India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 131 of 311 · 7,456 total
United Biotech Private Limited v.Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court allowed United Biotech Private Limited's petition seeking the removal of the trade mark 'ONCONASE' (No. 447044) registered in favour of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited. The court found that the mark had not been used since its registration, thereby satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
Dxn Holdings Bhd v.Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by Dxn Holdings Bhd seeking the removal of specific trademarks from the register. The court noted that the last registration date of the marks was in 2021, and crucially, the first respondent (Daehsan Trading) was found to be under liquidation. Given these developments, the petitions were deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps for mark removal.
M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd v.Sh. Gopal Shinghal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd's petition seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'GMT' held by Sh. Gopal Shinghal. The court found that 'GMT' is deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'GM', which has been in continuous use since 1999 for electrical goods. Given the prior adoption and substantial goodwill of 'GM', the registration of 'GMT' was deemed contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Sun Pictures A Division Of Sun Tv Network Ltd.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark infringement suit filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Sun Pictures. The dispute centered on the use of the RCB team jersey in a derogatory manner within the film 'Jailer.' Through mutual agreement, the court decreed that the defendants must digitally alter all depictions of the RCB jersey and sponsor branding to ensure it is not identifiable before further release, effectively resolving the brand dilution concerns.
M/s.Navketan Enterprises v.Sandeep A. Jain and The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Navketan Enterprises seeking the removal of an impugned trade mark from the register. The court noted that the petitioner had been instructed to withdraw the petition, citing a deed of assignment dated July 3, 2019, which transferred ownership of the mark to them. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed as withdrawn.
Sprng Marketing Consulting Llp v.Union Of India
The Karnataka High Court allowed Sprng Marketing Consulting Llp's petition, setting aside an earlier rejection of its trademark application 'Spring.' The court found that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to present further arguments after a technical glitch during a virtual hearing. Consequently, the matter has been remitted back to the Trademark Registry for fresh disposal, with a specific date set for the petitioner's appearance.
M/S.Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions filed by M/S.Rspl Health Private Limited, which sought to have the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT' removed from the register. The court found that despite the petitioner's earlier marks, there was no likelihood of confusion among the average consumer when comparing 'XPERT' and 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's plea regarding bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii), stating that such a claim requires cogent evidence beyond mere similarity.
Dolphin Mart Private Limited v.Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed two key applications. First, it permitted the defendants (Avenue Supermarts) to introduce crucial trademark registration certificates into evidence, noting that since these were issued post-filing of the written statement and are in the public domain, they should be admissible. Second, regarding the plaintiff's request for an interim injunction against infringement, the Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored them.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Pradeep Dhidaria
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an Interim Application against Pradeep Dhidaria alleging that the latter had slavishly copied the original artistic work featured on the Plaintiff's product packaging. The court examined the resemblance, noting similarities in elements like the starburst and globe depiction used on the rival product's trademark 'MASTER'. Based on this prima facie finding of copying and subsisting copyright, the court continued the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier.
Saint Gobain Construction Products Uk Limited v.Cyp Rock Industries
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK challenged the registration of 'GYP-ROCK INDUSTRIES' by Cyp Rock Industries, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their established trademark 'GYPROC'. The dispute centered on potential consumer confusion in the market. However, the court accepted the respondent's affidavit, wherein they voluntarily agreed to seek cancellation and cease using the mark. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed with the voluntary cancellation process before the Trademark Registry.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The suit between Unilever Global Ip Limited and Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after the parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in a decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons was settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which included a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and mutual undertakings regarding the destruction of seized goods.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The Commercial Suit filed by Unilever Global Ip Limited against Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after both parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in the decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons regarding alleged trademark infringement was settled between both parties. The Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Novozymes A/S v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Novozymes A/S filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No.1691/CHENP/2010. However, the learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed the court to withdraw the appeal.
Adhya Kumar v.Mulligan Concept Teachers Association
The petitioner, Adhya Kumar, filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and restore opposition proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3010257 in Classes 16 and 41. The appeal was ultimately closed after the court noted the prior decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons And Anr.
The dispute between Marico Limited (Plaintiff) and MW & Sons And Anr. (Defendants) concerning alleged infringement was settled on August 18, 2023. The parties entered into a Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Feroke Boards Limited v.Universal Hardware
The Madras High Court allowed rectification petitions filed by Feroke Boards Limited against Universal Hardware and the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that the petitioner had prior use rights for marks like 'FERO' and 'FEROPLY' since 1990, in a near-identical business sector (boards and construction materials). Despite the respondent's attempt to distinguish their composite marks by adding initials ('MK'), the court ruled that this adoption was not honest and was likely to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the infringing trademark entries were removed from the register.
Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. v.Narendra Kumar Gupta
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'KENNOL.' The court noted that the mark had been deemed abandoned because the first respondent failed to file a counter statement in response to the petitioner's opposition notice. Consequently, the original legal challenge became moot.
M/s.Sree Krishna Pipes v.M/s.Premier PVC Industry
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Sree Krishna Pipes' petition, directing the removal of a conflicting trademark registration (No. 1120546) held by M/s. Premier PVC Industry. The court found that despite minor spelling differences ('PREMIER' vs 'Preemier'), both marks were used for identical goods—PVC pipes—and their near-identical nature was highly likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers. This ruling reinforces the principle of preventing consumer confusion in trademark law, even when slight variations exist.
Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private Limited v.Popular Entertainment Network (Pen) Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, which sought to prevent Defendants from releasing a film titled 'Khiladi'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and determined that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants. Despite the Plaintiff claiming extensive goodwill and secondary meaning for its trademark 'KHILADI', the Court held that movie titles alone do not warrant an injunction without content similarity, ultimately allowing the disputed film's release.
V.Periasamy, Finetech Pipe Products v.V.Shanmugham, S.Sudha; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by V.Periasamy against V.Shanmugham and the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought to cancel a registered trademark (No. 1005460) in Class 17, alleging it was obtained unlawfully. However, due to repeated failure to appear before the court despite proper notice, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Shree Amba Industries
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging that the latter was infringing Hero's registered design (No. 271199) of a motorcycle front fender used on the HERO HF DELUXE model. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's product was a copy and constituted piracy. However, while examining the prima facie case for an interim injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, noting that consumers could make informed choices between OEM and third-party parts. Consequently, the application for interim injunction was dismissed.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.