India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 14 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/s Triveni Adhesive and Tapes and 2 others v.The New India Assurance Company Limited
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award in an insurance dispute. The appellants, a partnership firm manufacturing adhesive tapes, suffered total destruction of their manufacturing unit due to a fire on 02.09.2018 and claimed Rs. 3,76,00,000/- under two insurance policies with the respondent. The Arbitrator awarded an additional Rs. 1,56,68,498/- with interest, but the Commercial Court set aside the award for patent illegality and being against public policy. The Allahabad High Court dismissed both the appeal and the appellants' application under Section 34(4) seeking remand, holding that the award lacked findings on contentious issues rather than merely lacking reasons, and therefore the discretionary power under Section 34(4) could not be exercised.
Ratna Bose Represented by Her Husband and Power of Attorney Holder, Priya Sankar Bose v.The Sole Arbitrator, Dilip Kumar Das & Anr.
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged an order dismissing the appellant's Section 34 petition against an arbitral award arising from disputes over National Stock Exchange transactions. The appellant contended that the arbitral tribunal's constitution was vitiated and that she was denied representation by an advocate. The Calcutta High Court found no evidence of bias, noted that the governing rules did not permit advocate representation, and found no patent illegality in the award, dismissing the appeal.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya & Anr.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the Single Judge's order in a Letters Patent Appeal, which had directed the Corporation to incorporate yearly increments earned during the probation period and re-fix the pension of respondent Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya, a former Staff Nurse promoted to Assistant Nursing Tutor. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the pay-protection granted under Condition No.6 of the appointment order covered both salary and benefits, and the Corporation could not subsequently modify these terms to the detriment of the employee at the time of confirmation.
Roja v.Elumalai
This case involved a petition filed by Roja seeking custody of her minor son Yashwin (aged about 6 years) from the respondent Elumalai, filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition, making an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The Madras High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected applications.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the heirs of Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, challenging the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986, a corrigendum thereto dated 5 April 2017, and a subsequent notice dated 27 April 2017 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning their land at Kurla, Mumbai. The court found that the acquisition process failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the award and corrigendum void. The court directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894, and publish a fresh award within three months.
Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited v.Strava Healthcare Private Limited
The plaintiff, Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited, filed a Commercial IP Suit against Strava Healthcare Private Limited for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and damages. Both parties informed the court that they had settled the dispute and tendered Consent Terms signed by their respective directors and advocates. The Bombay High Court took the Consent Terms on record, accepted the statements therein as undertakings to the Court, and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms.
K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v.Central Bureau of Investigation
This criminal appeal was filed by K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi challenging his conviction and five-year sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption (Central), Lucknow in Case No. 12 of 1998 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The primary issue before the Court was procedural—whether the trial court was obligated to send its original record rather than merely a certified copy, as required by Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Court directed the trial court to forward its original record and listed the appeal for hearing on 17.08.2026.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) with respect to land at Kurla, Mumbai, originally notified for acquisition for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that their land was not included in the original 1986 award, and the SLAO's attempt to include it through a corrigendum after 31 years was without legal authority. The Bombay High Court held the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be illegal and void, directing the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894 within three months.
Zarina Dada And Others v.The State of Maharashtra And Others
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued after 31 years, which sought to include the petitioners' land at Kurla, Mumbai within the purview of the original award for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that the corrigendum was without legal authority and that the mandatory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not complied with. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, declaring the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) as illegal and void, and directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation at current market value within three months.
Dr. Badri Prasad and Others v.Furnace Fabrica (India) Limited and Anr.
This was a Leave Petition filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking permission to institute a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court against defendants, two of whom were outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The proposed suit sought a declaration that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st March 2014, along with its addenda dated 9th September 2014 and 9th November 2020, were valid, binding, subsisting, and enforceable with retrospective effect. The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and perusing the relevant paragraphs of the petition and plaint, granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) filed a Leave Petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking leave to institute a commercial suit against Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of amounts under an agreement dated 25th May 2018. The respondent, situated outside the Court's jurisdiction, was required to supply air-conditioned buses to the petitioner from Mumbai and across Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court granted leave, holding that although part of the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction, a material part arose within Mumbai, and the agreement itself stipulated that breaches would be tried by Courts in Mumbai.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
This is an order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 552/2024) before the Delhi High Court concerning an application (I.A. 4622/2025) filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC seeking summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Opella Healthcare Group, submitted that the Defendant's principal line of defence—its trademark and copyright registrations in the label mark and artistic work of PHENSERYL—had been cancelled by the Court vide judgment dated 12.11.2024 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 9/2024. The Defendant did not appear, and the Court deferred adverse orders, listing the matter for 20.07.2026 with a warning that if the Defendant remained unrepresented, the Court would proceed to hear the summary judgment application.
State v.Amrit Lal @ Raja & Ankit Jain
The Delhi District Court acquitted accused Amrit Lal @ Raja and Ankit Jain of charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, arising from FIR No. 861/2014, PS Sarai Rohilla. The prosecution alleged that the accused were dealing in counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks/trade descriptions of Mico/Bosch/Kirlosker products. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, as the most crucial witnesses—the complainant Jitender Kumar and Gulfaraz Makani—failed to appear despite being summoned repeatedly over nearly a decade, and the sole testimony of ASI Mam Chand was insufficient for conviction.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
Ultratech Cement Ltd And Anr v.Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd
This is an interim order in a commercial IP suit filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd and another against Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement. The plaintiff's witness was examined, affidavit of evidence was recorded, and documentary evidence was marked as exhibits. Given that the suit was undefended, the Court Receiver was directed to destroy the seized goods, and the matter was adjourned for final hearing.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Patent No. IN235625 (3573/DELNP/2004) held by AstraZeneca AB. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to withdraw the petition in light of a settlement reached between the parties in a related suit, CS(COMM) 323/2020. Respondent No. 1 raised no objection to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the application and disposed of the revocation petition as withdrawn along with all pending applications.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
This is an order by the Delhi High Court framing issues in a patent infringement suit filed by Largan Precision Co. Ltd against Motorola Mobility India Limited and others concerning Indian Patent No. IN 395095. The defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent on multiple grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court framed eight issues covering infringement, revocation grounds, non-working of the patent, and reliefs, and appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence with a timeline for completion of trial within one year.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear or file any reply, leading the Court to treat the Plaintiff's contentions as uncontroverted. The Bombay High Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, including the appointment of a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear before the Bombay High Court. The Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, appointing a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to search, seize, and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trademark at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The plaintiff, John Cockerill Hamon SA, filed a suit for infringement and passing off of its registered 'HAMON' trademarks against Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited, which was using 'HAMON COOLING' and 'HCS HAMON COOLING' as marks and as part of its corporate name. The plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the HAMON mark. The Bombay High Court allowed the interim application, holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the defendants were derivative users whose authority to use the marks had expired, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored the plaintiff.
Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v.Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.
This is an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed by Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited against the refusal of its application to register the word mark 'ANAAR' in Class 25. The Registrar had rejected the application outright without advertisement, citing similarity with an earlier registered mark under Section 11(1). The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to cause the application to be advertised under the proviso to Section 20(1), enabling consideration of any objections from third parties.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
This case involves Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Petitioner) challenging the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' (Registration No. 2473300 in Class 5) registered in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark registration. The court directed that the Commercial Miscellaneous Petition be tagged with the connected Commercial IP Suit and listed for directions on July 15, 2026.