India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 172 of 295 · 7,068 total
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
This case concerns a dispute over film licensing rights for 'Sholay' and related titles between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME). The core issue revolved around alleged non-compliance with a Deed of Settlement, which included payment obligations and an extension of the license period. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeals, effectively restoring the interim injunction in favor of NHC.
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The dispute arose from agreements between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME) regarding film rights for 'Sholay' and 'Sholay 3D'. After a Deed of Settlement was executed, the core issue became non-compliance with payment terms by one party. NHC filed a commercial suit seeking declaration of exclusive license and injunction against termination notices issued by SME.
Ani Media Pvt Ltd v.Vinay G David & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Ani Media Pvt Ltd alleging that Defendant No.1 was willfully disobeying a prior ad interim injunction order. The court found prima facie evidence of breach, as the defendant continued using the plaintiff's registered trademarks and domain name on his Facebook account despite the restraint order. Consequently, the court issued a show cause notice to initiate proceedings for disobedience and mandated that the defendant remove all offending content within 48 hours.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Eris Lifesciences Limited filed a revocation petition challenging Patent No. IN 243301, arguing that it should be revoked because the claims were covered by an earlier genus patent (IN 227719). The Delhi High Court noted that another appeal concerning the same patent was already pending before the court. Consequently, the court directed both parties to serve notices upon each other and listed the matter together with the existing appeal for a hearing on April 6, 2022.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN254458 before the Delhi High Court. The contesting respondent raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the patent was granted in Chennai and an earlier revocation petition had already been filed before IPAB, Chennai.
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v.Shashi Distilleries Private Limited
John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Shashi Distilleries Private Limited seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of an Aseptic Brick Pack packaging that is deceptively similar to its own distinctive trade dress used for 'Original Choice' whisky. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction to withdraw the defendant's application for approval of this similar packaging.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Raman Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Raman Gupta and others. The court found that the defendants were illegally using the registered trademark 'KHADI' and associated logos, particularly for medical products like PPE kits and hand sanitizers under the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Given the potential risk to public health due to unauthorized quality control, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling any such products bearing the infringing marks.
Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Indian Heritage School
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Enlearn Education Pvt. Ltd., who alleged that the defendant was infringing on their established use of the mark 'HERITAGE' in the education sector. The court found a prima facie case for confusion among students and parents due to the similarity of marks used by both parties. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from opening any new educational institutions using 'INDIAN HERITAGE' or 'HERITAGE', and were ordered to cease using the name 'Indian Heritage World School' for their existing pre-school starting May 1, 2022.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Precise Bio Pharma Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which dismissed a pre-grant opposition against its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the impugned order was not a 'speaking order' and lacked sufficient reasoning. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a reasoned decision.
Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited v.Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Whitehat Education Technology Private Limited against Ms Kanishk Enterprises & Anr. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark entry bearing number 4786408 in Class 16. This decision effectively removed the contested mark from the register, favoring the petitioner's claim regarding the intellectual property rights.
Kores (India) Limited v.Doms Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging an order that rejected the request to frame additional issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core dispute involved whether Kores' product infringed Doms' registered trademarks for 'DOMS NEON' pencils. While acknowledging the defendant's need to challenge the validity of the registrations, the court ultimately upheld the Commercial Court's decision regarding the immediate framing of additional issues, noting that all issues related to trademark validity must be dealt with by a specialized Tribunal (under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) and not the civil court.
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited v.Maithri Aquatech Private Limited
Saisons Trade And Industry Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Maithri Aquatech Private Limited and others for alleged patent infringement. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party was located in Delhi. However, the Court found that since the defendant No.1 operated an interactive website accessible globally, and Defendants No.2 & 3 were marketing agents based in Delhi, Delhi courts possessed sufficient jurisdiction to hear the matter. Consequently, the application for leave to file the suit was allowed.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
Vishal Pipes Limited v.Bhavya Pipe Industry
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court addressed several procedural issues while advancing the main dispute between Vishal Pipes Limited and Bhavya Pipe Industry. The court allowed an application for a Local Commissioner, who was tasked with visiting the defendant's premises to inventory all products bearing the 'BPI' mark and obtain relevant sales accounts. Furthermore, the court issued notice to the defendant regarding the interim injunction request, reserving the final decision for a later date.
M/s.Avinashi Ads v.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railways
M/s. Avinashi Ads filed an arbitration suit challenging an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator concerning advertising rights and license fees with South Western Railways. The plaintiff sought damages amounting to ₹11,75,99,996/-. However, the court set aside the original arbitral award in its entirety.
WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED v.MS KANISHK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addressed a petition for the rectification of a registered trademark. While the substantive issues were not decided on this date, the court focused on procedural matters. The court noted that the Vakalatnama for Defendant No. 1 was missing from the record and directed steps to be taken to place it on file. The matter has been listed for further hearing.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS v.RAJIV MUKUL AND ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an execution petition filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking enforcement of a prior decree. The core issue is the alleged infringement and passing off committed by the judgment debtors who began selling products under the deceptively similar trade name 'BETNEVIN'. Although the original suit covered various trademarks, the petitioners argued that their rights in 'BETNOVATE' and 'BETNESOL' were encompassed within the general scope of the decree. The Court directed notice to the defendants regarding this new alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited v.Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'JUPITER' (Registration No. 1675980). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using similar marks, such as "StayGo Jupiter Multispecialty Hospital," in relation to running hospitals and providing medical services. The court found a strong prima facie case for infringement and granted the interim injunction.
Boehinder Pharma v.Macleods Pharma
Boehinder Pharma filed an application seeking ad-interim relief to restrain Macleods Pharma from infringing its patent rights over 'Linagliptin'. The applicants argued that their patent was still valid and the respondent was manufacturing and selling the product under brands LINAMAC and LINAONE. The court, finding a prima facie case, granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing or selling Linagliptin.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Tata Motors Limited
The dispute between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited and Tata Motors Limited regarding the use of 'T-Series' marks was amicably settled in the Delhi High Court. The settlement requires Tata Motors to acknowledge the statutory and common law rights of Super Cassettes in 'T-Series', undertake not to use the mark on automobile products, and remove all related content from its websites and social media platforms. In return, Super Cassettes acknowledged the rights of Tata Motors in marks like 'Tata' and agreed to drop claims for damages.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors. v.Venkata Siva Suhas Kumar Bommisetty & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors., filed an interim application seeking relief against the Defendants for infringement of their registered 'NATURAL' family marks and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordering them to remove related online advertisements.
The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc (COMPTIA) v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited (The Times Group)
This Delhi High Court judgment records the amicable resolution of a trademark dispute between COMPTIA and The Times Group. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement, wherein The Times Group acknowledged COMPTIA's ownership of 'CHANNELCON' and agreed to immediately cease using it or deceptively similar marks like 'CHANNELICON'. Furthermore, The Times Group committed not to oppose future registration efforts for the mark.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
The cases involve Novartis AG against Windlas Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Eris Lifesciences Limited regarding commercial disputes. The hearings are scheduled for further directions.