India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 200 of 311 · 7,456 total
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademarks 'UNOCAL' and related products. The plaintiff, Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited, had previously obtained an ad interim anti-suit injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with litigation in the United States. However, the court ultimately allowed the vacation of this injunction. The ruling emphasized that Indian courts should not restrain parties from seeking protection against perceived infringement in foreign jurisdictions unless those proceedings are oppressive or vexatious to the domestic case.
SAP SE v.SAP HANA SERVER ACCESS HYDERABAD AND ORS
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of SAP SE against the defendants. The court found merit in SAP's claims regarding its proprietary software and trademarks ('SAP', 'SAP HANA'). Consequently, the court directed the immediate de-activation of multiple infringing websites and social media accounts, as well as freezing a specific bank account linked to the alleged pirated activities.
Mohalla Tech Priavte Limited v.Lagdhir Jugaldip Bharatkumar
The Gujarat High Court heard an appeal challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in a trademark suit. While the appellant argued the initial order failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the court chose not to interfere with the interim order at that stage. Instead, it directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with hearing the Injunction Application on its merits, ensuring both parties are given a full opportunity to be heard.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Innovation Meditech Private Limited
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Plaintiffs (Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors.) and the Defendant (Innovation Meditech Private Limited) have reached a mutual understanding. The court noted that the parties were actively engaged in drawing up a settlement agreement to resolve the ongoing litigation. This indicates a cooperative approach toward resolving commercial disputes outside of full trial.
Bennett Coleman Co Ltd v.Whatsappinc & Ors.
Bennett Coleman Co Ltd filed a suit against Whatsappinc and others alleging widespread unauthorized circulation and distribution of its proprietary e-newspapers. The plaintiff asserted that their published news articles, available through subscription on their websites, constitute original literary works protected under copyright law. Given the evidence presented regarding illegal dissemination via platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bennett Coleman Co Ltd.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Nava Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit concerning pharmaceutical products, the Delhi High Court addressed the plaintiff's request for immediate interim injunction. The court declined to grant an ex parte order, emphasizing that the defendants had claimed prior use of the mark since 2018 and that public interest required them to be given a chance to respond. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants, allowing the litigation process to proceed with due consideration for all parties.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed suits alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the product Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR), protected under Indian Patents IN 307 and IN 332. The core dispute revolved around whether these specific patents remained valid, especially since CTPR was covered by an expired genus patent (IN 978). While FMC argued for a permanent injunction against the launch of CTPR, Natco contended that the validity of the suit patents was questionable due to the prior coverage by IN 978. The court disposed of the interim applications but scheduled further hearings to conclude the complex arguments on the merits.
Bajaj Finance Limited v.Registrant Of Www.Bajaj-Finserve.Org & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Bajaj Finance Limited against the registrant of infringing domains. The court found that three specific domain names were clearly violating the petitioner's trademark. Consequently, the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) were directed to lock these illegal domains, and the Department of Telecommunications/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (DOT/MEITY) was mandated to block access to them.
Dharmendra Kumar Aggarwal v.Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Secretary & Anr.
This petition addressed the critical issue of supply and availability of the drug Tocilizumab 400 MG (Actemra) for COVID-19 patients in Delhi. The court examined submissions from Roche India, which indicated that global demand far exceeded current manufacturing capabilities. While Roche mentioned partnerships with other entities to meet demand, they provided no clear assurance regarding further supply to India. Consequently, the court issued detailed directions to both Roche and the Union of India to provide comprehensive affidavits on supply chain status, patent details, and potential alternatives.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd.
Kamdhenu Limited sued Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered design for steel bars featuring a double-ribbed surface pattern. The defendant challenged the validity of this registration, arguing that the design was merely a common feature found in industry standards and prior publications. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's design lacked novelty because it reflected established industry practices and known standards.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Vaishali Travels & Anr.
In a case concerning the use of the 'VOLVO' trademark, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between the plaintiffs (Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors) and defendant No. 2. The court ordered that the settlement, wherein the defendant agrees not to use the registered trademark 'VOLVO', must be placed on record within two weeks. This order confirms an earlier interim decision and keeps the litigation moving toward resolution.
Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v.Rajendra Mahadev Dakare
In this trademark infringement suit, Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. sought a temporary injunction against Rajendra Mahadev Dakare regarding the use of the mark 'RENAISSANCE'. The plaintiff argued that their established global hospitality brand was being threatened by the defendant's application for a similar mark. The Delhi High Court allowed the necessary applications and issued notice to the defendant, allowing the suit to proceed while granting interim relief pending further hearings.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Vishal Products
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Vishal Products alleging infringement of copyright and passing off concerning the distinctive artistic label and trade dress of its 'WHEEL' detergent. The parties reached a consent order before the Bombay High Court, settling the dispute without pressing for damages or costs. Under the settlement, Vishal Products acknowledged HUL's proprietary rights, agreed to cease using the similar packaging, and committed to destroying all existing infringing stock.
Lupin Limited v.Celon Laboraatories Private Limited
Lupin Limited sought an urgent interim injunction in the Bombay High Court against Celon Laboraatories Private Limited for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the mark BIVASSA by the defendant, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered anti-cancer drug mark BEVAZZA. The court found a sufficient prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. v.Monsendeep Kaur
The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction to Kulvinder Singh Kohli & Anr. against Monsendeep Kaur regarding the trademark 'Pamoist'. The plaintiffs established that they were prior adopters and users of the mark, which was used by their charitable trust before being transferred to Pamoist International. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using the disputed mark or similar variants until the matter is further heard, while clarifying that the Trademark Registry retains full authority over the opposition proceedings.
Mahaan Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Calpro Specialities Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning trademark disputes, the court observed significant procedural difficulties on the part of the respondent. Despite being notified about the termination of key trademark license agreements, the respondent failed to provide a formal response and instead changed legal counsel without adequate instructions. Given these compounding issues, the bench decided to stay the operation of the impugned orders in the appeals, allowing time for the matter to be properly addressed.
Anil Rathi v.Shree Sidhbali Steels Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute concerning the use of 'Rathi' in manufacturing steel items. The plaintiff, Anil Rathi, challenged the defendants' use of the mark, alleging that a lease agreement was merely a camouflage for unauthorized production. While the defendants claimed they were operating under a valid license, the court allowed the plaintiff to file an additional affidavit and documents regarding a guarantee provided by Defendant No.1 to secure loans for Defendant No.2. The interim injunction remains in place pending further arguments.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Xiaomi Corporation
Interdigital Technology Corporation filed an application seeking an injunction against Xiaomi Corporation and others, restraining them from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used in cellular handsets. The court allowed the application, making the ad interim injunction absolute.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Salud Care (India) Private Limited
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed an interim application alleging that Salud Care (India) Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a pharmaceutical preparation under the mark PROLOMEK, which was confusingly similar to Sun Pharma's registered trademark PROLOMET. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. v.Tex Tech Industries (India) Private Limited
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking injunction against Tex Tech Industries for alleged infringement of its registered trademark and Patent No. IN 324406. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party had a principal place of business in Delhi and that the transaction was merely a one-time trap purchase. However, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, noting that since the goods were delivered and the contract completed in Delhi, the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
A.R.Safiullah v.Daniel
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for infringing his registered patent (No. 198079) related to food grade laminated paper and for passing off their products as the plaintiff's. The dispute was subsequently resolved between the parties.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Musky Couture
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. to proceed with its suit against Musky Couture, which alleges infringement of the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark and copyright in unique artistic garments. The Plaintiff detailed how the Defendant was allegedly manufacturing and selling identical, low-budget imitations while falsely claiming association with the original designer. Crucially, the Court issued a significant interim order allowing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of the Defendant's premises in Mumbai to gather evidence of infringement.
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals v.Arunachala Industries
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals filed a civil suit against Arunachala Industries alleging infringement of its 'GOODLUCK' trademark, passing off, and copyright violation related to the distinctive blue and yellow color scheme and container design used for paints. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages. However, the matter was resolved when the defendant provided an undertaking confirming they had ceased using the label and returned unused materials.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Nova Indus Pharmaceuticals And Anr
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed a commercial IP suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Nova Indus Pharmaceuticals. The court examined the extreme phonetic and structural similarity between the marks PANTOCID and PANZOCID, finding that there was a sufficient prima facie case.