India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 177 of 295 · 7,068 total
Uster Technologies Ag v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Uster Technologies Ag challenged the rejection of its patent application, which related to a method for optimizing textile manufacturing processes. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was erroneous and failed to consider the provisions of the Patents Act regarding convention applications and amendments. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & M/s. V.R. Holdings v.Mr. Guddu Ansari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited, finding that Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by operating a nearly identical website and domain (www.heroelectro.in). The court found that the defendants were actively duping consumers by misrepresenting their affiliation with the renowned 'Hero Electric' brand to solicit dealership enquiries and collect large sums of money. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs, and mandated the transfer of the infringing domain name to the Plaintiffs.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors
The plaintiff, Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely infringing its patents related to parts of the SANDVIK VSI Crusher. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting infringement and irreparable loss.
Sss Lungie Company v.SSS Lingam Company
Sss Lungie Company filed a civil suit against SSS Lingam Company and others, alleging trademark passing off and copyright infringement related to the '3 ROSES label' used on lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages for unauthorized use of their brand and artistic work. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
Delhi Public School Society v.Deepak Kumar Pal & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction suspending the use of the respondent's registered trademark 'Delhi Public Secondary School.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent violated a previous consent decree by registering similar trademarks, leading to public confusion. This order reinforces the court's power to maintain the status quo and protect established goodwill against deceptive practices.
Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v.The Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioners challenged an impugned order regarding their patent rights related to electronic eco-friendly battery-operated vehicles. The court addressed arguments concerning the necessity of adding other manufacturers and states as parties, ultimately finding that the limited scope of the petition did not require such additions.
The Foundry Visionmongers Limited v.Mesmor Studio Private Limited
The Foundry Visionmongers Limited filed a suit against Mesmor Studio Private Limited alleging rampant piracy and unauthorized use of its specialized animation software, including NUKE, NUKE X, and NUKE STUDIO. The plaintiff asserted ownership of copyright in these 'Computing Programs,' which are integral to the film and television industry's visual effects. Based on technical evidence showing 5059 infringement hits across at least 36 computer systems, the court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The court heard arguments regarding an application (I.A. 8386/2019) concerning the continuation and absoluteness of a previous interim order dated 31.05.2019, which restrained Ztt India Private Limited from infringing patents IN 241433 and IN 280211. The defendant affirmed that they had no objection to the existing restraint continuing until the suit's disposal.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Allergan, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Allergan, Inc. challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark in the Delhi High Court. The court initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the Registrar, allowing the defendant two weeks to file a response. This order sets the stage for a substantive hearing on whether Allergan meets the criteria for trademark registration.
Ashok Kumar Sethi Trading as M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation v.Amilal Ramkrishnan Dass
This suit addressed allegations of copyright infringement concerning the picture mark 'AMIN's' used on black henna products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant for using similar marks and designs. During the pendency of the litigation, both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this memorandum of compromise, allowing both parties to continue their respective branding practices without further legal conflict.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit against Canva Pty Ltd seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its patented technology, titled 'Present and Record Feature of Canva'. The court allowed the plaint to be registered as a suit and set out directions for issuing summons and filing written statements.
Eli Lilly And Company & Ors. v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
In this pharmaceutical dispute, Eli Lilly sued several companies for marketing its patented compound Baricitinib under a brand name ('Barinat') for rheumatoid arthritis, allegedly breaching licensing agreements that restricted use solely to COVID-19 treatment. The court addressed an application by one defendant (Defendant No. 11), who claimed the marketing was an inadvertent error and no sales had occurred. After the defendant provided undertakings not to market or sell the drug for any ailment other than COVID-19, the plaintiff agreed that no cause of action survived against this specific defendant, leading to its removal from the suit.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Sulphur Crop Care Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patent related to a Sulphur 90% WDG product by the defendants.
Toasha Agencies And Another v.Siddhant Choudharyand Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the trademark passing-off suit filed by Toasha Agencies against Siddhant Choudhary and others. The core disputes revolve around whether the plaintiffs are lawful proprietors of the 'TOASHA' trade name, if they possess distinctive goodwill, and crucially, whether the defendants have engaged in passing off or unfair competition. The court directed both parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence, setting the stage for a full trial.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd And Anr. v.Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Sporta Technologies regarding the domain name 'www.fandream11.com'. Following disclosure from GoDaddy, the court removed Roberta Gaming Pvt Ltd from the suit and impleaded Mr. Bapi Das as Defendant No. 1. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their plaint to seek a declaration of their mark 'DREAM11' as a 'well-known' trademark, allowing the litigation to proceed against the actual domain owner.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing Indian Patent Nos. 247381, which covers the subject matter related to Apixaban. The court granted the ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing in or advertising the infringing generic products 'Apixaz' and 'Apiquis', and ordered the permanent delisting of such advertisements.
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s JB Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s JB Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyright designs associated with 'hotpot' products. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory directions to stop the unauthorized use and sale of deceptively similar goods. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Slk Software Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Universal Test Solutions LLP
The petitioner, a software development company, challenged an arbitration award (AC No.92/2018) passed by Respondent No. 2 (the Arbitrator). The dispute arose from a Business Alliance Agreement regarding the perpetual licensing of 'Test Magic' software. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award.
Unilever Plc. v.Malti Ice Cream Industries
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit after the defendants volunteered to submit to a decree. The court allowed the petition for leave and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, while permitting the defendants to destroy the wrappers bearing the offending marks under specific conditions.
Mita Ashok Kapoor Through Poa Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed civil suits alleging that the defendant was infringing their registered design for an air-cooler grill. The plaintiff holds registrations (No. 324986-017 and No. 233559) covering the unique shape and configuration of the grill. The court examined the claims, noting a striking similarity between the designs and finding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for protection.