India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 183 of 295 · 7,068 total
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech alleging infringement and passing off related to their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('113 GOLD COINS') and trade dress, infringing both the registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and the associated copyright in the packaging art. Although the suit involved multiple claims for injunctions and account of profits, the parties ultimately reached an amicable compromise.
Pcm Stresscon Overseas Ventures v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Private
The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendant for allegedly infringing their technology and making threats regarding Patent No. 219099. The defendant agreed not to communicate against the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement suit against Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by reaching a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The defendants formally acknowledged Cadila's absolute proprietary rights in the 'AMLODAC' trademark and committed to ceasing all use of the mark, including recalling existing stock and destroying promotional materials. This resolution allows the suit to be disposed of with a decree reflecting the agreed-upon terms.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited & Ors. v.P. P. Jewellers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Court's directions regarding the use of trademarks in a family business dispute. While initially restraining P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited from using the plaintiff's marks, the court granted a stay on these injunctions, acknowledging the appellants' long-standing and acknowledged use of the trademarks within the family structure. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory the stock at the shared showroom premises, ensuring proper accounting between the competing entities.
ICEBERG WALNUT FOODS (I) Pvt Ltd. v.Iceberg Icecreams Regus, Tower D, Rmz Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bangalore – 560016
This case involved a civil suit filed by Iceberg Walnut Foods Pvt Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ICEBERG'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the defendant, claiming unauthorized use of their registered mark and artistic work. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the actual registered proprietor of the relevant trademark ('ICEBERG ICECREAM') was M/s. Anjani Diary Foods Private Limited, not the named sole defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit for proceeding against a wrong person.
Castrol Limited v.Goel Traders
This case involved Castrol Limited filing a suit against Goel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the use of similar graphic labels and color schemes on their gear oil packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for unauthorized use of their brand identity. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. v.M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. against M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar pizza names, proprietary products, and controlling the plaintiff's official social media accounts while the main suit proceeds. This order protects the brand integrity of LA PINO'Z PIZZA against unauthorized commercial use by the franchisee.
Abhishek Kumar v.Union Of India Through Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors.
Abhishek Kumar filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking to expunge the copyright registration of the 'Turbo Plus' label, which was registered as an artistic work. The petitioner also sought the suspension of this registration's effect to protect against potential infringement threats. Given the ongoing proceedings before the Trademark Registry regarding the cancellation of a search certificate, the court renotified the matter for further hearing.
Sandeep Pandey v.Union Of India And 4 Others
The petitioner filed a PIL seeking directions for the vaccination of citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, and also sought directions under the Patents Act, 1970, to acquire necessary patents for vaccine manufacturing. The court dismissed the petition as the issue was pending before the Apex Court.
Moonshine Technology Private Limited v.Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Moonshine Technology Private Limited (Baazi Group) against Tictok Skill Games Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was attempting to piggyback on the goodwill and reputation of Baazi by using confusingly similar marks, such as 'WinZo Baazi'. Given the plaintiff's established presence and registered trademarks in the gaming industry, the court ruled that this usage amounted to infringement and passing off, directing the defendants to immediately cease all use of the infringing brand.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited for infringing its patent on Sitagliptin, an anti-diabetic drug. The court initially granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Merck. However, upon considering the defendant's request under Section 107A (Bolar exemption), the court modified the injunction to allow limited export of the API for research and development purposes.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Micro Labs Limited, MSN Laboratories Private Limited, Eris Lifesciences Limited, USV Private Limited, Ajanta Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by AstraZeneca seeking interim relief to restrain various pharmaceutical companies from infringing its patents. The core issue revolved around whether AstraZeneca was entitled to an immediate injunction while the underlying suits for permanent injunction were pending. The court ultimately dismissed all nine appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' claims.
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd v.Pushpendra Yadav
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1's product infringes its registered design for a water purifier. The plaintiff asserted that the shape and configuration of the defendant's product imitated their protected design, citing Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. The defense challenged this claim, arguing that novelty resided only in specific portions of the design. To properly assess the complex issue of design infringement, the court permitted both parties to submit comparative charts detailing the similarities and differences between the designs.
Amit Kumar Mishra v.State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Mishra regarding alleged large-scale trademark violation. The petitioner sought an omnibus direction from the State authorities to prohibit unauthorized use of his trademark. However, the court held that such broad directives are inappropriate and directed the petitioner to identify specific violators and pursue civil or criminal proceedings against them.
Pepsico Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark dispute between Pepsico Inc. and Parle Agro Private Limited. The court granted certain exemptions while noting that the defendant intended to file an application seeking rectification under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The matter was subsequently renotified for further hearing on August 5, 2021.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.S.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against S.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company alleging multiple infringements, including trademark misuse and copyright violation concerning the design of snuff pouches. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memo of Compromise.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Foods Private Limited
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited filed a Transfer Application seeking to move its trademark infringement suit from the Principal District Court, Erode, to the specialized Commercial Court. The core dispute revolved around whether the nature of the intellectual property right—trademark infringement—automatically classified the case as commercial, irrespective of its low valuation (Rs. 12,000/-). The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer application, holding that while IP disputes are defined as commercial under Section 2(xvii), a suit must still meet the 'Specified Value' criteria to fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, thereby validating its original filing in the District Court.
FMC Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed applications seeking interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited and Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly infringing its patents related to Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court examined claims of infringement and challenges to the validity of the patents. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunctions, emphasizing that in patent infringement cases involving agrochemicals, public interest dictates preventing the perpetuation of an invention that is prima facie infringing.
Dhanam Textiles v.N.Varadaiah Trading as Ganesh Lungi Company
Dhanam Textiles filed a suit against N.Varadaiah for alleged infringement of its registered trademark '360 BRAND,' copyright violation, and passing off concerning textile goods (lungies). The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of deceptively similar labels like '3600, 361, 369 BRAND.' Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise memo which was accepted by the court, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that settlement.
Control Print Limited v.Anmol Chugh Trading As Shavias Enterprises and Ors.
In a mixed IP dispute involving copyright infringement and passing off related to 'The Mask Lab,' the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Control Print Limited. The court issued injunctions restraining the defendants from using designs substantially similar to the plaintiff's copyrighted artistic work, and from passing off their products as those of 'The Mask Lab.' Additionally, the order directed the removal of malicious reviews posted on the plaintiff's Google page, providing immediate protection pending final disposal of the suit.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting that the plaintiff holds a registered mark 'FLY HIGH' and claims extensive usage rights. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing names or registering similar domain names until further hearing.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Shri Mahaveer Jain Industries alleging infringement of its distinctive original artwork, 'Elle 18 face,' used on nail polish packaging. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of similar artistic designs and potential passing off. Both parties amicably settled the matter before the Bombay High Court.
Yasmin Khalique And Ors. v.Mukhtar Alam
This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses an appeal concerning a partnership dissolution and the associated registered trademark, 'Musa ka gul'. While the core dispute involves the validity of the arbitration award dissolving the firm, the court specifically addressed the use of the valuable trademark. The court clarified that ownership rights are not its immediate concern but issued a crucial interim order preventing either party from transferring or assigning any rights related to the mark until the appeal is finally decided.