India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 117 of 311 · 7,456 total
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Rahul Sharma And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., recognizing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off against Rahul Sharma and others. The court found that the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Dream 11 onlinematka' creates a high chance of confusion, especially online. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and directed to lock and suspend the associated website and domain name.
M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses and Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd seeking removal of a trademark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to repeated difficulties in serving notice and locating the petitioner at the specified address. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Indarmal M Solanki v.Rakesh Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Indarmal M Solanki against Rakesh Gupta, leading to the cancellation of the contested trademark 'EL PASO'. The court found that the impugned mark was identical to the Petitioner's prior registered and used marks for readymade garments (Class 25). Furthermore, the Respondent failed to renew the registration since April 2017, making it liable for removal under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation and deletion of the mark from the register.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
Daicel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Daicel Corporation appealed a rejection order passed by the Joint Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for a disintegrating tablet. The Patent Office rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Icahn School Of Medicine at Mount Sinai v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No.3414/CHENP/2008) for a chimeric NDV vaccine targeting two viruses, specifically Newcastle disease virus and influenza virus. The court reviewed the original rejection based on obviousness and allowed the application to proceed to grant after accepting the amended claims submitted by the appellant.
Manipal Holdings Private Limited v.Manipal Academy Of Higher Education Deemed University, Registrar of Trade Marks, MEMG International India Private Limited, Manipal Global Education Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of Trade Mark Rectification petitions filed by Manipal Holdings Private Limited against various entities. The court noted that the contesting parties had reached an amicable settlement and executed a compromise decree on November 4, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner requested that all rectification petitions be closed as withdrawn in line with the terms of the settlement.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Money Lenders And Exchange Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions filed by Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. seeking cancellation of 'TIGER' device logos registered by Shree Sakshat Money Lenders. The court noted the near identity between the marks and directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registrations. This interim order prevents any transfer, license, or assignment of the disputed trademarks while the matter proceeds.
Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited v.Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving the cancellation of a trademark registration (No. 1523434) held by Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd, which was sought by Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited. Given the extensive overlap between the ongoing cancellation petition and an older passing-off suit, the court directed that both cases be consolidated for trial. This strategic move aims to streamline the litigation process, ensuring a unified determination of who holds the rightful rights in the 'Himalayan Heli Services' mark.
Bolt Technology Ou v.Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and willful disobedience regarding a previous court order dated November 23, 2022. The original order had clearly prohibited the defendants from using their standalone mark 'BOLT' and an earlier logo, allowing only for future expansion under a modified mark ('BOLT.EARTH'). Despite this categorical direction, the defendants continued to use the proscribed marks. Consequently, the court held them in contempt and scheduled a hearing to determine the appropriate sentence.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.Appollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against Apollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, alleging infringement of its registered design and trademark, as well as passing off their beer products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, accounting of profits, destruction of infringing goods, and damages amounting to Rs. 2 Crores. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed by the court upon the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
Kuraray Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Kuraray Co. Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process involving PVA film for plant cultivation. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the specific properties (birefringence and swelling degree) of the PVA film provided unexpected excellent results.
Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited v.Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition filed by Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited against an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had previously allowed a rectification petition, effectively invalidating the petitioner's registered trademark. The court found that the original order violated the principles of natural justice because service of notice was not properly effected on the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the rectification petition be heard afresh before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Court.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Heineken Asia Pacific filed cancellation petitions against trademarks registered by Shree Sakshat Infrastructure, alleging that the Respondent is a squatter who has registered an identical device mark. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks in dispute. Consequently, the court directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registration and prohibited any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademark until further proceedings.
Burger King Company Llc v.Ranjan Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong standing of Burger King Company LLC, declaring its trademark 'BURGER KING' to be well-known in India. The court relied on extensive global usage, massive promotional investment, and local market presence (over 400 outlets) to establish secondary meaning. This ruling significantly strengthens the brand's protection against unauthorized use by defendants operating under similar names like 'Burger King Family Restaurant'.
Sunstar Overseas Ltd. v.Hello Minerals Waters Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sunstar Overseas Ltd. seeking rectification of the trademark 'HELLO' (No. 666671). The court noted that despite repeated attempts to serve notice and ensure appearance, neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared in court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
India International Technical Institute v.Terala Educational Society
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by India International Technical Institute seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'SANSKRITI,' held by Terala Educational Society. The court noted that the mark's last registration was valid only up to March 23, 2020, and its renewal had long expired. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register within one month.
Burger King Company Llc v.Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.
S3G Technology Llc v.Sourcetrace Systems India Private
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 328489. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
SELFDOT TECHNOLOGIES (OPC) PVT. LTD. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appeal challenged an order rejecting a patent application (No. 201843023004) on the ground that the applicant contravened Section 39 of the Patents Act, leading to deemed abandonment under Section 40. The appellant argued that since the parent invention was first filed in India and the breach was technical, not substantive, the rejection should be overturned.
Lipotec, S.A. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Lipotec appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 7314/CHENP/2009) for 'Regulatory Compounds For Pigmentation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step, citing prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller disregarded experimental data and detailed submissions.
Bcs S.P.A. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bcs S.P.A. appealed the Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for an 'Agricultural Driving Mechanism and Related Tool'. The appellant argued that the rejection order was unreasoned, merely reproducing extracts from prior art without proper analysis. The High Court agreed, finding the order bereft of reasoning, and set it aside.
GOTO Technologies USA, Inc. v.Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of GOTO Technologies USA, Inc., allowing petitions to cancel several trademark registrations held by Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy. The court found that the respondent had adopted the prominent 'GOTO' part of the petitioner’s established mark without justification. By demonstrating its long history and market presence, the petitioner successfully countered arguments regarding delay or lack of prior registration.
M/s. A. Murugan v.M/s. Union of India
M/s. A. Murugan filed an Appeal (Patents) challenging the order that granted Patent No. 267238, which was based on Application Number 126/CHENP/2008. The appeal sought to revoke the patent and dismiss the application. However, the court noted that the patent had not been renewed after July 7, 2021, rendering it non-forceful.