India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 162 of 311 · 7,456 total
EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Jaya Sai Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against M/s.Jaya Sai Traders for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'DHEEPAM' and copyright violation related to the packaging of lamp oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('PANCHA DEEPAM OIL') and trade dress, leading to passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the IP infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation appealed an order that rejected its application for a permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited. FMC alleged that Natco's process for manufacturing Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR) infringed their patented method IN 298645, claiming equivalence between the processes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infringement because the use of thionyl chloride by Natco was not equivalent to sulfonyl chloride in the suit patent.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
This matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court Original Side from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued procedural directions to the Department regarding record correction and directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties before the returnable date. Consequently, the case was scheduled for listing in January 2023.
Multimodal Technologies, LLC v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
This matter 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 relevant department to correct its records and subsequently listed the matter for January 2023.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc filed an appeal challenging the order dated July 22, 2019, by The Controller of Patents. This order rejected the application for grant of a patent under various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file submissions and pleadings.
Techfields Pharma Co Ltd Yu Chongxi v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
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 the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
Sandisk Llc v.Patel Mobile Accessories And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Sandisk LLC's application to amend its suit, permitting the impleadment of three additional parties—Shree Mataji Mobiles, Target Telecom, and Paravathi Telecom. These entities were identified as selling and marketing counterfeit products bearing Sandisk's registered trademarks. The court granted the amendments sought by the plaintiff, allowing the case to proceed against a broader set of alleged infringers.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon their Indian Patent (IN 296857) related to piston compressor crankcases. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, setting out procedural directions for filing written statements and addressing various interlocutory applications.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The court heard an application filed by Defendant 7 seeking permission to place screenshots and a research paper on record to challenge the novelty of Design No. 263764 asserted by Sirona Hygiene Private Limited. The plaintiff opposed the application, citing delay. The Court allowed the documents but directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of admission or denial.
M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a challenge by Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against an order directing it to change its corporate name. The dispute centered on the use of 'Raymond,' which was claimed by another entity (Respondent 3) to be protected under trademark rights and prior incorporation dates. The court upheld the administrative decision, finding no illegality in requiring the petitioner to alter its name.
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v.Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. and Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks. Consequently, the matter was scheduled for listing before the appropriate bench on December 6, 2022, to continue the ongoing litigation.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The petitioner, Alpa Laboratories Limited, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent IN '231479. The petitioner argued that although the patent was revoked by the Deputy Controller of Patents on December 1, 2020, an appeal had stayed this revocation order. The court issued notice and directed parties to file submissions.
Jaskaran Singh v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jaskaran Singh against Flipkart regarding alleged trademark infringement and counterfeiting of goods under the 'ANMEX' brand. The appellant sought an interim injunction to stop unauthorized third parties from selling counterfeit goods on the platform. While acknowledging the severity of the issue, the court disposed of the appeal with a crucial direction: Flipkart must provide the names, addresses, and email IDs of the alleged infringing 'more sellers/latch on sellers' within one week. This move allows the litigation to proceed by identifying the specific parties responsible for the infringement.
Plusplus Lifesciences Llp & Anr. v.Dr. Shiwani Singh & Ors.
Plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with medicines bearing marks like 'NUTRIEPIC' and 'UTTERCARE', alleging misuse of confidential information related to their multi-micronutrient supplement, 'TRIMACARE'. The court examined claims of passing off and similarity between the marks. Ultimately, the ex-parte order was vacated, but the defendants were directed to disclose sales data.
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. v.Lupin Limited
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. filed a suit alleging that Lupin Limited infringed its proprietary technology, NONS (a Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray), by developing and marketing a competing product called NOXGUARD, in breach of a Confidentiality Agreement. The appeal challenged the dismissal of SaNOtize's interim application seeking an injunction against NOXGUARD.
ITC Limited v.Khayrul Bashar And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed ITC Limited's application for rectification against the trademark 'NEEMYLE'. The court found that the registration was obtained wrongfully because the Registrar failed to conduct a proper and adequate search of earlier, similar marks. Given the prior extensive use and established goodwill of ITC's mark 'NIMYLE', the continuance of the impugned mark was deemed contrary to public interest, leading to its cancellation.
M/S Jindal (India) Limited v.M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles Through Its Partners Rakesh Gandhi and Vinay Gandhi
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Jindal (India) Limited against M/S Spectrum Metal Profiles. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks, such as 'JINDAL ROOFING SYSTEM' and 'JINDAL RANGOLI,' on roofing sheets, which infringed upon Jindal's registered trademarks like 'JINDAL SABRANG.' Recognizing a prima facie case and irreparable harm to Jindal's reputation, the court immediately restrained the defendant from selling or advertising goods using these infringing marks.
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v.The Controller Of Patents And Anr
Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application no. 4805/DELNP/2007 by the Controller of Patents and Anr. The application was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)) and insufficient disclosure (Section 10) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Tomar Enterprises and others for alleged infringement of his air cooler designs. The plaintiffs claimed their unique, registered designs were being copied by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, supported by evidence showing copies and prior rejection of cancellation applications. Consequently, the temporary injunction application was allowed, restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing design.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed an order dated July 31, 2019, wherein its application for grant of a patent was rejected. The court issued notice to the respondent and directed both parties to file written submissions within specified timelines.
John Cockerill India Limited v.Sanjay Kamalakar Navare
John Cockerill India Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Petition seeking urgent ex-parte relief against its former employee, Sanjay Kamalakar Navare. The Petitioner alleged that Mr. Navare, who had access to highly confidential designs, proprietary technical know-how, and customer data during his tenure, transferred sensitive information onto external storage devices before leaving the company. Based on a forensic analysis of the company laptop, the court recognized the gravity of the breach. Consequently, the Bombay High Court appointed a Receiver with powers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC to seize and examine all digital devices belonging to the Respondent to secure the evidence.
Ajinomoto Co Inc v.Dattatrey Studios & Anr.
Ajinomoto Co Inc successfully secured an interim injunction against Dattatrey Studios in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark 'AJI-NO-MOTO,' argued that the upcoming movie title infringed its rights and was disparaging, linking the brand to negative health claims. The court granted the relief, preventing the release of any film bearing the disputed name until further hearing.