India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 156 of 295 · 7,068 total
Janssen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Plaintiffs, exclusive licensees of a patent holder (Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation), filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and marketing Canagliflozin Tablets/Capsules, which falls under Indian Patent No. 232231. The defendant opposed the interim injunction, arguing that damages could be quantified and there was no irreparable loss. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
3D Systems Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
3D Systems Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 201717015945) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design on grounds of lack of inventive step. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file written submissions.
Gogoro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Gogoro Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Asst. Controller of Patents regarding its application for an apparatus and method for authentication and control of power storage devices. The Appellant argued that the rejection was unreasoned, failed to consider all cited prior arts (D1, D2), and lacked clarity on which claims lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning and set it aside.
M/S. Navneet Education Ltd. v.M/s. Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Navneet Education Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction and damages against Balsam Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of copyright in its educational materials, specifically 'GRAFALCO Pre-School Numbers (1 to 100)'. The court examined the similarities between the two books but ultimately found that the content lacked originality and was not a substantial copy.
New India Biri Factory v.Mohd Saleem & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, New India Biri Factory, while addressing various procedural applications. The court dispensed with pre-institution mediation and granted leave to file additional documents, streamlining the litigation process. Crucially, the court also granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a search and seizure operation via Local Commissioners against the Defendants' premises to prevent further infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works.
Om Shivam Utpadan v.Saraswati Utpadan Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark and copyright rectification petitions after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement through mediation. The agreement outlines specific usage rights for both parties' marks and logos, allowing them to continue using certain designs under modified conditions while withdrawing ongoing legal challenges. This resolution provides clarity on their respective intellectual property rights moving forward.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application, which was held by the Controller to be non-maintainable because it belonged to the same broad class as the granted parent application. The appeal challenged the ground that the subject matter formed a single inventive concept.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
The petitioner filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke patent number 247381 covering APIXABAN. The court allowed notice and directed the completion of pleadings within prescribed timelines.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs an interim injunction in a suit alleging trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement. The court found that the defendants, former employees, had gained access to proprietary technical know-how and confidential business information regarding prenatal supplements (TRIMACARE/LAYERCARE). Based on this prima facie case, the court authorized local commissioners to seize digital data, stock of infringing products ('NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE'), and relevant documents to prevent irreparable injury.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) v.Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. (SDM Group)
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the ongoing commercial dispute between Braj Mohan Rathore (BMR Group) and Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. (SDM Group). The court focused on facilitating an amicable resolution, particularly concerning the valuation of the flagship brand 'SALONI' and the use of the name 'MAHESH'. Both parties were directed to exchange financial data and present proposals regarding brand distinction before the next hearing.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Lv Bhavani Sankar
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Lv Bhavani Sankar. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FREEDOM' by the Defendant's use of 'FREEDAY' for refined sunflower oil. Crucially, the Court noted that the Defendant's mark had previously been cancelled by the IPAB due to deceptive similarity. Given the near-identical packaging and the concern over food safety standards, the court found a prima facie case existed, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Vikram A Sreerama v.U. Galeppa Reddy
The plaintiff filed an arbitration suit challenging an arbitral award related to a partnership firm that developed 'Amvicube PA 2.0', a machine for detecting broken rice grains. The plaintiff alleged misappropriation of IP rights and assets by the defendant, but the court upheld the original arbitral award.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals
The suit was decreed for the lifetime of Indian Patent No. 237430, prohibiting the defendants from manufacturing or selling pharmaceutical preparations containing Nilotinib.
Somesh Choudhary v.Knight Riders Sports Private Limited
The appellant, Somesh Choudhary (a shareholder), appealed an order admitting an application filed by Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd (the operational creditor) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The core dispute was whether the non-payment of Minimum Guaranteed Royalties for using the KKR trademark on licensed products constituted an 'operational debt'.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
The defendant filed an application seeking production of various documents, including global license agreements, declarations of essentiality to ETSI, and statements of working related to Ericsson's patents. The court observed that while some documents were relevant for FRAND determination, the burden lay on the defendant to prove comparability in trial, and thus dismissed the application.
Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant, Hanmi Pharm. Co. Ltd., filed two interlocutory applications before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of I.A. 12819/2022 as infructuous based on the counsel's submission. Furthermore, the application seeking leave to file additional documents (I.A. 12818/2022) was allowed.
Ruptech Educational India v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous rejection of Ruptech Educational India's trademark application ('SCOTTISH HIGH EARLY YEARS') under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The rejection was based on cited marks owned by Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, but subsequent to the initial order, these conflicting applications were withdrawn following a settlement agreement reached in a related commercial suit. The Court held that since the objections no longer existed, the application should proceed to advertisement.
M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Union Of India & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S Vee Excel Drugs & Pharmaceuticals challenging an IPAB order that directed the cancellation of its registered trademark 'VEGA ASIA'. The court upheld the IPAB's finding regarding prior use by the respondent, noting that while the petitioner argued for earlier adoption and assignment rights, the evidence presented by the respondent was sufficient to establish their claim of user since 2001. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required when challenging rectification orders before a High Court.
Art Screw Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Art Screw Co., Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 6541/DELNP/ 2011) by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which cited lack of inventive step. The court directed the petitioner to place international granted patents on record and ordered further submissions from both parties.
Deepak Kumar Khemka v.Lakshmi Chand & Sons
The plaintiff, M/s Wizard Fragrances, sued the defendants alleging that they were infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks (SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS) by adopting and using 'SHUDH RATAN'. The plaintiff argued that this constituted passing off and dilution of goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Parle Agro Private Limited / Surya Fresh Foods Limited v.Surya Fresh Foods Private Limited / Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing disputes between Parle Agro and Surya Fresh Foods concerning the trade dress of their competing apple-based beverages, 'APPY FIZZ' and 'FRESH FIZZY'. Recognizing a willingness among the parties to find an amicable solution through modifications to the trade dress, the court directed both companies to participate in mediation. This move signals a judicial preference for alternative dispute resolution while keeping the core infringement suits active.
Asian Paints Limited v.B. N. Ravi Prakash
The court heard arguments regarding the service of process in an ongoing IPR suit. After confirming that the defendant had been duly served, the Leave Petition was made absolute. The court granted the defendant one more opportunity to appear before considering the main prayer for passing off.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Vikas
This interim application sought to continue and grant further ad-interim relief against the defendant, Vikas. The court reviewed the findings of the Court Receiver regarding additional infringing goods and permitted amendments to the plaint. Consequently, the court ordered the continuation of the exparte ad-interim injunctions.