India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 169 of 295 · 7,068 total
Savelife Foundation v.Mr. Aslam Shaikh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Savelife Foundation against Mr. Aslam Shaikh and others. The court found that Defendants were fraudulently using deceptively similar trademarks ('Save LIFE' and 'Save LIFE Foundation') and associated domains to solicit funds, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's well-known trademark and committing passing off. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v.Www.Dhanifinance.In & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against Www.Dhanifinance.In for trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court found that the defendant was operating a fraudulent website using deceptively similar marks ('Indiabulls', 'Dhani') and domain names to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with Indiabulls Group. Consequently, the defendant's website operation was suspended, and damages were awarded.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed suit against Hetero Healthcare Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. Vifor contended that Hetero was preparing to launch a generic version under the brand HETROFER, which infringed upon their exclusive patent rights for treating iron deficiency anaemia. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience presented by the Plaintiffs.
Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd. v.Mr. Rakesh Kumar And Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court provided a final opportunity for the Plaintiff, Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Ltd., to formally include an assignee of the trademarks 'LALMAHAL' and 'SHRILALMAHAL' in the ongoing litigation. The court noted that the assignment occurred in 2018 and granted four weeks to file the necessary application. Failure to do so will result in the suit proceeding without the new party on record.
Beardsell Limited v.Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Beardsell Limited, granting a perpetual injunction against two defendants (Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Beardsell Equipments Pvt. Ltd.) for passing off the company's trademark 'Beardsell'. The court found that these entities unlawfully appropriated the Plaintiff's established corporate name and were carrying on similar lines of business, risking public deception. Consequently, the injunction was granted, barring them from using or advertising the mark.
Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. v.Sai Krishna Foods
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. against Sai Krishna Foods regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their 'ROYAL' mark is well-known, enjoys significant goodwill, and the Defendant was using a similar mark to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from selling infringing products and ordered a Local Commissioner to search and seize the counterfeit goods.
Shabeer Ahmad Bhat v.Sushil Kumar Pathak
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the petitioner seeking to correct a clerical error in a prior order. The correction involved changing the name of the entity receiving trademark assignments from 'Globiotech International' to 'M/s Glow Biotech Ltd', as stipulated in the underlying Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This minor but crucial rectification ensures the court record accurately reflects the parties' agreement regarding the assignment of trademarks.
Malabar Cements Limitd v.Drawing And Disbursing Officer, The Office of the Trademarks Registry; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Malabar Cements Limited's Writ Petition, setting aside an earlier rejection order from the Trademarks Registry. The court ruled that a Notice of Opposition filed against Trademark Application No 427808 fell within the prescribed window for filing opposition, based on a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. Consequently, the respondents agreed to accept and record the opposition upon re-submission within three weeks.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The case involves Novartis AG seeking a permanent injunction against MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its patent related to Eltrombopag Olamine, the active ingredient in its drug Revolade.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The suit was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group challenging an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja), Section 3(d), and Section 10 of the Patents Act, 1970. The plaintiff argued that the objections under Section 10 were never raised during examination and that deleted claims were improperly used for rejection.
Tata Consumer Products Limited v.M/S Varahi Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Consumer Products Limited against M/S Varahi Limited. The court allowed defendants to file their original notarized affidavits and permitted the plaintiff to place numerous additional documents on record, including sales turnover details and evidence of prior meetings. While the core dispute involves the use of the 'HIMALAYAN' mark for mineral water, the current order focuses on procedural steps necessary to build a comprehensive case before trial.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No.4380/DELNP/2013 by the Controller of Patents, which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant challenged the basis and citation of the prior art documents used against them.
Attachmate Corporation v.DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1)(1)
The assessee, a US company dealing in software products, challenged the Assessing Officer's order which treated income received from Indian distributors as 'Royalty' chargeable under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal held that since no right in copyright was being transferred, the consideration could not be taxed as royalty.
Agriboard International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Agriboard International LLC appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing its patent application for 'Efficient Method and Apparatus for Producing Compressed Structural Fiberboard' on grounds of lack of inventive step. The petitioner argued that the refusal was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning regarding the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art (D1).
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Azista Industries Private Limited & Ors
Pfizer Inc and others filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts against Azista Industries Private Limited and others for infringing their patented drug 'Palbociclib'. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim ex parte injunction.
UPL Limited v.Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved UPL Limited asserting its patent rights over the composition Clodinafop-Propargyl (15%) + Metsulfuron Methyl (1%) WP against Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. The matter was amicably settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
The suit sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 270765 concerning Baricitinib (Barinat). The patent holder alleged that licensed companies were marketing and exporting the product outside its approved use (COVID-19) for Rheumatoid Arthritis, primarily through e-commerce platforms like Indiamart.
Walmart Apollo Llc v.Aayush Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Walmart Apollo LLC alleging continued trademark infringement by the defendants, who were reportedly still using the mark 'WMART' despite a prior interim injunction. The court noted the defendants' willingness to propose a change of mark ('WM BAZAAR') in exchange for waiving costs and damages. Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the defendants and set deadlines for filing replies on various related applications, keeping the litigation active.
Pioneer Corporation v.Gulab Goel & Ors.
In a suit involving claims of trademark and copyright infringement, Pioneer Corporation and Defendant No. 8 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. As part of this resolution, Defendant No. 8 paid compensation to the Plaintiff. The Delhi High Court subsequently allowed the application, passing a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 8 and disposing of the suit concerning that specific defendant.
Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v.Vipin Pathak Trading As M/S Pathak Impex
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Republic Technologies against Vipin Pathak regarding the alleged infringement of the 'OCB' trademark and copyright related to smoking accessories. While the court noted that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's rights, it also accepted the defendant's willingness to change their logo and mark. Consequently, an existing interim order was made absolute, while the matter was scheduled for further hearing after the defendant presented proposed changes.
Delhivery Pvt Ltd v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Pvt Ltd and Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited reached a settlement regarding trademark infringement claims. The court formally accepted the Settlement Agreement dated February 26, 2022, which mandated that the respondent acknowledge Delhivery's statutory rights and cease using similar marks. While the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction, the appellant waived their claim for damages and costs in exchange for the resolution.
Diageo Brands B V & Anr v.Rock And Storm Distilleries Private Limited
This case involved a dispute over the use of distinctive bottle designs and trademarks in the spirits industry. Diageo Brands sued Rock And Storm Distilleries for infringement of its registered design (No. 306577) and trademark ('Hipster', No. 4419654), alongside passing off related to trade dress. The parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Delhi High Court.