India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 130 of 311 · 7,456 total
Insta Rooms Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection of Insta Rooms Private Limited's device mark application. The Examiner had objected that the mark was highly descriptive of temporary accommodation services. However, the court ruled that when considered as a whole—including the visual elements (bed and lamp) alongside the words 'Insta Rooms Book Instantly'—the mark possesses sufficient distinctiveness to overcome the Section 9 objections. The registration was allowed, though with a caveat limiting the appellant's exclusive rights over the individual words 'insta' or 'rooms'.
Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Team-Venture; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. seeking to remove or rectify the trade mark 'SHEAR MAGIC UNISEX SALON AND SPA' from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was based solely on the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite multiple notices being served. This ruling highlights the strict procedural requirements in trademark litigation.
CCL Product (India) Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.
Abhishek Jain (Trading As M/S Trip Planners) v.Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited
The dispute between Abhishek Jain (M/S Trip Planners) and Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited was amicably settled through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The settlement mandates that the defendant must cease all use of the trademark 'Trip Planners' and its derivations in perpetuity, including removing it from business names, websites, social media handles, and closing associated domains/email suffixes by December 31, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to withdraw a pending trademark application for the disputed mark.
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the registration of the mark “NANO CUR”. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because the appellant could not be served notice due to having vacated the specified office address.
Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Pawajot Kaur Baweja & Ors.
The plaintiffs, who sell Ayurveda products, sued former employees (Defendants 1 and 2) for using confidential data, customer databases, marketing material, and copyrighted content to run a competing business under the brand 'Adya Ayurveda'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given previous judicial precedents. The Court found that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Triology Solutions Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.
British Engines (UK) Limited v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed British Engines (UK) Limited's appeal against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its mark. The court found that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable because it failed to adequately address the appellant's arguments regarding the device nature and international use of the mark. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to advertisement, though with a crucial caveat: the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual words 'British' or 'Engines'.
Nokia Technologies OY v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Technologies OY appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its system and method for listening to audio content. The appellant argued that the refusal order failed to consider their amended claims and responses to objections raised under Section 3(k).
Sintex Industries Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
Sintex Industries Limited appealed against an order revoking Indian Patent No. 197086 on the ground of insufficiency of disclosure. The court noted that the subject patent had already been revoked by the Controller, satisfying the main prayer of the appellant for revocation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Sri.Hitesh Chouhan, Proprietor M/s.Metro Marketing v.Sri.Ganapathlal, Proprietor M/s.Jaya Stationery
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'LEO' registered by Sri.Ganapathlal. The court found that the respondent adopted a near-identical mark for identical goods (rubber bands), and this adoption was deemed dishonest and fraudulent, especially given prior undertakings to change the branding. Consequently, the registration certificate was cancelled, maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
M/s.United Spirits Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. United Spirits Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trade mark registration. The court noted that the petitioner had assigned several marks to Grover Zampa Vineyards Limited, rendering them no longer an aggrieved party regarding the impugned mark. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the door remains open for the assignee to initiate proper rectification proceedings.
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No. 314/CHE/2009, concluding that the claims lacked inventive step. The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions regarding prior art and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of a patent for application No. 421/CHE/2009, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of the appellant's contentions regarding prior art and Section 3(e), and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
Prakash Ferrous Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'TIRUMALA' (Application No. 2080181). The High Court set aside the impugned order primarily because it was cryptic and lacked sufficient reasons for its decision. However, since evidence of use was not placed before the authority, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for a reasoned decision after the appellant provides proof of use.
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of a patent application. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions and remanded the matter for re-evaluation by a different officer.
Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision regarding its patent application. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.4 Square Pharmaceuticals Of ... and The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking the removal of Trademark No. 1803072 (XYDI). The court noted that the last registration for this trademark had expired on April 6, 2019. Since the underlying issue—the status of the mark's validity—had changed, the petition was deemed infructuous. Mankind Pharma was granted leave to re-apply should the trademark be restored.
Perennial Health Care India Private Limited v.Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court case involving Perennial Health Care India Private Limited and Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain was concluded when the petitioner chose to withdraw their original petitions. The petitions, which sought various remedies under the Trademarks Act, 1999, including removal of specific trademark entries in Class 5, were formally dismissed as withdrawn by the court on August 23, 2023.
Ramada International, Inc v.La-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc against La-Ramada World Private Limited. Finding that the defendants continued unauthorized use of the 'RAMADA' mark across various digital platforms and domains despite prior court orders, the court made the injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize evidence, including pamphlets and server data, and mandate the shutdown of infringing social media accounts.
Phonepe Private Limited v.Digipe Fintech Private Limited
Phonepe Private Limited challenged Digipe Fintech Private Limited in the Madras High Court, seeking an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'DigiPe', alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Phonepe argued that its distinctive 'PhonePe' brand had immense goodwill and reputation in the digital payment sector. However, the court dismissed Phonepe's appeals, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's arguments across various legal proceedings, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Mritunjay Kumar
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Mritunjay Kumar was settled between the parties. The Court accepted the Consent Terms, which were signed by both sides, and consequently disposed of and decreed the suit.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an information alleging that Boehringer Ingelheim (OP-1 and OP-2) was abusing its patent rights, specifically using the Second Patent to prohibit competitors from using 'Linagliptin' after the First Patent expired. The Commission found no prima facie case warranting an investigation into the matter.
M/s.VP Enterprises v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed M/s.VP Enterprises' appeal, overturning the Senior Examiner's rejection of their trade mark registration application (3894824). The court found that despite objections citing conflicting marks under Section 11(1), the appellant's composite mark was distinctive and distinguishable from the cited marks. Furthermore, evidence of prior use and an existing registration for an identical device in relation to the same services supported the appeal. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement.