India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 155 of 295 · 7,068 total
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound 'Alectinib'. The Defendant initially claimed research use only, but subsequently provided an affidavit undertaking not to commercially launch Alectinib until the patent expires or is found invalid. The court accepted these undertakings and decreed the suit.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd. v.Kothari Products Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a cancellation petition concerning the trademark 'GOLDIE'. The court accepted an affidavit of undertaking from Respondent No. 1, which stated that they had never used the impugned mark in trade and that the claimed user date was incorrect. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel/expunge Registration No. 490303 within six weeks.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought to amend its plaint to implead ZTT International Limited as a necessary party, alleging that the entity infringes the plaintiff's patent through the import and sale of optical fibre cable. The court allowed the amendment, finding the proposed defendant was indeed a necessary party based on the facts pleaded in the written statement.
Dahon Technologies Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Dahon Technologies Ltd. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its invention titled 'PUMP', a portable pump for bicycle tyres. The appellant contended that the rejection was non-speaking, violated principles of natural justice, and failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Patents Act.
Pandrol Limited & Anr. v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Pandrol Limited, who filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyright and trademark. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing products and gather evidence from the defendants' premises.
Apaar Homez Mart Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order restraining Apaar Homez Mart from using its trademark 'SEPAL' combined with 'Century'. The court found that M/S. Century World had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the significant increase in the respondent's turnover and the appellant's recent adoption of the mark. This judgment reinforces the principle that if an appellant cannot provide a plausible reason for using a potentially common term like 'Century,' they risk being found to be capitalizing on the goodwill of an established competitor.
Ajax Engineering Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court set aside an order by the Registrar of Trademarks that had rejected the trademark application 'AJAX-MAKES CONCRETE SENSE'. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary, as they had submitted extensive documentation proving continuous use since 1983. The court found that the respondent failed to apply its mind to the documents provided and violated principles of natural justice by issuing a non-speaking order. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration on merits.
Intex Enterprises Private Limited v.Sandeep Kumar
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Intex Enterprises Private Limited against a trial court order that partially vacated an interim injunction. The court found that the trial court had failed to address crucial legal arguments regarding trademark infringement under Section 29(4) and claims of passing off and copyright infringement, despite them being part of the composite suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a comprehensive review of all issues.
Dabur India Limited v.Marico Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed disputes regarding trade dress infringement concerning SAFFOLA products between Dabur and Marico. The court noted that while the defendant had previously represented changes to its packaging (including embossing), it failed to inform the court when certain product lines, like glass bottles or 100gm PET bottles, could not comply with those representations. Consequently, the court revived the plaintiff's interim injunction application for these specific products and imposed a significant cost on the defendant for non-disclosure.
Neetu Singh v.Telegram Fz Llc
Neetu Singh and K.D. Campus Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that their copyrighted course materials, lectures, and books were being illegally disseminated through various Telegram channels. Despite initial takedown requests to Telegram Fz Llc, the infringement continued with new channels appearing daily. The plaintiffs subsequently sought discovery of the identity of the operators running these infringing channels. The Delhi High Court addressed this application by directing Telegram to disclose detailed information regarding the devices, IP addresses, and operators responsible for uploading the copyrighted material.
Ds Biopharma Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Ds Biopharma Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller. The Appellant argued that the grounds for rejection, particularly under Section 3(d), were not properly specified in the hearing notice, violating natural justice. The Court found that the Appellant lacked adequate opportunity to respond to the specific objection under Section 3(d).
Livspace Pte. Ltd. v.Livspace-Reviews.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Livspace Pte. Ltd., directing the blocking of the domain name www.livspace-reviews.com. The court found that the defendant's website, which used a similar mark and contained derogatory reviews, was operating clandestinely to damage Livspace's business reputation. Furthermore, the Court mandated regulatory bodies (DoT and MEITY) to enforce the block and ordered a detailed investigation by the Cyber Crime Unit into the domain's ownership.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed competing claims regarding the maintainability of a trademark infringement suit versus an arbitration clause contained in a family settlement agreement. The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, particularly concerning the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Instead of immediately granting or denying interim relief, the judge directed both parties to file replies to the pending applications (I.A. 12874/2022 and I.A. 13127/2022) before listing them for a final hearing.
Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd. v.Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Apnatime Tech Pvt. Ltd., permanently restraining Tmp Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to its trademark 'APNA'. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APNA SHARE APP' constituted passing off, given the similarity of services offered (online learning/job search). Furthermore, the judgment ordered the cancellation of the infringing domain name and mandated the removal of all related references from social media platforms.
Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. v.Ekta Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed Sardarjibakhsh Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint, enabling them to include claims of trademark infringement alongside existing passing off claims. This amendment was necessitated by a new device mark registration granted during the pendency of the suit. The court permitted both parties to file amended pleadings, ensuring the litigation could proceed with the updated scope of IP rights.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Saurashtra Chemicals And 4 Others
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Limited and Saurashtra Chemicals & Ors. on August 26, 2022. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized in Consent Minutes of Order.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh Co v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
The plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing/importing generic versions of medicines covered by their Indian Patent No. 243301, which relates to Linagliptin compounds. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a good prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing products.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a mutual agreement between the parties. The court examined the memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2022 and found no legal impediment to its terms. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise executed by both parties on August 23, 2022. Consequently, the Madras High Court decreed the case based on the terms of this settlement, allowing the defendant to use a specified label.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms. Y. Aafiya Halima against Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science alleging copyright infringement related to 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief regarding an Australian patent application. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a compromise memo.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima alleging copyright infringement concerning her work on 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief relating to an Australian patent application for the same product. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a joint compromise memo.
Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited v.Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors
The Delhi High Court referred the trademark dispute between Dhyeya Educational Services Private Limited and Dhyeya Ias Patna E Classes Centre & Ors to mediation. The defendants indicated a willingness to settle the matter, stating they would cease using the impugned trademark in the future. This move signals an attempt by both parties to resolve the conflict outside of court through conciliation.
M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania Proprietor Of Amit Agencies & Anr.
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized a comprehensive settlement between M/S Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited (Plaintiff) and Mr. Amit Kumar Sultania (Defendant). The parties amicably resolved their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms. Key outcomes include the Defendant acknowledging infringement of 'JK/JKLC/JK Lakshmi' trademarks, undertaking not to use similar marks, withdrawing specific trademark applications, and destroying all infringing materials.
Delhi Public School Society v.Savita Girdhar And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner's application for an early hearing, noting that the respondents were allegedly in continuous contempt of previous orders and continuing to infringe upon the petitioner's trademark by enrolling new students. The court recognized the urgency due to ongoing alleged infringement despite prior legal dismissals. Consequently, the original hearing date was cancelled, and a new listing was set for September 12, 2022.