India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 125 of 311 · 7,456 total
Cde Asia Limited v.Propel Industries Private Limited
The court heard an application by Cde Asia Limited seeking to place additional documents related to a post-grant opposition concerning a subject patent. The court allowed these documents and also registered a counterclaim filed by Propel Industries Private Limited under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Cryomass Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cryomass LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated May 31, 2021, which refused Patent Application No. 201917048279 titled "Cryogenic Separation of Plant Material". The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) and claims falling within Section 3(f) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2072/CHENP/2011) because the current set of amended claims were deemed beyond the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined whether the amendments expanded or narrowed the original claim scope and found that the specificity incorporated in the amended claims curtailed rather than expanded the original scope.
Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors. v.Paragon Cable India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The core dispute revolved around the trademark 'ELEKTRON' for electric wires and cables. The court found that while the appellants claimed prior use dating back to 1992, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Conversely, the respondents successfully demonstrated a credible basis to challenge the validity of the appellant's registrations due to misleading claims regarding their usage period.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Kent Cables Private Limited challenged the inclusion of the trade mark 'KENT' in the list of well-known trademarks, which was advertised by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the matter involves complex procedural and substantive issues regarding the declaration of a well-known mark. After reviewing previous directions and legal precedents, the court issued notice to the respondents while keeping open questions of maintainability and jurisdiction, setting the stage for further detailed arguments.
Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited v.V.K.R.Venkatesan
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.
Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v.Union Of India & Ors
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.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
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.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
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.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
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.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
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.
M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries
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.
Devanand Nagpal Prop. Nagpal Foods And Caterers v.Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
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.
Avtar Singh And Mr.Harkirat Singh Trading as M/s.Aero Club v.Chiranjeelal Bihani and The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
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.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
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.
Meenambigai Products v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
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.
Rigo Trading S.A.Societe Anonyme v.Unigum Gida Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry Chennai
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.
M/s.Mysore Silk Udyog v.M/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP
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.
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
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.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan News Network & Ors.
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.
Fitflop Limited v.Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited
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.
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
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.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Rajendra Singh
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.
Mex Switchgears Pvt Ltd v.Twinkle Luminaires Pvt Ltd And Anr
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.