India IP Litigation
7,177 annotated decisions
Page 147 of 300 · 7,177 total
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.
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute regarding the scope of an undertaking provided by defendants concerning the use of the trademark 'TOWER'. The court ruled that the undertaking could not be extended to specific goods (Monosodium Glutamate, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Camphor, Hexamine tablets in Class 1, and green raisins in Class 29) because the plaintiff had explicitly acknowledged the defendants' right to use the mark for those categories in their plaint. Consequently, the court modified the undertaking, limiting its restriction only to other goods.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis, the patent holder of IN 276026 covering novel pyrimidine compounds including Ceritinib, alleged that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing the patent by manufacturing and selling Ceritinib under its brand NOXALK. The court found that Natco had infringed the valid suit patent.
Anita Agarwal v.Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.
Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v.Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.
In this commercial suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by both parties. The court allowed Defendant No. 1 to place legal proceeding certificates related to its registered trademarks on record, despite initial objections regarding relevance. Furthermore, upon agreement from the Plaintiff, the court permitted the deletion of Defendant No. 2 (IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd.) from the array of parties, allowing the litigation to proceed with a refined set of defendants.
Aurorax Private Limited v.Bharatx Accelerator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Aurorax Private Limited against Bharatx Accelerator & Ors. The plaintiff, a leading fintech start-up, sought protection for its registered trademark 'BHARATX' which it has used since 2019. The court found that the defendants were using similar marks and domain names, causing market confusion, and consequently restrained them from further use of the infringing trademarks until the final hearing.
New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust v.New Horizon School
The plaintiff, New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust, claimed that it was the registered owner of the trademark 'NEW HORIZON' for educational services. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, New Horizon School, was illegally using a similar name/logo, causing confusion and passing off. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Zephyr Biomedicals v.Lalit Mahajan And Anr
Zephyr Biomedicals filed a post-grant opposition against Patent No. 224469. The court addressed procedural issues regarding the patentee's non-response and the subsequent service of notice after the abolition of the IPAB, allowing the patentee to file a reply.
The Managing Director and Appellate Authority, Tasmac v.M.Loganathan
Tasmac appealed an interim order from the Single Judge, which directed them to provide certain commercially sensitive information regarding liquor purchasing rates in a sealed cover. Tasmac argued that this information constituted trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
M/S V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.M/S Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by V-Guard Industries against an order that deemed its trademark opposition abandoned. The court held that the strict interpretation of 'leave with the Registrar' in the Trade Marks Rules should not lead to the evisceration of a citizen's valuable commercial right to oppose registration. Despite the evidence being received three days late, the High Court set aside the abandonment order and directed the Deputy Registrar to proceed with considering V-Guard's opposition.
V-Guard Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in V-Guard Industries Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trademarks and Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd., directing that the present appeal be listed along with another case for a final hearing on January 6, 2023. This interim order manages the procedural timeline of the ongoing trademark dispute between the parties.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its application for patent (No. 3304/DEL/2005). The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for computer programs. Microsoft argued that the reliance on outdated guidelines was incorrect and cited prior court views supporting patentability.
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Whirlpool Properties, Inc. against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its device mark application. The court found that the coined word 'AFFRESH' was inherently distinctive and not descriptive, thus overcoming objections under Section 9(1)(a). Furthermore, after reviewing cited marks, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar to existing registrations, allowing the registration process to continue.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's MATTEO range of switch plates infringed upon three registered designs (296178, 296179, and 296180) held by the plaintiff for its LYNCUS switch plates. The court examined physical samples and photographs to determine infringement.
Perkinelmer Health Sciences Inc And Ors v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged an order refusing a patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, based on Section 3(f). The Appellant argued that the objection was raised for the first time at the hearing stage without prior notice, violating natural justice. The Court agreed, finding that the Respondent violated procedural fairness by not communicating all objections in advance.
Adani Wilmar Limited v.Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex legal issue concerning the enforceability of trademark rights after a party voluntarily waives actionable claims related to that brand. The court specifically examined an affidavit where the defendant, Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., declared they forewent any enforceable right in their unregistered brand 'Shubh Labh Fortune' for GST exemption purposes. Given the implications on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court directed the Department of Revenue to file its stand and submissions in the current proceedings.
Modi Naturals Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Modi Naturals Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark, 'OLEEV ACTIVE'. The court found that the coined word 'OLEEV', combined with 'ACTIVE' and a slogan, was distinctive and not merely descriptive. Furthermore, it determined that the subject mark was not deceptively similar to any earlier marks cited in the examination report. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with the registration process.
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited v.M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited appealed against an order passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, which allowed temporary injunctions sought by the plaintiff. The appeal challenged the misuse and misrepresentation of the plaintiff's logo, channel name, and assets by the defendants. The High Court dismissed the appeals but held that the impugned order was subject to the trial court's determination of jurisdiction.
N.V. Satheesh Madhav And Anr v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for an invention related to a bio-bed and method for growing Vigna radiata plants. The initial objections included lack of inventive step, non-patentable subject matter (Section 3(h)), and clarity issues. Although some objections were dropped, the final refusal was based on Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d).
Metis Eduventures Private Limited v.Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Metis Eduventures Private Limited against Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors. The court found a prima facie case based on the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'CAREER POWER' trademark in the education sector. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing marks across e-commerce websites and directed to remove specific content featuring the mark.
Jivraj Tea Limited v.Dayalji Vanravan Kotecha
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning tea brands. The plaintiff, Jivraj Tea Limited, argued that its registered mark 'JIVRAJ-9' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'DOUBLE HAATHI PREMIUM TEA NO.9'. However, given the introduction of additional pleadings and documents during the appeal process, the High Court found it necessary to remand the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the interim injunction application.
Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj v.Mr. Gagan Bhardwaj
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector, the Delhi High Court issued a series of orders. The court granted an interim restraint on the defendant from manufacturing or selling similar products while allowing him to liquidate his existing stock within three months. Furthermore, the parties were mandated to undergo mediation, signaling that the dispute will proceed through structured negotiation before further litigation.
M/S Soktas Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret As v.ACIT, International Taxation
The assessee, a Turkish non-resident entity specializing in textile production, received consideration for granting an exclusive and perpetual license to use its trademarks and brand names to its Indian subsidiary. The core dispute was whether this payment constituted royalty or capital gains under the India-Turkey Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8620/DELNP/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The original rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the claimed method for repairing a gas flue inside was merely standard operation or part of an operational manual. Nippon Steel contended that its claims disclosed several unique technical steps ignored by the Examiner. The Delhi High Court issued directions for both parties to file detailed submissions and supporting documents before proceeding with the appeal.