India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 201 of 295 · 7,068 total
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited v.Dsp Realty
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited filed an interim application alleging passing off against Dsp Realty, citing the use of the similar word 'DSP'. The Plaintiff, a major player in financial services, claimed substantial goodwill associated with its marks. Given that the Defendant failed to appear and provide a defense, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction. This order restricts the Defendant from using the mark containing 'DSP' in related financial sectors, protecting the Plaintiff's market reputation.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The plaintiffs, owners of Patent IN-381 covering the molecule APIXABAN (Eliquis®), filed a suit against Bdr Pharmaceuticals for allegedly manufacturing and intending to supply generic versions of this patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding infringement and the validity of the patent based on prior art documents submitted by the defendant.
M/s.Taranga Technologies v.M/s.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The appeal was filed against an order dismissing an application seeking to revoke leave granted in a suit for infringement of registered design and passing off. The core dispute revolved around whether the appellant's involvement in a national tender, which included supply within Chennai jurisdiction, provided sufficient grounds for the court to exercise territorial jurisdiction.
Galatea Ltd. v.Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited
Galatea Ltd. filed an application arguing that the trial court failed to appoint a local commissioner to inspect premises and inventory alleged infringing evidence related to patent infringement. The petitioners contended that notice alone risked the destruction or removal of evidence. The High Court agreed, granting the application for the appointment of seven commissioners.
Galatea Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Saira Rana v.M. Kantilal Exports
Galatea Ltd. filed an application seeking the appointment of a court commissioner for local inspection and inventory regarding alleged patent infringement, arguing that issuing notice would lead to the removal or destruction of evidence. The Court agreed with the petitioners' apprehension and granted the application.
M/s.Diabliss Consumers Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Diabliss Consumers Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. alleging copyright infringement regarding the artistic design used on its 'Diabliss Diabetic Friendly Sugar' pouches. The plaintiff demonstrated prior creation and use of the unique artistic design since 2015, which was subsequently copied by the defendant for their product, Diabeat. The Madras High Court found that the background, color, and overall get-up of the defendant's pouch were identically similar to the plaintiff's protected design.
Mohtimbas Engineering Pvt.Ltd. v.Machine N Tools And 4 Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' notice of motion in a commercial IP suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants were selling identical goods in an identical trade dress, constituting not just passing off but dealing in counterfeit goods. Given the clear prima facie case presented by the Plaintiffs regarding their registered mark KYK, the court granted interim protection.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Captain Tractors Private Limited
Ashok Leyland Limited filed a suit alleging that Captain Tractors Private Limited was using the mark 'CAPTAIN' to pass off its goods. The dispute centered on whether the use of the mark constituted passing off, given that Ashok Leyland manufactures heavy vehicles while the respondent holds a registration for mini tractors.
Murickens Marketing System Llp v.Alex G. Muricken
The Kerala High Court addressed an appeal challenging a preliminary injunction granted against Alex G. Muricken for using names similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks, such as 'M.G and Murickens Group'. While acknowledging that the lower court had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on the similarity of marks and logos, the High Court recognized the appellant's claim regarding his long-standing use of the name 'Muricken Trading Company'. To balance competing interests and ensure substantial justice, the court remanded the matter back to the trial court, granting both parties a further opportunity to present evidence before deciding the injunction.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Natco Pharma
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma for infringing Indian Patent No.IN247381 (APIXABAN). The defendant sought a stay under Section 10 CPC, citing a previously instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning patent validity and infringement. The High Court dismissed the stay application.
K.M.Ahmed Ansari / M/S Oriental Metals India Pvt Ltd v.K.S.Mohammed Ali / M/S Hero Plywoods and Boards
This appeal before the Kerala High Court challenged a lower court's dismissal of an interim injunction request concerning the trademark 'Oralium'. The appellants argued that the lower court's findings prejudiced the ongoing lawsuit. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the previous observations were merely tentative and did not preclude a fair trial. Given that the main suit was already scheduled for trial, the court deemed an interim injunction unnecessary and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v.Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. filed a commercial IP suit alleging that Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on its registered designs for snack food products. The core dispute centered on whether the Defendant's product, 'Rumbles', utilized an identical or substantially similar design to Frito-Lay's protected ridge design. The court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting interim relief.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v.Tanmed Pharma India Private Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sued Tanmed Pharma for infringing its patents related to the medicinal product Linagliptin. The court conducted an inspection and found that the defendant had neither manufactured nor marketed the drug, having surrendered its manufacturing license.
