India IP Litigation

7,068 annotated decisions

7,068
Decisions
4
IP Types
10
Courts

Page 110 of 295 · 7,068 total

trademark dismissed · Oct 4, 2023

Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited v.V.K.R.Venkatesan

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)/318/2023 (ORA/36/2019/TM/CHN)

The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited seeking rectification and cancellation of a trade mark entry. The court noted that despite attempts to serve notice, the petitioner's address was insufficient, and their counsel confirmed they had no instructions to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

patent mixed · Oct 4, 2023

Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v.Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C) 3549/2020

The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and made key interim directions in the case concerning the Geographical Indication (GI) for Chilean Pisco. The court allowed various exemptions related to documentation due to pandemic conditions, while also agreeing to delete one respondent from the array of parties. Crucially, the court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks & GI would not pass final orders on the GI application no. 689 until further notice, providing a temporary stay on the registration process.

trademark settled · Oct 3, 2023

Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru

Bombay High Court · 7-COMIP(L) 22654.2023

The suit concerning alleged trademark infringement was settled between Unilever Global IP Ltd. and Rajender Prasad Bandaru. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs.

patent settled · Oct 3, 2023

Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 490/2021

The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban'. The parties reached separate settlement agreements with Defendants 1 & 2 and Defendant 3, mediated by the Delhi High Court. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these terms.

trademark settled · Oct 3, 2023

Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru

Bombay High Court · 7-COMIP(L) 22654.2023

Unilever Global IP Limited filed a Commercial IP suit against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding the use of the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently arrived at a comprehensive settlement, which was accepted by the court.

trademark settled · Oct 3, 2023

Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru

Bombay High Court · 7-COMIP(L) 22654.2023

The suit was filed by Unilever Global IP Ltd. against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding infringement related to the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was accepted and taken on record by the court.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Oct 3, 2023

M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries

Madras High Court · C.S. (COMM. DIV.) No.130 of 2022

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries for infringing the registered trade mark 'DHEEPAM' and engaging in passing-off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'V RICH DEEPAM OIL' and its deceptively similar packaging material constituted infringement, despite the defendant failing to appear in court. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known trademarks against confusingly similar marks.

trademark mixed · Oct 3, 2023

Devanand Nagpal Prop. Nagpal Foods And Caterers v.Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2023

The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Devanand Nagpal seeking the issuance of his Trade Mark registration certificate for 'NAGPAL'S SPECIAL CHOLE BHATURE'. Although the opposition against his mark was dismissed in July 2023, the certificate had not been issued. The Court ordered the immediate issuance of the certificate within 10 working days, but crucially stipulated that this registration would remain subject to the final outcome of a parallel appeal filed by the opposing party. This decision balances administrative delay with ongoing legal disputes.

trademark defendant favorable · Sep 29, 2023

Avtar Singh And Mr.Harkirat Singh Trading as M/s.Aero Club v.Chiranjeelal Bihani and The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)/SR.494/2023 & (T)(TM)A/1/2023

The Madras High Court dismissed a Trade Marks Original Petition filed by Avtar Singh and Mr. Harkirat Singh against Chiranjeelal Bihani. The core issue was the validity of Trade Mark No. 963781, which had expired on October 16, 2010, due to non-renewal. Since the statutory period for renewal had long passed, the court found the petition to be infructuous and dismissed it without further order.

trademark defendant favorable · Sep 29, 2023

MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A. (CAD) Nos.120 and 121 of 2023

The Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by MGM Healthcare, the registered trademark owner of 'VARAM', against an interlocutory injunction order. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the respondent, Varamm Healthcare, had presented prima facie evidence suggesting prior and continuous usage of its mark 'VARAMM'. While noting the burden of proof lies with the prior user, the appellate bench was reluctant to interfere with the lower court's discretionary findings on initial evidence, allowing the main suit to proceed based on full evidence.

trademark dismissed · Sep 29, 2023

Meenambigai Products v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)/18/2023 (ORA/45/2011/TM/CHN)

The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Meenambigai Products against The Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought rectification of a trade mark registration entry (No. 1524417 in Class 30). However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite receiving proper court notice, the High Court dismissed the case without making any substantive order regarding costs.

trademark defendant favorable · Sep 29, 2023

Rigo Trading S.A.Societe Anonyme v.Unigum Gida Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry Chennai

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)/499/2023 (ORA/SR.73/2017/TM/CHN)

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rigo Trading S.A.Societe Anonyme seeking to expunge the device mark 'BLOX' (Registration No. 1706420) from the register. The court noted that the trade mark's last registration was valid only until July 3, 2018. Since the statutory long stop date for renewal had expired, the petition was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.

trademark defendant favorable · Sep 29, 2023

M/s.Mysore Silk Udyog v.M/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)/204 and 205/2023 (ORA/23, 24/2016/TM/CHN)

