India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 181 of 295 · 7,068 total
L.G. Varadarajulu v.Minit Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing various IP rights, including Patent No. 179607 (related to table top wet grinders), Designs Nos. 163445/163446, and copyright in an injunction manual. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the suit.
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v.SUKAN RAJ JAIN & ANR.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, both parties expressed interest in reaching an amicable resolution. Consequently, the court referred the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre for settlement discussions. The court also listed the case for reporting any settlement on November 9, 2021, while maintaining existing interim orders.
Huntington Alloys Corporation v.Union Of India And 3 Ors
The petitioner challenged the rejection orders passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 regarding its patent application for "Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation". The petitioner argued that these orders were passed without hearing them, making the 'prima facie' satisfaction perverse. The court directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
T.S.J.Media Private Limited v.Boston Analytics Private Limited
T.S.J.Media Private Limited filed a suit alleging that Boston Analytics Private Limited illegally harvested substantial portions of information from its proprietary database, which tracks investments made by Private Equity and Venture Capitalists in India. The plaintiff claimed this infringement occurred after the defendant gained access under false pretenses. The court found that the defendant's act of publishing the data without permission constituted a clear violation of copyright.
HT MEDIA LIMITED v.BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit between HT Media Limited and Brainlink International, Inc. The court provided procedural directions regarding the continuation of interim orders, setting deadlines for parties to file replies to various applications (including those seeking anti-suit injunctions and condonation of delay), and scheduled further hearings for pleading completion.
Anay Kumar Gupta v.Jagmeet Singh Bhatia
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim application filed by Anay Kumar Gupta against Jagmeet Singh Bhatia in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court granted an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture and sell whisky using the 'EVERSHINE PREMIUM CLASSIC WHISKY' label, bottle shape, or logo AWB. This order was issued after the plaintiff demonstrated that the agreements allowing the use of the mark had expired, leading to alleged unauthorized continued use by the defendant.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its derivatives. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting the defendant to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act, but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
Dimple Madhulal Bhatia v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Dimple Madhulal Bhatia against the Union of India regarding delays in processing trademark applications. The petitioner sought an urgent direction for the Registrar of Trademarks to schedule hearings and expedite the examination of her pending trademarks. While the respondent argued that matters were being processed according to seniority, the court intervened, directing the concerned authority to deal with the petitioner's applications preferably within four months.
Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Pawan Kumar
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd against Pawan Kumar. The dispute centered on the registered trademark 'MONICA GOLD'. Following successful mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement which the court upheld. Under the terms, the defendant committed to cease all use of the protected mark and any deceptively similar marks, effectively resolving the litigation in favor of the plaintiffs.
Kake Di Hatti v.Shree Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kake Di Hatti, who owns registered trademarks 'Kake Di Hatti' and 'KDH'. The case stemmed from a terminated franchise agreement where the Respondents allegedly breached terms, including non-payment of royalties. Given the breach and the risk of irreparable harm to the Petitioner's goodwill, the court ordered Shree Foods & Ors. to immediately cease operating the business and stop using the Petitioner's trademarks until further hearing.
M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.S.D. Containers
This judgment addresses a complex jurisdictional dispute arising from a civil suit filed by M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited against S.D. Containers regarding disputed designs. The core issue was whether the High Court had the authority to entertain the defendant's counterclaim seeking cancellation of the design registration, alongside the plaintiff's declaration and injunction suit. The court affirmed its jurisdiction, interpreting the Design Act, 2000, to allow a defendant to raise all grounds for cancellation (under Section 19) in their written statement/counterclaim.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd filed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of opposition proceedings against Patent No. 257402, which was granted to Novo Nordisk A/S. The court addressed the procedural delay and directed the respondents to furnish the Opposition Board's recommendations within one week, subsequently rescheduling the hearing.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Union Of India & Ors.
Novo Nordisk A/S filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent Authorities (No. 1 through No. 3) to decide on its request for the cross-examination of witnesses in a pending post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The court, after considering arguments from both sides, directed that Respondent No. 2 fix the date for the cross-examination and complete it expeditiously.
A.Mani v.S.Suresh Trading as Flash Beauty Saloon
A.Mani appealed a judgment and decree that had been passed against him regarding the use of the mark 'FLASH'. The appeal challenged the trial court's decision, which was based on the alleged violation of an interim order by the appellant (defendant in the suit). The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, stating that the trial court failed to conduct proper adjudication on merits.
Uday Prakash v.Anand Pandit And Another
Uday Prakash appealed against the rejection of his application for a temporary injunction in a suit claiming infringement of his registered copyright ('Highway-39') by defendants who were producing a feature film titled 'Chehre'. The High Court found prima facie that there was no distinctive plagiarism, but directed the trial to be expedited and mandated an acknowledgment if the plaintiff succeeds.
Arun Kumar Murarka v.Rajesh Sultania & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Arun Kumar Murarka concerning the trademark dispute against Rajesh Sultania & Anr. The core issue involves a petition seeking rectification/cancellation of the 'KAILASA' trademark (Reg. No. 4701472) due to its alleged deceptive similarity to the petitioner's mark, 'KAILASHA'. While an exemption application was allowed, the court proceeded by issuing notice to the defendant and listing the matter for further hearing on October 12, 2021.
M/s.Fast Products v.G.G.Aqua Industries
M/s.Fast Products filed a suit against G.G.Aqua Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AQUA FAST' and copyright violation concerning the associated trade dress and artistic label design. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, and damages. However, on the date of judgment (26.08.2021), the plaintiff failed to appear before the court despite previous proceedings, leading the High Court to dismiss the suit for default.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenges a single judge's decision that invalidated the Appellant's patent (IN240893). The Appellant argues that the ground of Section 64(1)(h) was not pleaded or evidenced, while the Respondent seeks to uphold the revocation based on various sections of the Patents Act.
M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v.ROHIT MARKETING Incense & Allied Products
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the registered trademark owner, M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, against Rohit Marketing. The court granted permanent injunctions, preventing the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Tri Cycle 3-in-1' for incense sticks and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff withdrew claims for accounting and destruction of stock, the core infringement and passing off allegations were upheld.
M/s.THALAPPAKATTI NAIDU ANANDHA VILAS BIRIYANI HOTEL v.M/s.THALAPPAKATTU BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, granting a permanent injunction against M/s.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food for trademark infringement and passing off. Although the defendant later changed its name to 'AL RAHMAN BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD,' the court found that the initial use of the offending mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to distinctive trade names in the competitive food service industry.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited & Anr v.Micky Metals Limited
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim application seeking protection for their trademark 'LUX'. Despite presenting evidence of long-standing use, massive sales figures, and international presence, the court found insufficient grounds to grant relief at the interim stage. The judgment noted that the mark 'LUX' has been used by various entities and pointed to prior legal challenges regarding its registration, ultimately finding no compelling reason to favor the plaintiffs.
Hasmukhrai And Co. v.Nishi Enterprises
The Bombay High Court disposed of the interim application after both parties reached an agreement. The Defendants submitted to a decree based on the plaint's prayer clauses, and agreed to destroy all infringing labels and materials within three weeks.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction favoring M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite disputes over additional pleadings and evidence. The court found that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was questionable, particularly because it relied on documents later alleged to be forged by the third party (Astha Sales). This interim relief allows the plaintiff to continue pursuing their trademark rights while the full case proceeds.