India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 142 of 311 · 7,456 total
Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. v.Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark dispute between Modern Doordevices Pvt. Ltd. and Jai Maa Vaishno Traders Pvt. Ltd. The court directed the Registry of Trade Marks to provide the complete record related to the impugned trademark 'INDO GARV' (Registration No. 5361272) for review by the parties. Furthermore, procedural applications regarding document exemptions were disposed of, while notice was issued in the main proceedings.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Mr. Vinod K. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited against Defendant No. 1 for infringing its trademarks ('AQUAGUARD', 'PAANI KA DOCTOR') and copyrights related to water purification systems and spares. The court also awarded damages and costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This judgment underscores that a defendant who evades court proceedings by non-appearance can be held liable for damages, preventing them from benefiting from their evasion.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Pramod Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited against Pramod Jain and others. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions regarding advance service to defendants and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the defendants for inventorying and seizing counterfeit spares bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrighted get-ups.
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v.Santosh Nath And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes against Santosh Nath and others. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of Local Commissioners to visit the defendants' premises to prepare inventories and seize stocks bearing the impugned marks, signaling a strong judicial intent to protect the plaintiff's intellectual property rights.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Vensat Bio & Ors.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment against Defendant No. 3 (Vensat Bio & Ors.) due to sufficient cause of absence. Simultaneously, the court recognized the strong prima facie case presented by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like ORISON/SPORTEK in relation to pharmaceutical products. This dual outcome highlights the procedural complexities alongside the substantive strength of trademark infringement claims.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd. challenged the grant of Patent IN 426553 by alleging that the claims were broadened beyond the original filing scope, violating Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued an interim order addressing procedural matters (CM 61/2023) and directed notice to all parties for further consideration of the main petition.
Jayshree & Company v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors
Jayshree & Company challenged a notice issued by respondents restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws. The restriction was based on an order in a Title Suit where a fuel cell battery manufacturer alleged patent infringement. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing authorities to grant registration provided the vehicles are distinct from those in the ongoing suit.
Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellants appealed against the Assistant Controller's rejection of their patent application for a fungicidal treatment using Ortho-phenyphenol (OPP) to treat black sigatoka in banana plants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentability under Section 3(h).
Ms Lightbook & Anr. v.Mr Pravin Shriram Kadam & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for interim injunctive relief, despite arguments regarding priority of registration and deceptive similarity. The court found that the plaintiffs were disentitled to immediate relief due to their failure to disclose a material fact—a previous admission made by them in response to a Section 57 rectification application filed by the defendants. This omission was deemed a clear case of misrepresentation and concealment, preventing the court from granting an injunction at this preliminary stage.
Jockey International Inc. v.M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Jockey International Inc. against M/S Khalsa Accessories & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that 'JOCKEY' is a well-known trade mark, supported by extensive sales figures and promotional expenditure. While granting procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, the court proceeded with the suit, allowing for further pleadings and setting up the framework for interim injunctive relief.
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Resilient Innovations seeking the removal/rectification of several PhonePe trademarks. The court held that because the petitioner had previously raised objections regarding the descriptive nature and invalidity of the marks in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 292/2019), they were bound by Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This section mandates that challenges to trademark validity must be addressed within the original civil proceeding before the court can allow rectification proceedings.
Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd v.Mukesh Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd's petition seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court found that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to the petitioner's earlier mark, despite both being registered for identical goods in Class 11. Crucially, the judgment established that a challenge under Section 57 does not require the petitioner to prove actual damage, only that the mark is improperly maintained on the register.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma & Ors.
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban' (Patent IN 247381). The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement with all defendants. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit subject to the agreed-upon conditions.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Cipla Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Cipla Limited regarding the commercialization of Apixaban was amicably settled. The defendant confirmed that it did not commercialize the drug under the brand name APIGY until after the expiry of the suit patent.
Amit Jain v.Vikas Gupta
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application seeking dismissal of the trademark infringement suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that since the plaintiff explicitly pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to his own, a clear cause of action existed. The judgment affirmed the principle that an application for rejection must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, treating them as correct.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an earlier decision by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The appellant raised objections concerning the drafting and procedural lapses in the impugned order, specifically noting abrupt conclusions regarding non-compliance with Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The court issued this order to clarify these points, treating it as a corrigendum to the original judgment.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v.Abhinav Mehta And Anr.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed procedural matters concerning an undertaking filed by the respondent. Since the crucial undertaking was not placed on record and the petitioner had not received a copy, the judge directed the parties to coordinate documentation. Consequently, the hearing was re-notified for June 1, 2023, allowing both sides time to ensure all necessary documents are properly presented.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the defendant's application to reject the plaintiff's patent infringement suit. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, clarifying that specific allegations of ongoing sales negate the 'mere apprehension' standard used in previous cases. Furthermore, the court dismissed the contention based on the Aloys Wobben controversy, holding that pending post-grant opposition proceedings do not automatically preclude the institution of an infringement suit.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft challenged the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for a network authentication system under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, arguing that the invention provided a genuine technical solution to security problems. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection based on the flawed interpretation of 'computer program per se,' emphasizing that an algorithm should not be automatically excluded if it offers a tangible technical contribution. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for re-examination regarding novelty and inventive step.
Voiceage Evs Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobie Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Voiceage Evs Llc, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon four specific Indian patents related to EVS Standards in their mobile handsets. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, while also addressing several interlocutory applications concerning document filing and seeking temporary injunctions.
Hamdard National Foundation India v.Government Of Nct Delhi
Hamdard National Foundation India challenged the unrestricted use of 'Rogan Badam Shirin' by Ayurvedic manufacturers for almond oil, arguing it was reserved for Unani medicine. The petition sought directions to prevent unauthorized usage of this terminology. The court noted that the Ministry of Ayush had communicated to State licensing authorities that Raughan-E-Badam Shireen requires a Unani Drug License, thereby satisfying the petitioner's primary relief.
Ten Events And Entertainment v.Novex Communications Private Limited & Ors.
Ten Events And Entertainment filed a declaratory suit challenging the requirement to obtain licenses or NOCs from Defendants, who claimed copyright over songs played during wedding events. The plaintiff argued that such usage falls under 'fair dealing' as per Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts—such as the nature and bona fides of the ceremony—required by law to establish a cause of action for this specific declaration. Consequently, the court dismissed the interim application and directed the plaintiff to show cause why the entire suit should not be dismissed.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, arguing that the rejection lacked due process. The court found that the original order was a 'total mockery' as it merely cut and pasted objections without providing any reasoned analysis or considering the appellant's replies. Recognizing the severe procedural lapses, the Delhi High Court quashed the decision and remanded the application for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the initial proceedings of a suit filed by Bundl Technologies against Pankaj Garg & Ors. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's registered trademark infringes upon and attempts to unfairly capitalize on the goodwill of the 'SWIGGY' mark, which is declared a well-known mark. While procedural steps were taken to register the suit and manage filings, the court specifically queried the counsel regarding the validity of using the 2022 'well-known' status as grounds for challenging the defendant's earlier registered trademark.