India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 122 of 295 · 7,068 total
M/s.Kpr Fertilizers Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
M/s.Kpr Fertilizers Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN 202028, which covered a process for manufacturing Food Grade Dicalcium Phosphate. The court dismissed the petition after noting that the patent's term had expired in February 2023.
Japan Tobacco Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
Japan Tobacco Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. 6844/CHENP/2010) to proceed for grant. The appellant subsequently moved for withdrawal of the appeal.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The Chinese University of Hong Kong filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently moved for withdrawal of the appeal.
Opibra - Operacoes Internacionais Do Brasil LTDA v.Rp Telebuy Skyshop Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Opibra seeking the removal of Trademark No. 2231835 from the Register. The court noted that the relevant registration had already expired on November 11, 2021. Since the trademark was no longer valid, the legal action became infructuous.
new era cap co inc v.ms galaxy caps
New Era Cap Co. Inc. sued M/S Galaxy Caps for trademark infringement, alleging that Galaxy Caps manufactured and sold counterfeit caps bearing New Era's 'NEW ERA' mark and associated logos without authorization. The Plaintiff claimed significant global sales and brand recognition, including endorsements from Virat Kohli. Local Commissioners seized over 200 infringing products from Galaxy Cap’s premises.
Rajam Industries Private Limited v.Lakshmi Industries
In this trademark rectification case, Rajam Industries sought the Madras High Court to cancel a registration held by Lakshmi Industries. The petitioner argued that the request for cancellation should follow prescribed legal procedures rather than informal communication with the Trademark Registry. After noting that the respondent had initiated steps toward cancellation and agreed to undertake the necessary formal actions, the court closed the original petition.
M/s.S.Ponnusamy Gounder & Co. v.Sri Balaji and Co., Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s.S.Ponnusamy Gounder & Co. against Sri Balaji and Co. and the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petition, which sought to cancel a registered trademark (No. 1232741 in Class 30), was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel due to a compromise reached in an earlier case (C.S.No.797 of 2009). This outcome highlights how pre-existing settlements can impact ongoing IP litigation.
Nurnbergmesse Gmbh v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Nurnbergmesse Gmbh filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'India wooed' in Class 35. The appeal sought to set aside the impugned order and allow the trademark application to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. v.Svn Prestige Garden
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. against a lower court's decision to return its trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply because they had simultaneously sought urgent ad-interim injunction relief. The High Court agreed, holding that suits seeking urgent interim relief are exempt from this mandate, thereby setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the main suit to proceed.
Rajah Company v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Rajah Company filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks regarding the registration of the mark RAJAH MALGO. 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 the appeal as withdrawn without making any substantive order.
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care India Private Limited v.M/S Excel Tech A Partnership Firm
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care filed a Writ Petition to challenge an ex parte temporary injunction order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The trial court had restrained the petitioners from manufacturing/marketing products using the respondents' intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trademarks). The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications expeditiously while allowing the interim order to continue until disposal.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union Of India
Umaid Mohonot appealed against an order dismissing their writ petitions, which challenged a show cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellants argued that the notice was invalid because related disputes concerning the 'Arrow' trademark were pending before the Delhi High Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The court ultimately held that the administrative action taken by the Registrar was distinct from the private inter se dispute, thus upholding the validity of the show cause notice.
Pfizer Inc v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
M/s. Medopharm / Medopharm Private Limited v.Leeford Healthcare Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Medopharm against Leeford Healthcare Limited regarding the use of 'EMICOF' versus the registered mark 'EMCOF'. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for alleged passing off and dilution. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution, which was formalized in a Memorandum of Compromise dated June 21, 2023. The court subsequently decreed the civil suit based on the terms of this compromise.
K.P.D.Rajendran v.Mr.G.Sundarapandian
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by K.P.D.Rajendran seeking the removal of trademarks 'SOLO' and 'BOVONTO.' The court noted that the impugned trademark registrations (Nos. 929435, 929437, and 929438) had not been renewed by the mark owner. Consequently, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
M/s Lacoste S.A. v.Rakesh Goyal
M/s Lacoste S.A. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks (LACOSTE and CROCODILE), leading to counterfeiting, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found the plaintiff's trademark well-known and decreed the suit for permanent injunction and awarded damages.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s. Indianpasand Inc., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (SANGU) and copyright in its artistic label design. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing goods. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s.Indianpasand Inc., alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its 'SANGU' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SHIPPY.' Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in terms of a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application for 'Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties'. The Appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adequately discuss the novelty and inventive step objections. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order summarily rejected the application without due consideration of prior art, leading to its remand.
ITC Limited v.VST Industries Limited
The Madras High Court allowed ITC Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court directed the removal of Trademark No. 509304 from Class 34 on the Register of Trademarks. This decision was made after VST Industries Limited filed a memo indicating no objection to the petitioner's request, effectively clearing the path for the cancellation.
Gautam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gautam Lal Tak filed a writ petition against The Registrar of Trade Marks, seeking expediting of his long-pending trademark registration for 'MAHALAXMI BRAND' in Class 29. After seven years of delay, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition by issuing a directive to the Respondent. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the pending application within six months from receiving the certified copy of the order.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Jb Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Jb Enterprises alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'PRADEEP' and copyright violation concerning its packaging logo. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory disclosure. However, the court noted that both parties had submitted a Deed of Settlement dated 31.01.2023, under which the suit was withdrawn. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the case.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patent) challenging an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs concerning its patent application No. 3330/CHE/2011. The appellant subsequently informed the court that it intended to withdraw the appeal.