India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 191 of 311 · 7,456 total
Seedsmen Association v.Government Of Andhra Pradesh
The appeal challenged an order passed in a Writ Petition concerning a Government Order that fixed the reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds. The court considered arguments regarding the prejudice to the petitioners if the order was suspended, particularly its effect on pending arbitral disputes.
Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd v.Cratus Pharma Limited
Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Cratus Pharma Limited alleging infringement of its registered trade marks ("CRATUS" and "CRATUS LIFE CARE"). The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was accepted by the court.
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v.CIAN HEALTHCARE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Glaxo Group Limited and Cian Healthcare Limited based on a settlement agreement reached through mediation. The defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards the plaintiff's claim and costs, and crucially, consented not to use the trademark 'BETASOL' for their products. This resolution allowed both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
M/s.Maya Appliances P Ltd. v.Apex Consumer Appliances P ltd.
M/s. Maya Appliances P Ltd. filed a civil suit alleging that Apex Consumer Appliances P ltd. was infringing upon its registered copyrights related to the design of its VIDIEM AIR frameless gas stove. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's APEX EVA stoves were identical or deceptively similar, constituting both copyright infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant used proprietary phrases from the promotional video on their carton boxes. The Madras High Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions, damages, and ordering the destruction of infringing products.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc & Anr v.Mobi Antenna Technologies(Shenzhen) Co Ltd
The Delhi High Court passed an order addressing an interim relief application and framing an additional issue regarding the validity of a patent. The core dispute involves whether Patent Number IN 240893 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ramada International, Inc. v.Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc. against Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited and others. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions for infringement, passing-off, and dilution of its registered trademark 'RAMADA.' The court found a prima facie case existed, noting the defendant's use of similar marks (CLUB RAMADA) in identical hotel services, leading to an immediate restraint order until further proceedings.
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application (No. 2109/DEL/2011). The rejection was based on the claim subject not fulfilling the requirements of Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The High Court granted certain exemptions but directed further proceedings, including the presence of the Assistant Controller.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis sought an interlocutory injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for allegedly infringing its suit patent (IN 233161) covering the drug Eltrombopag Olamine, marketed as REVOLADE. The defendant contested by questioning the patent's validity under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found that infringement was established and there was no prima facie case of vulnerability to revocation, thus granting the injunction.
Marce Cemen Works Ltd. v.Shree Cement Ltd. & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit. While acknowledging the initial discretion exercised by the lower court, the bench decided that the matter required a full hearing at the trial level. The appellate proceedings were disposed of, with directions issued for both parties to exchange affidavits and proceed before the learned trial judge.
Global Car Group Pte Ltd. v.Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, Global Car Group alleged that Ola Fleet Technologies was infringing its 'Cars24' trademarks by bidding on them as keywords in Google Ads. While the petitioners argued this constituted use of the mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court did not rule on the merits at this stage. Instead, it directed the respondents to temporarily refrain from such keyword bidding until the legal position is clarified, allowing both parties to proceed with their respective arguments.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Midie Cosmetics Through Its Proprietor Sh Tilak Raj & Anr.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation or rectification of the trademark 'BLUEHEART' (No. 3388032) registered in Class-03. The court issued notice to the defendants, Midie Cosmetics, setting a date for them to complete their pleadings and proceed with the matter.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking temporary injunction regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to the Crompton brand. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were deceptively using the protected trade name 'Crompton' across their product lines, despite prior warnings. While the court noted the ongoing dispute over design piracy of pumps, it issued a specific interim direction compelling Defendant No. 1 to formally instruct its channel partners and distributors to cease all use of the Plaintiff's trademark on products and online platforms.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Muhammed Rafi
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Muhammed Rafi alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'SPLAT LOGO', used for detergent goods. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V. v.M/S Guru Nanak International & Ors. (specifically Defendant No. 5 - M/s Sazia Garments)
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V., finding that Defendant No. 5 (M/s Sazia Garments) was engaged in deliberate trademark infringement by manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel bearing their marks. Based on the local commissioner's report confirming the seizure of substantial infringing stock, the court decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages of Rs. 10 lakhs for the calculated willful infringement.
TTK Registered Ltd. v.Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd.
The plaintiff, TTK Prestige Ltd., sued Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off due to the sale of its 'PRESTIGE' kitchen appliances on the defendant's online platform without authorization. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of exhaustion applies once goods are lawfully sold into the market, and there is no privity of contract between the parties.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenged a single judge's judgment that invalidated the Appellant's patent IN240893 under Sections 64(1)(h) and (k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since no issues were framed regarding these specific grounds for revocation, the learned Single Judge could not have entertained them.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.S4S Security Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the suit filed by G4S Limited against S4S Security Services, which alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court noted that G4S holds valid registrations for its marks, including 'G4S'. After considering the allegations of deceptive similarity in the defendant's use of 'S4S', the Court issued notice to the defendants and granted an interim restraint order against them pending further proceedings.
Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd v.Head Digital Works Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tictok Skill Games Pvt Ltd against Head Digital Works Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was leveraging the plaintiff's established reputation by using the trademark 'WinZo' as a meta/title tag on its competing website, thereby causing consumer confusion and benefiting from the plaintiff's goodwill. Despite receiving a Cease and Desist notice, the defendant only made minor alterations to the mark, prompting the court to issue an immediate restraint order.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors.
The appeal was filed by Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson against the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent. The court found that there had been a violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically regarding the lack of opportunity for the appellant to deal with fresh objections.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Vifor's patent. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement on August 9, 2021.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and selling jeans and accessories bearing falsified and confusingly similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', etc.). The court found the defendants guilty of trademark infringement and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
The case involved patent infringement concerning Vivo mobile phones. A specific application was filed by defendant No. 3 (Xihi Technology Private Limited) seeking deletion from the parties array, claiming they only manufacture mobile chargers. The court accepted the undertaking given by D-3 not to infringe and passed an interim injunction against them.
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.