India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 14 of 295 · 7,068 total
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor Of Fashionista & Ors.
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a contempt petition against Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor of Fashionista & Ors., alleging willful disobedience of a compromise decree dated 13.10.2025. The original suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unauthorized use of Nike's intellectual property. Despite settling the matter and undertaking to cease all infringing activities, the petitioner presented evidence showing the respondents continued selling and soliciting the impugned goods. Consequently, the court found prima facie grounds for contempt and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize the infringing materials.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed an application seeking condonation of a 53-day delay in filing an Appeal against the refusal of Patent Application No. 201917042060. The Respondent accepted the notice and stated they had no objection to the condonation.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the rejection of a patent application for 'Composition comprising human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives' based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued that deriving these stem cells requires the destructive use of human embryos, making the invention contrary to public order or morality. The High Court upheld the rejection.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited v.Gsp Crop Science Limited & Anr.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN 394568. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within four weeks.
woodland aero club pvt ltd v.ms narayan enterprises anr
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. sued M/S Narayan Enterprises for unauthorized use of its registered trademarks 'WOODLAND' and the Tree Mark Logo on jackets, causing likelihood of confusion among consumers. Defendant No. 1 was selling infringing jackets at a significantly lower price than Woodland’s genuine products.
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration (TM Application no. 4287348) held by Respondent No. 2, alleging non-use of the mark for over five years in Class 43. The petitioner presented evidence suggesting that the registered party lacked necessary operational licenses and was not conducting services under the impugned mark. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued directions to serve notice upon all parties before listing the matter for final adjudication.
Zafar Alam & Anr. v.Mahesh Kumar
This Delhi High Court order addresses multiple interim applications concerning a trademark dispute involving 'LINK' and its variants. The Plaintiffs filed an application alleging wilful disobedience of a prior injunction, while the Defendant sought to vacate that same injunction. The court noted procedural lapses, specifically the Plaintiffs' failure to file required written submissions. Consequently, the court directed the Plaintiffs to submit their written arguments within two weeks before proceeding with the merits of the applications.
Arq Providores v.Schloss Hma Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Arq Providores against Schloss Hma Private Limited. While the court acknowledged the likelihood of confusion and potential harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, it balanced this against the Defendants' existing use of the marks since November 2024. Consequently, the Court granted a conditional interim injunction, requiring the Defendants to restrict the use of 'ARQ' only in conjunction with their house mark 'THE LEELA' for specific services (Class 43), discontinue an infringing logo by December 15, 2025, and refrain from using 'ARQ' for certain food/catering services.
Rajiv Mukul & Anr. v.Goutam Chand
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the court facilitated a potential settlement between the parties. The defendant indicated willingness to resolve the matter amicably while confirming the use of its registered trademark. The plaintiff agreed to review the defendant's new packaging and trademark before taking further action. Both sides were directed to meet within two weeks to discuss resolution, alongside procedural directions regarding proof of service.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
M/S Nice Confectionary v.M/S Nice Food Products
The petition challenged an arbitration award related to a trademark dispute. The claimant (M/s Nice Food Products) alleged that the petitioner (M/s Nice Confectionary), who used the trademark 'PRIKA'S CHAA-PAT', breached the conditions of a 2005 license agreement. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claim.
Dassault Systèmes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Madhav Arora & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and allowing various procedural applications related to evidence and service.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute arising from a family arrangement, involving the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal', constituted a 'Commercial Dispute'. The plaintiff argued that the matter was purely familial and not commercial. However, the court found that the reliefs sought—specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using or permitting others to use the trademark—manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit must be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court under the Act of 2015.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Chaudhary Beverage & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archian Foods Private Limited against Chaudhary Beverage & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the Plaintiff, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an interim injunction through the appointment of a Local Commissioner, enabling site inspection and seizure of infringing products related to the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.M/S Maxford Healthcare And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings against M/S Maxford Healthcare. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed an ex parte ad interim injunction based on a local commission, which will investigate alleged infringement of the 'PROTINEX' mark and associated trade dress by the defendants' 'PROTILOX' products.
Ms.Nischitha S Katta, Proprietor of SatvaDaily v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions filed by Ms. Nischitha S Katta seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to recognize her as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'SATVADAILY'. The petitioner sought the completion of assignments across various classes (29, 30, and 31) based on an Assignment Deed dated December 9, 2024. After considering the respondent's submission that they had already initiated the process, the Court closed the petitions but issued a clear directive to the Registrar to finalize the assignment exercise within eight weeks.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Nayan India Science And Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 407425, titled 'CROWD-SOURCED ON DEMAND AI DATA ANNOTATION, COLLECTION AND PROCESSING', which was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. The Court issued notice to all parties and set timelines for filing replies.
Sysvine Technologies Private Limited v.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a Writ Petition filed by Sysvine Technologies seeking action against another party for alleged trademark violation. Although the court noted that the petition was not maintainable as a direct request for an FIR registration, it issued a crucial direction. The court mandated that the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cell must consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 and take appropriate legal action within eight weeks.
Gsp Crop Science Ltd v.Gilehri Organics & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Gsp Crop Science Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the infringement of its Indian Patent (IN'568) related to a synergistic formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court passed an order addressing various interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing for urgent interim relief measures.
Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd., seeking a Mandamus order to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to issue their trademark. The petitioner's application was pending due to an opposition filed by a third party. The court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner instead to file an expedite application directly with the Registrar, who must then process it as quickly as possible.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Calcutta High Court for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'JAY'S,' registered by Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo's well-established brand, 'LAY'S.' Given the similarity in goods (snack foods) and the petitioner's immense goodwill, the court ruled that the registration of 'JAY'S' violated the Trademarks Act and must be cancelled.