India IP Litigation
7,177 annotated decisions
Page 141 of 300 · 7,177 total
Visage Beauty & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.Herbal Carts & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several crucial interim orders in the trademark infringement suit, Visage Beauty & Healthcare vs Herbal Carts & Ors. The court directed Fashnear Technologies Pvt. Ltd., an e-commerce intermediary, to provide contact details of sellers listing infringing products on its platform. Furthermore, the court allowed the impleadment of a proposed defendant involved in alleged collusion and deferred the request by Facebook Inc. to modify existing interim injunction terms regarding 'similar' vs. 'identical' URLs.
Rusan Pharma Ltd v.Aumgen Pharma Llp & Ors
The case involved a settlement agreement between RUSAN PHARMA LTD and AUMGEN PHARMA LLP regarding patent infringement. The defendants agreed not to engage in activities infringing the plaintiff's patent.
Dr. Sapna Nangia v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dr. Sapna Nangia appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which found that her patent application lacked inventive step based on cited prior arts D1-D3. The appellant argued that the decision was non-reasoned, leading to a request for remand.
Umang Dairies Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Umang Dairies Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark 'WHITE MAGIK'. The court found that while the word 'WHITE' might relate to milk products, the composite mark is suggestive rather than descriptive. Furthermore, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar from cited marks and noted that evidence of use had been on record but overlooked by the Examiner. Consequently, the refusal was set aside, and the registration process was directed to proceed.
Smithkline Beecham Limited v.Gskfinancial.Com & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, Smithkline Beecham Limited sought relief against rogue websites operating under similar domains like gskfinancial.com. The plaintiff alleged that these sites were fraudulently collecting money from the public while incorporating its corporate identity and trademarks (GSK). The court issued extensive interim directions, including permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, restraints on domain name registration, and specific orders to block access to fraudulent websites and freeze associated bank accounts.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a review application challenging an earlier order. The core issue was whether his implicit challenge to the constitutional validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, had been overlooked during the original proceedings.
Adama India Private Limited v.Fmc Corporation & Anr.
Adama India Private Limited filed a suit seeking a declaration that its process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) does not infringe Patent No. IN 298645 held by FMC Corporation. The court, while addressing an interim application, granted a temporary restraint on the defendants from contacting distributors or regulatory authorities to prevent business hindrance.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of an identical trademark from the register, arguing that their own mark was already registered. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Inbrew but granted Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. an opportunity to respond before making a final decision on the removal prayer. This interim order sets the stage for further litigation regarding trademark rights.
Landmark Crafts Private Limited v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary & Anr.
This order in Landmark Crafts Private Limited vs Union Of India concerns the rectification of Trademark No. 266607. The court noted that the matter was pending and scheduled it to be listed before the IP Division on March 2, 2023. This procedural step indicates the ongoing legal process aimed at correcting issues related to the registered trademark.
Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Rajdeep Sharma & Anr.
Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd filed a contempt petition alleging that Mr. Rajdeep Sharma and others were willfully disobeying a prior court order dated May 11, 2017. The original order required the respondents not to use the 'CLARIDGES' trademark. Claridges presented evidence showing the respondent continued using the trademark for a real estate project in advertisements. While the petition was filed alleging infringement and contempt, the Court issued directions for further proceedings rather than delivering a final judgment.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
Laboratoires Expanscience v.Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Laboratoires Expanscience seeking the rectification of the trademark register. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's registration of the word mark 'MUSTELA' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations) infringed upon its own prior, registered rights in Class 3 (non-medicated skin care). Crucially, the respondent agreed to relinquish the mark and cooperate with its deletion. Consequently, the Court directed the removal of the impugned registration, rectifying the register accordingly.
Surender Kumar v.The Registrar Of Trademakrs
The Delhi High Court allowed Surender Kumar's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to refuse registration for the mark 'CANON'. The court found that the Senior Examiner erred by disregarding a prior settlement decree, which explicitly permitted the use and registration of 'CANON' for the services applied for. Furthermore, the court dismissed objections regarding user date requirements as they were introduced after the application was filed. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the Registry was directed to proceed with the mark's advertisement and registration.
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v.State Of U.P. And 11 Others
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking directions to state authorities to initiate proceedings against private respondents for alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner sought mandatory action under both IP statutes. However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that if any violation exists, the petitioner must pursue remedies through an FIR or other permissible legal actions, rather than seeking enforcement via writ jurisdiction.
American International School Chennai v.American International School Greater Noida & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of American International School Chennai against American International School Greater Noida. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant's use of the name 'American International School' was likely to deceive the public. This crucial early ruling protects the plaintiff's registered trademarks while the full litigation proceeds.
Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Travelodge Hotels India(Ip) Pte Ltd against the Trademark Registry's refusal of its application for 'TRAVELODGE SKYE'. Despite concerns regarding similarity with prior marks, the court directed that the subject mark be permitted to be advertised without acceptance. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with the registration process while any underlying disputes over the core 'TRAVELODGE' mark remain pending.
Vending Updates (India) Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Vending Updates (India) Private Limited against the refusal of its device mark registration. The initial objection, based on similarity to Amazon's registered trademark, was overcome when Amazon Technologies, Inc. provided a Letter of Consent. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection order and directed the application to proceed towards publication and registration.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition seeking mandamus from the Delhi High Court to compel the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks to restore his patent application. The application, for a "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," had been deemed abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. Chaudhary contended that the abandonment was an error caused by his erstwhile Patent Agent and that he never intended to abandon the invention.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietor M/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff, H.S. Sahni, seeking a stay under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court issued notice to the defendants and set the matter for return on July 4, 2023. This order indicates that the dispute regarding trademark rights is actively progressing through litigation.
Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Desert Friendly Camps Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its trademark application, 'THE SERAI JAISALMER.' The court found that the mark was not descriptive for Class 43 services, especially given the existence of a nearly identical registered mark in the same classes. Furthermore, considering the lapse or refusal status of most cited prior marks, the Court directed the Trademark Registry to process and advertise the application, subject to an explicit disclaimer regarding the word 'JAISALMER.'
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Google Llc
The Delhi High Court framed several key issues in the dispute between Winzo Games Private Limited and Google LLC regarding a warning displayed on Chrome Mobile Browser. The core questions revolve around whether this warning constitutes disparagement of WinZO's trademarks, amounts to trademark use under the Trade Marks Act, or violates contractual obligations. Both parties have been directed to file a joint schedule for recording evidence, signaling that the matter is moving into the substantive trial phase.
M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd. v.M/S S M Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd against a prior order that denied a temporary injunction. The plaintiff sought to stop the defendant from using the trade name 'POLYGON', claiming it infringed upon their registered trademark 'POLYCON'. However, the court found no prima facie case for infringement or passing off, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding market goodwill or proof of prior use. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the court clarified this ruling does not prejudice the final trial on merits.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mobilfuels Private Limited & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Exxon Mobil Corporation challenged the use of an impugned mark by Mobilfuels Private Limited. While the defendant claimed to be giving up the mark, the court noted that the defendant had also filed a registration application which needed withdrawal. The court directed the defendant to place communication regarding the withdrawal on record and scheduled a future hearing specifically to address claims for costs and damages.
Gopika Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the renewal of Trademark No. 1039952, which was originally registered under Dayal Industries Limited but subsequently renewed in the name of its sister concern. The court heard arguments regarding whether this change constituted a bona fide mistake or an improper transfer. To clarify the complex factual matrix, the Court issued directions requiring all relevant respondents to file detailed affidavits and produce supporting documentation within three weeks.