India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 161 of 295 · 7,068 total
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.
M/s Unik Industries v.M/s Amazon India Ltd.
M/s Unik Industries filed a contempt case against M/s Amazon India Ltd. alleging willful disobedience of an interim order regarding the removal of infringing design patent products (clothing hangers) from its online portal. The petitioner claimed continuous infringement despite compliance efforts. However, the court found that since Amazon acted as an intermediary and listings were made by third parties without their actual knowledge or human intervention, there was no wilful violation.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar/ John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against various defendants regarding the misuse of its registered trademarks, HAVELLS and LLOYD. The court found a prima facie case that rogue websites and domain names were being used to mislead consumers and conduct fraudulent activities. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate blocking of specific infringing domains by ISPs and directed the disclosure of registrant details from the responsible parties.
Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Aryan Sharma & Anr.
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. against Aryan Sharma & Anr. was settled between the parties via Consent Terms dated 02.05.2022. The court accepted these terms, permitted amendments to the case title, and subsequently disposed of the suit.
Nippon A&L Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon A&L Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding its application for a copolymer latex process and product. The Patent Office had raised objections concerning inventive step, non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), and lack of clarity in claims. The High Court focused specifically on the objection related to claim amendments. The court ruled that since the Appellant was narrowing the scope of the claims and the process sought was disclosed in the specification, the amendments were valid under Section 59.
Novo Nordisk A S v.Union Of India
Novo Nordisk challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, arguing that the decision did not address the substantive grounds raised in its representation regarding a pending post-grant opposition. The case involves Patent IN257402, which relates to pharmaceutical preparations. Despite years of delays and procedural complexities in the Opposition Board proceedings, the High Court intervened to ensure that the Deputy Controller would consider all arguments presented by the patentee before rendering a final decision.
Philips Lighting Holding B.V./Signify Holding BV v.Jai Prakash Agarwal And Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses applications concerning the infringement of registered designs related to LED lighting products. The court considered claims regarding Design Registration No. 299147 (T-Bulb) and others, where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants. While the court noted the existence of similar products in the market, it denied the ad-interim injunction due to the lack of action against other competitors. However, for Design Registration No. 247723, the defendant was directed to file regular sales accounts.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Anugya Gupta against Mr. Ajay Kumar and others, finding that the defendants' use of domain names like 'SARKARIRESULT.INFO' was likely to cause confusion with her established trademark and website, 'SARKARIRESULT'. The court emphasized that the similarity between the marks/domains, coupled with evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants, warranted immediate protection for the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The petitioner filed an application alleging that the defendant violated a prior injunction by offering to supply Eltrombopag Olamine to the Government. The court examined whether this offer, made under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970, constituted contempt.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Eris Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Alkem Laboratories against Eris Health Care regarding the alleged misuse of 'GEMCAL' and 'GEMCAL PLUS' trademarks and associated packaging. The court observed that the defendants agreed to change their marks from 'DE-CAL GEM' to 'DECAL PLUS' (and similar changes for 'PLUS'). After reviewing the proposed new artwork, the court allowed the adoption of the revised designs while permanently restraining the defendants from using any mark or packaging deceptively similar to Alkem’s original trademarks and presentation.
Vimala Parmar v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Vimala Parmar against The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the Trademark Registry to accept evidence in an opposition proceeding concerning trademark application No. 812224. However, due to non-prosecution—the failure of the petitioner to file a new counsel or appear before the court—the High Court dismissed the petition.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patents against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit in terms of this compromise, decreeing it against the third defendant and dismissing it against the first and second defendants.
M/S. Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd. v.The Addl. Cit, Range-5, Ahmedabad
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of trade mark expenditure. The assessee also filed a cross-objection concerning the calculation of depreciation on machinery. The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, addressing issues related to intangible asset deduction and depreciation.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patent (No. 197822) against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit based on this compromise.
Unilever IP Holdings B.V. v.Ruchi Ice Cream
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against Ruchi Ice Cream regarding an impugned mark was ultimately settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
S.Maheswari v.The Union of India
This writ petition challenged a summons issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, which sought an explanation from the petitioner regarding statements made in a daily newspaper concerning the rejection of her trademark registration. The petitioner had previously appealed this rejection to the IPAB, which remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The Madras High Court ultimately quashed the impugned summons, holding that statutory authorities are creatures under law and cannot conduct inquiries or issue summons based merely on news reports published in a newspaper.
Saint-Gobain Glass France v.M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.
The suit was filed by Saint-Gobain Glass France (through its Indian subsidiary) against M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering for infringement of Suit Patent No.305596, which covers a system and method for installing glass panels. The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing products, and damages. The Court found the Plaintiff to be the proprietor and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Voltas Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction in favor of Voltas Limited against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court found that the defendants were infringing on Voltas' registered and well-known trademarks (VOLTAS and its logo) by operating a deceptive website, www.myvoltascare.com. Given the prima facie case established by Voltas regarding extensive goodwill and reputation, the court ordered immediate measures including restraining trademark use, blocking the domain name, disabling the website, freezing bank accounts, and suspending UPI IDs to prevent irreparable harm.
Neha Overseas v.Khushi Impex
The Bombay High Court rejected Khushi Impex's application to vacate an ex-parte interim order that had seized their alleged infringing goods. The court found that the defendant admitted infringement by copying the plaintiff's 'CROWN' trademark and packaging, noting that reliance on a rectification application before the Registrar was insufficient grounds for vacating the stay. Consequently, the relief sought for the release of the goods was also denied.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Sehgal Auto House Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sunil Sehgal
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Sehgal Auto House. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit spare parts using the HERO trademark and logo, infringing both trademark rights and copyright associated with packaging. The court authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize all infringing products and related materials from the Defendant's premises.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises
In a significant move to protect its brand integrity, Exxon Mobil Corporation sought an interim injunction against Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises for selling counterfeit products bearing the 'MOBIL' trademark. The Delhi High Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize the infringing goods at the defendant's premises. This order underscores the court's willingness to provide swift, robust remedies against trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the commercial sector.
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
XXX v.Union Of India
The petitioner, suffering from HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer, sought an interim direction compelling the 3rd respondent (DPIIT) to consider their representation regarding the high cost of Ribociclib. The petitioner argued that since Ribociclib enjoys patent monopoly and is not manufactured in India, compulsory licensing under Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970, was necessary for affordability.
Aasik Jindran v.Mohammad Rafiq
Aasik Jindran, proprietor of M/s GBL Agro Equipments, filed a petition challenging an earlier commercial court order. The dispute centered on the use of the brand name 'GBL' for agricultural goods by Mohammad Rafiq, which Jindran claimed infringed his registered trademarks and copyrights. While the trial court had granted injunction against 'GBL', Jindran sought an extension to include restraint against the similar mark 'SGBL'.