India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 121 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors.
The long-standing dispute between Goodricke Group Limited and M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. regarding the use of the 'SUPER CUP' mark was amicably resolved by both parties. After multiple rounds in the Delhi High Court, including appeals to the IPAB and Supreme Court, the parties entered into a Co-Existence Agreement. Under this settlement, Girnar agreed to use 'Girnar Super Cup' for tea and other allied products, while Goodricke withdrew its suit and opposition claims. The court formally dismissed both the appeal and the original suit as withdrawn.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Infinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interlocutory injunctions regarding trademark infringement in the travel industry. While the court found prima facie evidence that Defendants 3 and 4 were infringing the plaintiff's registered marks by using deceptively similar spellings ('SHREENATH' vs 'SHRINATH'), it rejected the request to restrain Defendant 5 due to insufficient factual basis. The court issued a mixed order, granting injunctions against specific words and domain names while mandating removal of infringing marks and disclosure of earnings from Defendants 3 and 4.
M/S Vajiram And Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP v.Sh. S.S Choudhary and Anr / M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated a suit for injunction (CS(COMM) 43/2019) against M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd. with a related trademark cancellation petition (C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 213/2022). The core dispute involves the use of similar marks ('VAJIRAO' vs 'VAJIRAM') by two coaching institutes for civil services examinations. By consolidating the trials, the court aims to prevent multiplicity and address whether the defendant's trademark registration is liable for cancellation.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. v.Rps Infrastructure Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions against Rps Infrastructure Limited after a petition alleging trademark infringement concerning the 'World Trade Centre' brand in Faridabad. The court temporarily restrained the respondent from using the disputed trademarks on its projects, requiring immediate removal of the marks from all public materials and mandating disclosure to unit buyers that the developer holds no rights to the brands. While granting these protective measures, the Court deferred the adjudication of significant monetary claims (over Rs 31 crore) to the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
Nilkamal Crates And Contaners & Anr. v.Ms. Reena Rajpal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning plastic molded chairs, balancing claims over both word marks and device marks. While the court found no deceptive similarity between the word marks 'NILKAMAL' and 'NILKRANTI,' it did find that the defendants' adopted logo was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered device mark. Consequently, the injunction sought against the use of the word mark was rejected, but the defendants were strictly restrained from using the infringing device mark.
M/s.Snapbizz Cloudtech Pte Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
M/s.Snapbizz Cloudtech Pte Ltd. filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant a patent. The appellant subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw the appeal, leading to its dismissal by the High Court.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Sardesai Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This case before the Bombay High Court addressed a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of a specific court after the transfer of civil suits. The petitioner argued that since the suit involved intellectual property (trademarks) and was valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-, it should fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Court ruled that because the valuation fell below the minimum threshold prescribed by the notification under the Act, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the jurisdiction rested with the District Judge-1 as per the Trademarks Act, 1958.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Parle Product Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Intercontinental Great Brands Llc seeking a stay of infringement proceedings. The plaintiff sought to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademark, FABIO, under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to raise any prima facie tenable grounds challenging the registration in its pleadings (plaint or replication). Consequently, the application for stay was rejected, allowing the main infringement suit to proceed.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K.
Pernod Ricard appealed a Commercial Court order that rejected their application for temporary injunction against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging trademark infringement of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by the defendant's use of 'London Pride'. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's finding that no deceptive similarity existed between the marks. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the main suit on merits without being influenced by the appellate observations.
Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading As Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v.Sss Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court addressed critical procedural issues concerning IPR litigation under the Commercial Courts Act. The court clarified that despite the plaintiff's freedom to value a suit, this principle cannot be used to undervalue IPR disputes below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold to avoid the rigors of the CCA. The judgment mandates that intangible rights must be ascribed a 'specified value,' considering both the relief sought and the market value of the IP right involved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order vacating the injunction, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Bharat Vastralaya v.Karishma Silks & Sarees
The Madras High Court disposed of a Trade Marks Appeal between Bharat Vastralaya and Karishma Silks & Sarees based on a settlement reached between the parties. The consent terms mandate that while the Respondent can continue using 'KARISHMA' for one specific outlet in Bangalore, they must withdraw their existing trademark registration (No. 572267) in Class 24. This resolution provides a clear path forward for both parties to manage their respective rights and prevent further litigation.