The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by M/s. Mysore Silk Udyog seeking to expunge or limit the scope of registered trade marks belonging to M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog LLP. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the trademark dispute, but rather because the petitioner failed to appear and could not be served notice at the address provided in the petition. This highlights the critical importance for IP litigants to maintain accurate contact information throughout legal proceedings.

patent remanded · Sep 27, 2023

Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Madras High Court · CMA(PT).No.19 of 2023

Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application for 'N-substituted indole derivatives as PGE2 receptor modulators'. The appellant argued that it was not given a proper opportunity to justify the inclusion of the expression 'pharmaceutically acceptable salts' in its claims before the rejection. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 27, 2023

Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan News Network & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 681/2023

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan News Network. The court found that the defendant was attempting to pass off its news channel and name as being connected with the long-established 'HINDUSTAN' mark owned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and logo, and orders were issued compelling domain registrars (GoDaddy) and tech platforms (Google/Meta) to suspend the infringing website and take down related content.

trademark mixed · Sep 27, 2023

Fitflop Limited v.Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 682/2023 and I.A. 18982/2023

The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in a trademark infringement suit filed by Fitflop Limited against Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited. While directing the Defendant to immediately cease all use of the 'FITFLOP' mark, the court allowed the continued existence of current stock. A Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and segregate the existing inventory at the Goa warehouse to determine which products are genuine and which may be unauthorized, paving the way for future valuation and dispute resolution.

trademark dismissed · Sep 27, 2023

Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(TM).No.56 of 2023

Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the refusal of their trademark application by The Registrar of Trademarks. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant chose to withdraw the case. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed (T)CMA(TM).No.56 of 2023 as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 26, 2023

Levi Strauss & Company v.Rajendra Singh

Delhi District Court · CS COMM 35/2020

The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark 'Levi's', copyright, and passing off against the defendants who were manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel. The court found that defendant no.1 was engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing counterfeit products, leading to a decree for damages.

trademark mixed · Sep 26, 2023

Mex Switchgears Pvt Ltd v.Twinkle Luminaires Pvt Ltd And Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2021 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2022

The Delhi High Court issued orders in two connected trademark appeal matters, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2021 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2022. In both cases, the court addressed procedural issues regarding service of documents, specifically the counterstatement filed by the respondents. The appellant argued that they were never properly served with these crucial documents. Consequently, the Court granted time for both parties to place their respective evidence on record and scheduled further hearings in January 2024.

patent defendant favorable · Sep 25, 2023

Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel v.Husenali Anwarali Charaniya

Gujarat High Court · R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2172 of 2023

This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged a lower court's decision to reject a plaint filed by Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel against Husenali Anwarali Charaniya. The original suit sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement (KANTI KAKA) and copyright violation concerning Betel Nut products. The core legal issue revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, as the plaintiff failed to adequately explain why the suit was filed in Dahod when both parties operated primarily from Surat or Surendranagar.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Sep 25, 2023

Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(TM)/158/2023

Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. successfully appealed a rejection by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its word mark 'QuiK-Tap' for temperature measuring devices. The Madras High Court overturned the refusal, finding that the original order and grounds of decision were unsustainable and lacked proper reasoning. The court accepted the evidence of use provided by the appellant, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement.

patent mixed · Sep 25, 2023

Cashgrail Private Limited v.Blue Horizone Infotech Llp

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 671/2023

The Delhi High Court has formally registered the suit filed by Cashgrail Private Limited against Blue Horizone Infotech LLP concerning alleged infringement of online games and trademarks. Cashgrail claims that the defendant's 'LUDO TOURNAMENT' replicates essential features of its proprietary skill-based games, such as 'Ludo Supreme League.' The court allowed the suit to proceed while ensuring the defendant receives an opportunity to respond before any interim orders are passed.

trademark settled · Sep 25, 2023

Theobroma Foods Private Limited v.Karan Narula And Ors (Theos Food Pvt. Ltd.)

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 468/2022

The Delhi High Court finalized a complex trademark dispute between Theobroma Foods and Theos Food Pvt. Ltd., leading to a comprehensive decree based on an amicable settlement. The judgment clarified the usage rights for both 'THEOBROMA' and 'THEOS' in the confectionery market. Key terms include mutual non-opposition, allowing Theobroma nationwide expansion while restricting Theos to the Delhi-NCR region for its mark use.

trademark mixed · Sep 25, 2023

Pranay Satyendrakumar Goyal v.Muza Hospitality Private Limied

Bombay High Court · 17-ial-18533-2023

The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application concerning alleged trademark infringement. The Plaintiff accused the Defendants of breaching a prior undertaking by continuing to use the impugned mark 'DIVE' on their website and selling services under the similar name 'DEEPDOWN DIVE'. While the court did not rule on the merits, it granted the Plaintiff leave to file an Affidavit in Rejoinder and simultaneously granted the Defendants liberty to file an Affidavit in Sur Rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for further consideration.