India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 175 of 295 · 7,068 total
Indian Oncology Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of the trade mark application 'Indian Oncology Foundation' by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that while the applicant claimed long-term use and reputation, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence—such as advertising expenditure or sales data—to prove that the descriptive mark had acquired secondary meaning. This ruling emphasizes that mere usage is insufficient; concrete proof of distinctiveness must be presented to overcome statutory objections.
Ht Media Ltd v.Pooja Sharma & Ors.
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted an immediate injunction protecting Ht Media Ltd's 'SHINE' trademark and its website www.shine.com from unauthorized use by rogue defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using the plaintiff's IP to deceive the public through fraudulent job/career services. Crucially, the judgment issued sweeping directions to various service providers—including ISPs, telecom operators, domain registrars, and Gmail—to block infringing websites and disclose user information, effectively providing a powerful mechanism for online IP enforcement.
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd v.VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking leave to initiate a lawsuit against VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The petitioner argued that no such leave was required under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, as the main suit addressed these IP violations. Furthermore, counsel established the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction based on the Petitioner's Mumbai registration. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
S Bant Singh Sole Proprietor M S Vishavkarma Engineering Works v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'PUNNI,' in Class 35. The plaintiff argued that another party had registered the identical mark on a later date, leading to a conflict. The court initiated the proceedings by issuing notice to the defendant and setting a timeline for filing pleadings.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.Ashoka Developers And Builders Limited
Central Park Estates Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition against Ashoka Developers And Builders Limited regarding the use of 'CENTRAL PARK' in real estate projects. The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary applications, dispensing with pre-institution mediation for urgent reliefs. The court subsequently issued summons to all defendants and set the matter for further pleadings and arguments on the injunction application.
Novartis Ag v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Novartis Ag, filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning the drug Eltrombopag Olamine. The court found a clear prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, noting that the rights to the patent had been confirmed previously.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringed its patent by launching a product containing Eltrombopag Olamine without a license. The court granted an ex parte injunction against the defendant's product 'REBOPAG'.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr.
The appeal was filed challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated August 24, 2021, which rejected Indian Patent Application No. 201817006495. The appellants argued that the rejection based on multiplicity of inventive concepts violated principles of natural justice as no specific objection was raised in the examination report.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd was infringing five of its patents related to telecommunication standards (UMTS, LTE, etc.). The current application sought discovery through interrogatories and production of license agreements with chipset providers like Qualcomm and MediaTek. The court partly allowed the application, directing the defendants to answer specific questions and provide relevant third-party agreements in a sealed cover.
Shri Govind Baheti v.Shri Kamal Kishore Baheti
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement related to the use of the 'VRAJ' trademark for tractor parts. The petitioner claimed that the respondents were violating the territorial restrictions set forth in the 2012 settlement by allowing their wife's firm to sell spare parts bearing the mark outside the permitted five states. Consequently, the Court directed notice to be issued to the respondent, setting a date for returnable appearance.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Combitic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court order, Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited sought time to challenge the validity of a trademark registered by Combitic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd. The court allowed the application and granted an adjournment of three months. This procedural step allows the plaintiff to formally apply for the rectification of the defendant's trademark registration before the IP Division.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Sadar Laboratories Pvt. Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction against Sadar Laboratories, which was seeking protection for its well-known trademark 'Rooh Afza'. The court found that while 'Rooh Afza' may be a strong mark, the defendant's use of 'Dil Afza' did not necessarily cause consumer confusion, especially given the long history and peaceful co-existence of similar marks in the pharmaceutical market. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts during the pendency of the suit.
M.Gagan Bothra v.The Central Government
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents to act upon a 2013 order from the Central Government regarding R.Anbarasu's misuse of the National Emblem. The court found that despite central government directions, the State Government failed to initiate action against the ex-member of parliament for misusing the emblem on his letter pad.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting Indian Patent Application No. 8198/DELNP/2013. The appellant argued that the notice of hearing failed to cite all relevant prior arts ('D2' and 'D3') which were used as grounds for rejection.
Maruti Air Couriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. v.Ram Singh Rathore & 9 Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that their former franchisees (Defendants nos. 1 to 9) and a newly incorporated entity (Defendant no. 10) were continuing to use the original artistic label and name of 'Maruti Air Couriers' on consignment notes and trade documents after the termination of their franchise agreements. The plaintiffs claimed this constituted copyright infringement and passing off.
DLF Limited v.Rediff.Com India Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'EMPORIO' brand, DLF Limited and Defendant No. 2 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The Delhi High Court formally recorded this settlement, decreeing the terms against Defendant No. 2 while allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally against the remaining defendants. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex IP disputes within the judicial framework.
Inter Ikea Systems B V v.Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed applications filed by the defendants (Italica Floor Tiles) seeking to set aside an earlier ex parte decree passed against them for trademark infringement. The court acknowledged that while the plaintiffs had a strong case regarding their established brand, the procedural lapse and lack of opportunity for the defendants to present their defense warranted reconsideration. Consequently, the ex parte order was set aside, and the main suit has been revived, allowing both parties to proceed on the merits.
Marico Limited v.Dabur India Limited
Marico Limited filed a suit against Dabur India Limited before the Calcutta High Court seeking urgent relief. Given the urgency presented, the court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny. Furthermore, the court granted necessary leave under various provisions, including Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, allowing the proceedings to move forward.
Db Corp Ltd v.Whatsapp Llc & Ors
Db Corp Ltd filed a suit against WhatsApp LLC alleging unauthorized circulation of its copyrighted e-newspapers within private messaging groups. The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction, directing WhatsApp to immediately take down and block the identified infringing groups. This order underscores the platform's responsibility in preventing copyright infringement when content is illegally shared on its services.
Roland Corporation v.Hi Tone Electronics
The Delhi High Court resolved the dispute between Roland Corporation and Hi Tone Electronics through successful mediation. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement that involved mutual withdrawals of cancellation petitions and opposition proceedings related to their respective trademarks. Crucially, HiTone agreed to change its mark and use it in combination with Roland's 'BOSS' trademark for specific products, while Roland also consented to certain changes regarding HiTone's marks.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Urmilla Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Aditya Infotech Limited against Urmilla Jain. The Plaintiff, a leading security solutions provider, alleged that the Defendant was selling counterfeit CCTV cables using its registered trademark 'CP PLUS' and copying its trade dress. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, recognizing the potential harm to the Plaintiff's goodwill. This interim order immediately restrained the Defendant from further infringing activities until the final hearing.
M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v.Shivani Cosmetics Through Its Partners Vinod Monga and Nishant Monga
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. against Shivani Cosmetics. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the defendant was copying not only the registered trademark but also the trade dress, copyright, writing style, and overall packaging of the plaintiff's 'BLUE HEAVEN GsET BOLD' eyeliner product. This crucial order protects the plaintiff's goodwill while the full trial proceeds.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd v.M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co
The Gujarat Cooperative Milk Maketing Federation Ltd filed a suit against M/S Shree Bankey Bihari Vegetables And Foods Co alleging trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and seeking damages. During the proceedings, the defendants conceded to certain prayers, and the plaintiffs restricted their claim for damages. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting permanent injunctions, mandatory injunctions, and awarding damages amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs.
Kake Di Hatti v.Sidharth Aggarwal And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in this order, including a municipal matter regarding unauthorized stairs on a public footpath, directing the North DMC to ensure pedestrian safety and removal of obstructions. Crucially for the IP dispute, the court noted that while respondents were previously directed to cease using the 'Kake Di Hatti' brand, they are now operating under the name 'Kake Di Rasoi,' keeping the trademark infringement matter active.