M/s.Ghanshyam Perfumery And Co. v.S.Shri Kasim Ramaiah
This Madras High Court case involved a Trade Marks Appeal challenging the rejection of an opposition against Trademark Application No. 582422. The parties, M/s. Ghanshyam Perfumery And Co. and S.Shri Kasim Ramaiah (trading as M/s. Shanker Perfumery Works), reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. Under the terms, they agreed to exclusive rights for 'SONA CHANDI' and other 'SONA formative trademarks,' respectively, while also agreeing not to use deceptively similar labels. The court disposed of the appeal based on these mutual consent terms.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants, inspect their Preconditioned Air Units (PCAs), and audit related accounts to demonstrate infringement of Patent IN 330145. The court dismissed the application, holding that the prayers were misconceived and did not meet the strict criteria required for appointing a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC.
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Rudra Marketing
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rudra Marketing and others for infringing its trademarks ('GLEN') and passing off its products. The plaintiff alleged that defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'GLEE' on home appliances, confusing consumers.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
M/S. M.L. Brothers Llp v.Uma Impact Private Limited
In a case concerning trade dress infringement, the Delhi High Court facilitated ongoing settlement talks between M/S. M.L. Brothers Llp and Uma Impact Private Limited. The court confirmed that the ad-interim injunction, previously limited to the trade dress of three specific products, would continue during the pendency of the suit. Both parties expressed willingness to resolve disputes amicably, with the Plaintiff proposing a decree based on the Division Bench's order while leaving the trademark dispute over the slogan 'BORN TO WIN' open for separate resolution.
M/s.Moti And Company v.M/s.B.Braun Melsungen AG
M/s. Moti And Company filed a petition seeking to revoke or invalidate Patent No. 221306 held by M/s. B.Braun Melsungen AG. The petitioner later submitted that the patent had already expired on July 13, 2021.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 363203, which pertains to a 'Light Blocking Sheet, Imaging Lens Module and Electronic Apparatus'.
Nripendra Kashyap v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nripendra Kashyap filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant subsequently instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal.
M/s.Moti And Company v.M/s.B.Braun Melsungen AG
M/s. Moti And Company filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation or invalidation of Patent No. 221306 held by M/s. B.Braun Melsungen AG. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the patent had already expired on July 13, 2021.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Kba Notasys Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for printing currency notes. The core dispute revolved around whether the prior art documents cited in the International Search Report (ISR) could be considered grounds for rejection during the appeal process. The court acknowledged the relevance of the ISR citations but directed the Respondent No. 2 to file written submissions on this specific point.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Mr. Kunhimoideen Kazhungumthottathil
The Delhi High Court issued an order on October 31, 2023, directing the parties to proceed with the completion of pleadings in the trademark dispute. The court set a date for further proceedings while granting specific opportunities for both the plaintiff and defendant to file rejoinders in various interlocutory applications (IAs). This procedural step indicates that the case is moving forward through the discovery and pleading phase.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh And Anr.
In a dispute over trademark rights, Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. sought to cancel registrations held by Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh concerning the 'TIGER' device logo. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks used by both parties and issued an interim order. The court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the registration, preventing any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademarks until further hearing.
DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Ethylene-based polymers' on the ground of lack of inventive step, citing prior art documents D4 and D5. The court set aside the impugned order, holding that the arguments regarding non-obviousness were not properly engaged by the respondent. Consequently, the matter was remanded to allow reconsideration while taking into account the passage of time and foreign patent grants.