India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 126 of 311 · 7,456 total
Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel v.Husenali Anwarali Charaniya
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.
Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
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.
Cashgrail Private Limited v.Blue Horizone Infotech Llp
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.
Theobroma Foods Private Limited v.Karan Narula And Ors (Theos Food Pvt. Ltd.)
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.
Pranay Satyendrakumar Goyal v.Muza Hospitality Private Limied
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.
Kurlon Limited v.M/S.Peps Industries Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trade Marks) filed by Kurlon Limited against M/S.Peps Industries Private Limited. The petition sought to rectify the trademark register by removing the mark 'NO TURN' held by the respondent. This dismissal was not based on merits but followed a settlement agreement reached between the parties, requiring the petitioner to withdraw the rectification request.
H-D U. S. A., Llc v.Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of H-D U. S. A., LLC against Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off because the defendant's mark replicated the plaintiff's registered 'Eagle Logo/ Device mark.' Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection regarding the authority to file the suit, confirming that the Power of Attorney granted omnibus powers covering all intellectual property rights. The injunction mandates that the defendant cease dealing in infringing goods pending the final disposal of the suit.
Major League Baseball Properties Inv. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, Delhi
Major League Baseball Properties Inc. appealed the Registrar's decision that their opposition against the 'BLUE-JAY' trademark application was abandoned due to procedural delays in filing evidence. While the initial rejection was based purely on technical grounds, the Delhi High Court allowed MLBP to pursue its substantive claims. The court disposed of the appeal but permitted MLBP to file a cancellation petition, ensuring the merits of their opposition would be considered.
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents
Manu Chaudhary appealed against the Controller of Patents' order dated May 31, 2023, which refused his patent application (No. 2545/DEL/2010). The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearings.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg
The suit is a patent infringement action concerning Patent No. IN240893 ('Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'). The court proceeded with the recording of cross-examinations of the Defendants' witnesses on September 22, 2023. Evidence has now been concluded, and directions were issued for parties to file written submissions before final arguments.
Ganesh Grains Limited v.K.R.Nagendra And K.N.Shoba; The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ganesh Grains Limited filed two Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the cancellation and expungement of specific registered trade marks (No. 460314 and No. 2000889). The petitions aimed to challenge the validity or registration of these marks. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw both Original Petitions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the proceedings as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
The Delhi Public School Society v.Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society
This case revolves around a dispute between The Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) and Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) concerning the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement. DPSS had permitted AEWCS to use the 'Delhi Public School' name and logo for its school, but this usage was explicitly limited by the agreement. Upon termination of the JVA, DPSS sought an injunction against AEWCS for continued use of the brand identity. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that once the agreement ended, AEWCS lost all rights to use the IP, thus constituting infringement and passing off.
Shah Mayankkumar Bharatkumar v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed a revisional application before the Calcutta High Court, aggrieved by the excessive delay in disposing of an opposition filed by opposite party no. 2 against their Registered Design (No. 304927). The court disposed of the application by directing the Controller of Patents and Designs to conclude the pending opposition proceedings within two months.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited
Kubota Corporation filed a suit for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court against Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited. The dispute centers on Kubota's 'HARVES KING' combined harvester, which the Plaintiff claims is infringed by the Defendants' product, 'Ruilong Plus ++'.
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop v.M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop, seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SRI MURUGAN IDLI SHOP.' The plaintiff claimed infringement of their registered trademark and copyright related to their business name and branding. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the defendant was not operating under the impugned name, leading the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V. Mahendran
This case involved a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement concerning 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' used on rice products. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and artistic works. However, despite multiple opportunities and court directions to file necessary affidavits and proceed with evidence, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the case management schedule. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit for default.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action regarding a patent titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency', which relates to methods and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
Novozymes v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Novozymes appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs to grant a patent for its phytase variants. The rejection was based on Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection concerning claims 1-7, allowing the application to proceed towards grant.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Tri Parulex Fire Protection System & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking an injunction against the Defendants for allegedly infringing Patent No.202302, which covers a specific operational sequence involving differential relay, Buchholz relay, and circuit breaker in fire prevention systems (NIFPS). The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants not to use this specific patented sequence but directed both parties to file affidavits addressing the technical scope of the patent.
FC Madras Trust v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by FC Madras Trust against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'FC MADRAS'. The initial objection was based on Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, claiming the mark was a common geographical name and lacked distinctive character. The court ruled that when viewed as a whole, the mark is not descriptive of the goods (printed publications), especially given its prior successful registration in other classes. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their device mark. The court found that when viewed as a whole—including the rooster image, stylized font, and corporate name—the mark was distinctive and did not fall under absolute grounds for refusal. Crucially, the prior registration of an identical mark in a related class bolstered the appellant's case, leading the court to set aside the objection and allow the application to proceed to registration.
Rana Steels v.Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications filed by Rana Steels concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademark RANA. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's continued use of similar marks (RANATOR/RAN INDIA) in relation to steel products, despite existing injunction orders. Recognizing the need for factual verification regarding ongoing usage and the disposal of old stock, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and examine account books.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.