India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 136 of 295 · 7,068 total
Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute arising from the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement between Aviral Education Welfare and Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS). Following the termination, AEWCS continued operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad,' leading to concurrent litigation regarding trademark and copyright infringement. The court addressed both the contractual dispute and the IP misuse, ultimately finding that while the termination clause was binding, the public needed clarity regarding the school's affiliation status.
Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society v.Delhi Public School Society
This case involved a dispute between Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) and Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) following the termination of their Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). The core issues revolved around whether AEWCS could continue operating as 'Delhi Public School, Sahibabad' using DPSS's name and logos after the JVA ended. While AEWCS challenged the arbitrary nature of the termination, the court found the contractual clause binding. However, addressing public interest, the Court issued a directive requiring DPSS to issue public notices clarifying that students enrolled at DPS Sahibabad would be entitled to admissions in other regional schools.
Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the refusal of their Indian Patent Application No. 201911036748 by the Controller on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(d) and lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the invention was novel, inventive, and not subject to the bar of Section 3(d). However, the High Court upheld the Controller's refusal.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed against an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its Indian Patent Application No. 10246/DELNP/2012. The rejection was based on Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued directions for filing replies and further pleadings.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Immersion Corporation, filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff through their manufacture and sale of mobile handsets. The court allowed procedural applications regarding document submission and exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
The petitioner sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 301322 (Impugned Patent) registered in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2, arguing that it was liable to be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption for filing annexures and directed notice to be issued to the respondents.
Umai Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ramesh Kumar & Anr.
In a series of rectification petitions, Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited sought the cancellation of several trademarks owned by Ramesh Kumar and others. The court noted that the respondents had entered into a settlement with the petitioner and subsequently filed applications with the Trade Marks Registry to voluntarily withdraw or cancel the disputed marks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of these withdrawal applications within three weeks, effectively disposing of the rectification petitions pending compliance.
Ms Bharat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks Also Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed objections raised in a rectification petition concerning the trademark 'LUBI'. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the registration occurred in Ahmedabad and not New Delhi. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner's filing was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to a prior pending suit in the District Court at Ahmedabad. Given these complex jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court decided to renotify the matter for further consideration.
Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation v.Meera Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a civil original trademark rectification petition filed by Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation against Meera Devi. The court found that the respondent's adoption and use of the similar mark 'BAL BIHARI SUPER' was dishonest, as it followed an earlier acknowledgment of the petitioner's rights by her husband. Given the identical nature of the goods (tobacco products) and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court ordered the removal of the impugned trademark from the Register.
Dorco Co Ltd v.Durga Enterprises And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Dorco Co Ltd against Durga Enterprises And Anr, successfully removing the infringing 'DORCO' trademark (Registration No. 1252224) from the register. The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of the mark for five years and that its registration was obtained dishonestly to ride on Dorco’s established goodwill. This ruling reinforces the principle that trademarks must be used genuinely, and prior users with strong reputation have superior rights.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Suffee Garments
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling shirts and apparels bearing falsified trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse logo') and deceptively similar designs (Arcuate Stitching) of the plaintiff. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement and passing off.
Gpl Exports Limited & Golden Peakock Overseas Limited v.Global Lighting Source Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a comprehensive settlement reached between GPL Exports Limited and Global Lighting Source Private Limited. The original suit involved claims related to intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, designs, and confidential information concerning the lighting industry. By entering into a mediated agreement, both parties resolved their disputes, with the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the settlement.
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited v.Government of India
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to call for the records of the Government of India concerning two specific patent applications (Nos. 211904 and 196432) and quash the related order dated 04.12.2017. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the prayer had become infructuous.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The dispute involved Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd asserting its exclusive patent rights over a specific suspo-emulsion formulation. The parties reached a settlement regarding Defendant No. 1 (BR Agrotech), acknowledging the Plaintiff's patent validity and granting a permanent injunction against infringement.
P.Periyasamy v.M/S.Jaya Jeya Agro Mills
The plaintiff filed civil suits alleging that the defendants infringed his registered copyright concerning the artistic and literary work detailing a precast concrete chimney. The court addressed multiple suits, ultimately dismissing C.S.No.102/2018 as not pressed for against one defendant, while granting relief in C.S.No.96/2018.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Indo Mim Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Pabitra Kumar Swain
The plaintiff, a company specializing in MIM products, filed a suit against its former employee (Defendant No. 1) and his new employer (Defendant No. 2), alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement by soliciting employees and customers after resignation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding solicitation and loss, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.