India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 143 of 295 · 7,068 total
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
FLOW INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for hearing.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Anil Pendela
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Anil Pendela regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Dream11' brand, successfully argued that the defendant's use of 'Dreamz11 Sports' and the tagline 'Khelo Dil Se' was deceptively similar to their registered marks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using these infringing marks and ordered the suspension of the associated domain name and takedown of social media pages.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, which had declined its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the decline order was non-reasoned and inconsistent with previous judicial decisions. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties to file detailed submissions, brief notes, and relevant documentation before proceeding with the appeal.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings & Ors. v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The petitioner (Bristol Myers Squibb) filed an application seeking correction of clerical and typographical errors in a previous order concerning its US patent infringement suit against Apotex Inc. Separately, the court allowed the respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals) to file its written statement after condoning the delay.
Zippo Manufacturing Company v.Raja Bhai Traders & Anr
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Zippo Manufacturing Company, restraining Defendant No. 3 from manufacturing or selling counterfeit ZIPPO lighters and related goods bearing deceptively similar trademarks. Crucially, the court clarified that this order does not impede the defendant's sale of genuine products. Separately, the court initiated contempt proceedings against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for alleged violation of previous orders, keeping the litigation active.
Apar Industries Limited v.Sh Rummy Chhabra
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute involving the mark "VELLO." Although initially facing an ex-parte injunction against using the mark, Apar Industries Limited voluntarily acknowledged that 'VELO' belonged exclusively to Sh Rummy Chhabra. The court accepted detailed undertakings from Apar, which included ceasing all use of the mark, withdrawing its pending trademark application, and selling off existing stock within a year. Consequently, the underlying suit was decreed based on these mutual commitments.
Sabyasachi Couture v.Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited
In a significant resolution for the fashion industry, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit involving Sabyasachi Couture against Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's trademark rights and undertook not to use or deal in garments bearing the 'SABYASACHI' mark or designs without authorization. This judgment provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved through negotiated settlements.
Amrit Corp. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Amrit Corp. Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the composite label mark 'JUST MILK'. The court found that the combination of the arbitrary word 'JUST' with 'MILK' was suggestive and capable of distinguishing goods, overcoming the objection based on lack of distinctiveness. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to proceed with the registration process for 'JUST MILK', while clarifying that this registration would not grant exclusive rights in the generic term 'MILK'.
M/S Eureka Forbes Limited v.Vaibhav Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited, granting a permanent and mandatory injunction against Vaibhav Agro Industries for trademark infringement. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'AquaSure' on packaged drinking water was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. While the claim for copyright infringement failed due to lack of similarity in artistic works, the core trademark infringement suit was successfully decreed.
Chasvinder Singh v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addressed a writ petition filed by Chasvinder Singh against The Registrar of Copyrights. During arguments, respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate legal remedy for challenging the copyright grant was through a rectification petition under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court granted time to the petitioner to take further instructions before listing the matter for hearing.
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the cancellation of a copyright held by M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods for the label 'KARTIER GOLD 24 CARAT SWISS MILK CHOCO'. This action stemmed from an earlier civil suit regarding trademark infringement. The court found that since the respondent had undertaken in a settlement decree to withdraw and cancel the registration, the petition was allowed.
Alfred Von Schukmann v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Alfred Von Schukmann appealed the rejection of his patent application, titled 'Step-Action Indexing Mechanism,' which was denied by the Patent Office on grounds of lacking inventive step. The appellant argued that the Patent Office's order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that a reasoned decision is mandatory when rejecting an application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs Anr.
Natco Pharma challenged the Assistant Controller's order granting a patent to Novartis for pharmaceutical compositions, arguing that the order was passed with procedural irregularities and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and quashed the impugned order, remanding the application back to the Controller for fresh consideration based on due process.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
Shiv Nadar Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Shiv Nadar Foundation's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its device mark. The court held that because the mark is composite—combining a graphic representation with the institution's name and the word 'SHIKSHA'—it cannot be deemed descriptive in isolation. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement, provided the Appellant agrees not to claim exclusive rights over the common term 'SHIKSHA'.
Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP v.TVC Life Sciences Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, granting a permanent injunction against TVC Life Sciences Ltd and others. The dispute centered on trademark infringement concerning Ayurvedic joint pain relief oils. The court found that the defendants' mark, 'SANDHEE SUDDHAM,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'SANDHI SUDHA.' This decision reinforces the importance of prior use and goodwill in protecting brand identity within the pharmaceutical sector.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Hemant Khanna Trading as M/s V2 Fashion Store
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks, LEVI'S, including the Two Horse Logo. The court found infringement of the registered trademarks and passing off by the defendants.
Virendra Kumar Gupta Trading As M/S Burger King v.Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a Writ Petition filed by Burger King, challenging the registration of a trademark. The petitioner argued that the Registry ignored their prior Notices of Opposition when granting registration to Respondent No. 4. However, the court noted that since the registration occurred before a key precedent was set, counsel for the respondent suggested that rectification might be the appropriate remedy instead of continuing with the current writ petition. The matter has been listed for further arguments.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Toshiba appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its process patent application (No. 5817/DELNP/2013). The High Court found the original rejection order completely unreasoned and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for a fresh decision.
Wockhardt Limited v.Zymes Bioscience Private Limited & Anr.
Wockhardt Limited filed a suit alleging that Zymes Bioscience Private Limited infringed its Indian Patent No. IN 318858, which covers the formulation of a new generation antibiotic combination (2 grams cefepime and 2 grams tazobactam). The court registered the plaint and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products containing this specific combination.
M/S Liberty Footwear Company v.M/S Liberty International
This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.
Siddharth Suri v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Siddharth Suri against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANDAMEN'. The initial refusal was based on similarity to an earlier trade mark under Section 11(1)(b). However, the court found that since 'ANDAMEN' is a name of a sea and does not have a reputation associated with Class-18 goods (leather goods), the absolute ground for refusal under Section 9(1)(a) was not attracted. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, directing the Trademark Registry to process the registration application.