India IP Litigation
7,177 annotated decisions
Page 192 of 300 · 7,177 total
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd v.Kishan Hirji Gothi Sole Proprietor Of Bubalus Beverages
Xotik Frujus Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Kishan Hirji Gothi for alleged infringement. The Defendant submitted to the decree terms, leading the Court to dispose of the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Emami Ltd v.Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking modification of a previous interim order. The court observed that the suit involved infringement and passing off and was valued in excess of the specified limit. Consequently, the case (IN EOS/4/2020) and the associated application (IA GA 1 of 2021) were transferred to the Commercial Division.
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v.Dag Creative Media Pvt. Ltd.
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition in the Bombay High Court against Dag Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. The court initially granted leave for the petition. Furthermore, the petitioner sought permission to amend their plaint to accurately describe the nature of the commercial suit. The bench allowed this amendment, allowing the litigation to proceed with corrected pleadings.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited
This case involved a dispute between Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited and Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement of the 'Hero' trademark on electric bikes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks. However, the core legal battle revolved around whether the contractual disputes arising from the Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) and Trade Mark and Name Agreement (TMNA) were subject to arbitration.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt. Ltd. challenging a lower court's refusal to grant an ad interim injunction. While noting the appellant's claims of prior use of its trademark and copyright registration on its packaging, the Court ultimately decided not to interdict proceedings at that stage. Instead, it directed the District Judge to expedite the hearing of the interlocutory application, ensuring the matter moves forward promptly.
Vimal Dairy Limited v.Gujarat Tea Depot Company
The Gujarat High Court upheld the interim injunction granted in favor of Gujarat Tea Depot Company against Vimal Dairy Limited. The court found that allowing Vimal Dairy to market its product could cause confusion among the public due to substantial similarities between the brands and labels, despite differences in trade products. This decision reinforces the principle that courts must look at prima facie similarity to prevent consumer deception in trademark and copyright disputes.
Johnson & Johnson v.Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr
In a trademark infringement dispute, Johnson & Johnson sought permission from the Delhi High Court to amend its original plaint. The plaintiff argued that evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner revealed additional trademark infringements by the defendant concerning 'LIGACLIP,' which needed to be incorporated into the suit. Satisfied that these amendments were necessary for determining the real issues between the parties, the court allowed the application, allowing J&J to update its claims and proceed with the litigation.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Uniza Healthcare Llp. & Anr.
Cadila Healthcare Limited sought an ad-interim injunction against Uniza Healthcare LLP, alleging that the defendant's trademark 'ZACLEAR' was deceptively similar to Cadila's mark 'ZYCLEAR'. The Delhi High Court declined to grant the immediate injunction, primarily noting discrepancies in the plaintiff's claim regarding the date of adoption and registration of 'ZYCLEAR'. Instead, the court directed both parties to complete their pleadings, file written statements, and proceed with the suit for a final determination.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
This case involved a suit for alleged patent infringement. The defendants filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements, citing difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and general disruptions to legal processes. The court allowed these applications, condoning the delay.
Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited v.The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Ors.
Astrazeneca challenged several orders and notifications issued by NPPA regarding overcharging on its drug, OSIMERTINIB (TAGRISSO). The petitioner argued that the drug is patented and qualifies for a five-year exemption from price controls under DPCO, 2013. The Court directed NPPA to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the data supplied by the petitioner.
Praveen Murarka v.Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a dispute over registered designs of water bottles. The appellant, Praveen Murarka, sought an injunction against the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered design ('Kool Kommandar') with their product ('Cool Cutie'). The core legal issue revolved around whether the Commercial Court correctly applied the test of 'exact similitude' or if the proper standard under the Designs Act, 2000, was the 'look alike' factor. The High Court ultimately found that the designs were substantially similar and set aside the lower court's order, allowing the injunction.
A.R.Safiullah v.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts
A.R.Safiullah filed a civil suit against Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts and others, alleging infringement of his intellectual property rights. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions based on Patent No. 198079 (for food-grade laminated paper) and Design No. 182931 (for artificial laminated banana leaves). Furthermore, the suit claimed passing off related to trade dress imitation. However, before a final judgment could be delivered, the plaintiff formally withdrew the civil suit.
A.R.Safiullah v.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts
A.R.Safiullah filed a civil suit against Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts and others, alleging infringement of his intellectual property rights. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions based on Patent No. 198079 (for food-grade laminated paper) and Design No. 182931 (for artificial laminated banana leaves), as well as claims of passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff formally withdrew the civil suit.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
R X Infotech Private Limited v.Jalpa Rajesh Kumar Jain
The Delhi High Court dismissed a defendant's application seeking to reject the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that even if the suit was primarily based on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC allow for jurisdiction where any part of the cause of action arose. Specifically, the court found that online transactions related to the defendant's website could reasonably be considered to have occurred within Delhi, thus validating the plaintiff's choice of forum.
Plaintiff No. 1 v.Defendants
The plaintiffs, owners of two patents covering the compound LINAGLIPTIN and its derivatives, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing LINAGLIPTIN tablets under the brand name BRLENTA-5 without consent. The court found a prima facie case for injunction.
JK Lakshmi Cement Limited v.JK Shian Cement Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between JK Lakshmi Cement Limited and JK Shian Cement Private Limited. The court allowed a defendant's application to condone a 90-day delay in filing its written statement, noting that negotiations regarding settlement had taken place. Additionally, while acknowledging ongoing disputes over interim orders, the court granted time for defendants to file their replies, setting a future hearing date.
M/S. B.R.Industries v.State Of Meghalaya & 2 Ors.
The Meghalaya High Court addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by respondents in a trademark infringement case involving 'Megha' cashew nuts. The court clarified that under the specific administrative rules governing tribal areas like Nongpoh, courts presided over by Deputy Commissioners and Additional Deputy Commissioners function as Principal Civil Courts of Original Jurisdiction. Consequently, these courts are deemed competent to try suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thereby upholding the petitioner's right to pursue the infringement claim.
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd v.Harshini Movies
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd filed a suit against Harshini Movies seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of the title 'Vidathu Karuppu' or any deceptively similar title for its motion picture. The plaintiffs had previously secured an interim injunction regarding this matter. However, subsequent developments revealed that the defendant had changed the name of their film to 'Shenbaga Kottai'. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a memo stating that they were not pressing the suit further, leading the court to dismiss the case as not prosecuted.
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd and E9 Intrakt v.Harshini Movies
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd filed a suit against Harshini Movies seeking permanent injunctions under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the defendant from using the title 'Vidathu Karuppu' or any deceptively similar title for their motion picture. However, subsequent developments revealed that the defendant had changed the name of their film to 'Shenbaga Kottai', leading the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit.
M/s.Kumbhat Holographics v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
The appellants challenged the tender terms set by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd for producing polyester based hologram excise labels. They argued that the technical specifications favored a specific patented technology, leading to limited participation and vitiating the public tendering process. The High Court found merit in this challenge, quashing the tender but allowing Uflex (the awarded vendor) to continue work temporarily.
R.Ravindran v.M.Anandan
R.Ravindran appealed against an order concerning his rights as assignee of the copyright in a story related to the film 'Chakra'. The court dismissed both appeals, noting that while the primary finding regarding his arbitration application was accepted, the dismissal did not preclude him from asserting other legal causes of action.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor used to treat Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The court issued an order granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products until further hearing.