India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 199 of 295 · 7,068 total
Pfizer Inc v.Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Kwality Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging infringement of two Indian Patents, IN 209251 (Sunitinib) and IN 268331 (Tigecycline composition). The defendants agreed to the permanent injunction and offered compensation. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Sungro Seeds Ltd v.Sk Tripathi & Ors
Sungro Seeds Ltd filed a suit alleging that its ex-employees misappropriated confidential information, including parent lines and breeding strategies for its hybrid cauliflower 'Katreena', which was then used by a competitor to market an identical variety named 'Riya'. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of trade secrets and unfair competition. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without prior registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act), the plaintiff could not maintain a suit to restrain infringement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Everest Organics Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Organics Limited for infringing its registered patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was developing and preparing to commercialize an infringing product. Based on the prima facie case presented, the Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Pfizer Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 241773 and 218212, which cover Tofacitinib (XELJANZ(R)). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants were illegally manufacturing and selling generic versions under the brand 'TOFAXEN'.
R.K. Patel And Company, Tobacco Processors v.Jaju Tobacco Company
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a District Court's order that granted a temporary injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the defendant's packaging was sufficiently similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress (yellow colour pouch/packet) to warrant injunctive relief. This ruling reinforces the importance of visual similarity and consumer perception in protecting trademarks within the tobacco industry.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by Kanishk Sinha against the Union of India. The court noted that the petitioner's patent application had been accepted online, substantially addressing his grievance.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, holding patents and licenses for Sitagliptin (under trade names ISTAVEL and ISTAMET), filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling the drug under the brand name TwoTrack, thereby infringing their patent. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction.
Prof. Dr. Claudio De Simone & Next Gen Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v.Actial Farmaceutica Srl. (Formerly known as CD Investment Srl.) & Ors.
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership over the 'De Simone Formulation' through patent rights and subsequent Know-How agreements, filed suit against CD Group entities. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff retained proprietary rights (trade secrets) after the initial patent expired in 2015. The court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without a valid patent right in India, the plaintiffs lacked a personal cause of action to restrain the defendants from working or selling the formulation.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Snapdeal Private Limited against M/S Futuretimes Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing and tarnishing Snapdeal's registered trademark, not only through its use but also through false advertising claims. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the phrase "everything cheaper than Snapdeal" across all social media platforms pending further hearings.
D & H India Ltd v.Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned a suit filed by Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd against D & H India Ltd, alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'SUPERON'. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the respondent could amend its plaint to establish prior user rights for 'SUPERON' since 1994. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the appellant, who had ample opportunity to contest the claim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiff, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Triveni Interchem Private Limited, was selling and advertising various compositions of Sitagliptin without taking any license. The plaintiff holds a valid patent for Sitagliptin.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
Bharat Bhogilal Patel v.Nokia Corporations & Ors
The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal against a judgment decreeing the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. The original suit declared that the processes and machinery used by the plaintiff did not infringe the appellant's patents (189027 and 188787) and granted permanent injunction restraining the appellant from threatening infringement proceedings. The appeal was dismissed primarily due to the failure of the appellant to prove sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay.
Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Office of the Trade Marks Registry
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd against various IP authorities, including The Controller General of Patents and Designs. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the case, which was subsequently granted by the court. This dismissal allows the petitioner to pursue their rights through other appropriate legal channels.
M/s Purva Metal Sections Pvt.Ltd. v.Sri. K. Bhoopathi
The plaintiff, M/s Purva Metal Sections Pvt.Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Sri. K. Bhoopathi, alleging that the defendant was interfering with its lawful business of manufacturing and selling steel tubes (175mm and 180mm OD). The dispute centered on the defendant's claim of exclusive copyright over the drawings/technology used for these specific steel tubes.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the validity of a patent by questioning the vires of Section 64 of the Patents Act. The Union of India admitted the stand taken by the petitioner in its affidavit-in-opposition, leading the Calcutta High Court to dispose of the writ petition.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Harish Chaudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Inter Ikea Systems Bv against Harish Chaudhary & Anr. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its 'IKEA' trademark, along with its trade dress. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar marks, and were also ordered to suspend specific domain names and social media accounts until further orders.
Coffee Board, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India v.Trade Marks Registry
The Coffee Board filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious consideration and registration of specific trademark applications. The Trade Marks Registry responded by confirming that the applications had already been accepted, advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, and would proceed to registration subject to standard legal provisions. Given this confirmation from the Respondent, the High Court found no further order necessary and dismissed the writ petition.
Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
V Guard Industries Ltd. v.Taisong Chong And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd., preventing the defendants from transferring or registering the disputed domain name, www.vguard.com. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the defendant was acting as a cyber squatter to exploit the plaintiff's established trademark rights. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that administrative decisions under ICANN dispute resolution mechanisms are not binding adjudications and do not prevent civil litigation.
Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Emami Limited
This order sheet details an application filed by Emami Limited seeking the transfer of a title suit from the Additional District Judge to the Calcutta High Court. The original suit involved allegations of infringement concerning trademark, passing off, copyright, and design against Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. Citing Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, the court allowed the transfer application.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya v.A. Hafsabi & Anr.
The plaintiff, Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against A. Hafsabi & Anr. for infringement and passing off related to his brand KIMIA (wet dates). The plaintiff holds registered rights in the word mark KIMIA and its original artistic label. The court found that the defendants' use of 'KIMAA' and 'KEEMA' under pirated artwork was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion.
Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan v.Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic
The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order in this trademark dispute, allowing the matter to proceed toward final disposal. The petitioner secured a stay on the previous trial court's injunction order, while simultaneously receiving assurances from the defendant that they would comply with the interim injunction and cease using the disputed trademark during the pendency of the case.