep Enterprises against Ella Foundation. The suit, filed under the Trademark Act, sought protection against groundless infringement threats. The court found that the likelihood of confusion between the parties' distinct goods (household products) and services (medicine/research) was minimal. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from taking coercive steps, such as de-listing Plaintiffs' products on e-commerce platforms, until the final hearing.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas v.M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas filed an application seeking the rectification of a Copyright Registration held by M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr., alleging that the registered label was deceptively similar to their own trade name and infringed upon their rights. The petitioner claimed the registration was obtained surreptitiously without notice. Given the respondent's willingness to have the matter heard afresh after proper notice, the Court cancelled the impugned registration and remanded the case back to the Copyright Registrar for a fresh decision.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bigbear Pharmaceutical (Lao) Co., Ltd
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 related to Ruxolitinib compounds. The court passed several orders granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the alleged infringing activities.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds (JAKAVI®). The court passed several orders granting exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding mediation, identity masking, and advance service, while also directing the execution of Local Commissions to investigate the alleged infringement.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lucius Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 concerning Ruxolitinib Compounds. The court granted various exemptions sought by the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation, and proceeded with appointing Local Commissioners for the execution of the patent.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN'697) covering Semaglutide, a GLP-1 analogue used for diabetes and obesity. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from importing or dealing in the compound. The Court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of relief.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/s. Salus Pharmaceutical & anr.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited filed a commercial appeal against an order, seeking condonation of delay due to initial incorrect nomenclature. The court allowed the delay condonation, noting that procedural rules are handmaids of justice. Subsequently, the court set aside a single judge's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits, emphasizing continuous infringement.