M/S Jai Hind Chemicals And Another v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Jai Hind Chemicals seeking an early decision on an application to rectify a trademark registration. The petitioners alleged that the respondent's registered trademark was similar to their trade name, necessitating rectification. However, after considering arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the Trademark Registry (Respondent No. 2) was actively processing the matter and not deliberately delaying it. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition while urging the Registry to expedite its decision.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited and MSN Laboratories Limited for infringing their patents related to the pharmaceutical compound TICAGRELOR, marketed as BRILINTA. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants' generic versions (TICAPLAT and TIARE).
Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited v.Shailputri Media Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted interim protection to Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited in a passing off suit against Shailputri Media Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Republic Hindi,' coupled with similar font and color schemes, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'Republic TV.' Despite arguments regarding the generic nature of the word 'Republic,' the court prioritized the visual similarity and prior usage by the plaintiff, granting the requested injunction.
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Maxwell Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing interim injunctions granted to Shalina Laboratories against Maxwell Life Science. The dispute centered on trademark infringement ('SUPER APETI' vs 'SUPER PEPTI'), copyright infringement related to packaging/trade dress, and passing-off concerning pharmaceutical preparations. By confirming these orders, the court maintained the status quo, ensuring the Plaintiff's rights were protected while the main commercial IP suit proceeds.
M/S.Fun World And Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Nimil K.K.
The appeal challenged the lower court's order granting a temporary injunction, which restrained M/S.Fun World And Resorts (India) from using its 'Tunnel Aquarium' design due to alleged copyright infringement by Nimil K.K.'s client. The appellant argued that the design was not original and could not be registered under the Designs Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that a prima facie case for copyright existed.
Tripti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust
The Gujarat High Court rejected a Civil Revision Application filed by Tripti Grover, upholding the dismissal of her application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The court clarified that an application under O.7 R.11 must be decided based solely on the averments and documents presented in the plaint, without considering external claims or pleas from related parties (like a daughter claiming rights). The judgment affirmed that multiple parties can have competing claims to a trademark, and one party's claim of prior use cannot be precluded by another claimant.
All India Patent Officers Welfare Association v.Union Of India & Ors
The All India Patent Officers Welfare Association filed a petition alleging that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) unlawfully provided access to sensitive, unpublished trademark and patent application data to a private multinational company. The petitioner argued this access lacked necessary checks and balances. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and directed an investigation into the matter, setting a timeline for the respondents to file their reply.
Alfa Ica (India) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Alfa Ica (India) Limited challenged the removal of its trademark registration from the register before The Registrar of Trade Marks in the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner argued that the ten-year renewal period should commence from November 2009, not March 2009, based on when they were communicated the certificate. Furthermore, they contended that the procedure for removal was flawed and unreasoned. The court granted interim relief while setting a date for further hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed Sun Pharma's appeal against a lower court order that denied an interim injunction. Sun Pharma sought protection for its registered trademark 'BEVETEX' against Intas Pharmaceuticals' use of 'BEVATAS,' alleging infringement and passing off in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found no prima facie case for infringement, noting that while both drugs are cancer treatments, their trade dress and administration methods were not remotely similar. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Narendra Singh v.Ashendra Mishra
Narendra Singh filed an application seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against Ashendra Mishra regarding disputes arising from their partnership firm, M/s. Kautilya Academy. The applicant alleged misuse of the trade mark and siphoning of funds by the respondents. However, the court dismissed the application, holding that since there were serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and dispute over the very execution of the partnership deed, the matter was not fit for arbitration. The proper remedy was directed to be sought in a civil court.
Deepak Nitrite Limited v.Sara Chemicals & Consultants
Deepak Nitrite Limited sought an urgent ad-interim injunction against Sara Chemicals & Consultants, alleging that Sara Chemicals had unilaterally filed five patent applications based on a proprietary process developed by Deepak Nitrite. The Petitioner argued that the relevant data and technology belonged exclusively to them, and there was a risk of third-party disclosure.