India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 202 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/s Bharat Salt Company v.M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd
M/s Bharat Salt Company filed a suit against M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd seeking injunction and enforcement of its rights under the Patent Act, 1970. The defendant challenged the plaint by arguing that the plaintiff firm was unregistered, making the suit non-maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. However, the High Court dismissed this plea, noting that the firm was subsequently found to be registered and citing Supreme Court precedents which held that the bar under Section 69(2) does not apply to IP infringement suits.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Ganesh Department Stores
Ganesh Grains Ltd. filed a suit against Ganesh Department Stores seeking urgent interim relief under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court admitted the plaint subject to departmental scrutiny and granted leave for interim protection in the infringement and passing off suit.
Swatch AG v.Suresh Kumar
Swatch AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Suresh Kumar for infringing its well-known trademark 'SWATCH' by adopting the domain name www.swatchclub.in to sell similar goods. The court found that the impugned domain name was identical and deceptively similar, leading to huge losses for the plaintiff.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Uniray Life Sciences
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application alleging that Uniray Life Sciences was using the competing mark ACNO GEL, which infringed upon Ajanta's registered trademarks (ACNO and ACNO-C) used for acne treatment. The court found a sufficient prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Pfizer Products Inc v.Unichem Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patents. The parties reached a settlement and withdrew the suit and counter-claim.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Controller's order rejecting its pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, which led to the grant of a patent in favor of the respondent. The court addressed arguments regarding whether a writ petition is an efficacious remedy against such rejection.
Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachin Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sachin Gupta, preventing the use of similar marks and trade dress for spices. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of passing off based on long-standing prior use (since 1969) and significant goodwill associated with the 'GAI CHAAP' mark and 'COW' device. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating continuous, bona fide usage when asserting trademark rights in the FMCG sector.
Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd v.Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Laboratories Griffon Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging trade mark infringement and passing off against the Defendants, Ramesht Industry Pvt Ltd. The dispute centers on the use of identical or confusingly similar marks (GLIMET, GLIMET-1, GLIMET-2) for pharmaceutical products used in treating diabetes. The Court found a prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v.Union Of India And Ors
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe challenged the refusal of its trademark registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Registrar to treat the matter as a representation and reconsider the registration issue. This interim order allows Sony to address the concerns raised under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act without immediately litigating the merits in court.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Private Limited v.Prakash Distillery And Chemical Co Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the court's territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendant in a trademark dispute. While acknowledging that the cause of action is not strictly necessary under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Court required both parties to clarify their business presence across various locations (Delhi, Kolkata, Siliguri). The court directed the filing of specific affidavits detailing office locations and sales activities before reserving judgment on interim relief.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed a suit against Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to their bathing soap packaging. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used an identical colour scheme, trade dress, and deceptively similar artistic work on its product 'ISIE', mimicking the successful brand 'IVA'. After examining the evidence, the Madras High Court found that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Ashique Exports, granting permanent injunctions and directing the destruction of infringing stock.
Dr.S.Vijaya Bharati (Deceased) v.Mr.T.S.Ramalingam (Deceased)
The suit was filed by Dr.S.Vijaya Bharati (Deceased) against Mr.T.S.Ramalingam (Deceased) and others for infringement of copyright concerning the literary work "Amaran Kadhai". After nearly a decade, the parties entered into a compromise agreement.
Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v.Beton Tile Company, Iqbal, Nazmuddin, Mr. Huzaiffa Zoeb, Mrs. Bani Mufaddal, Mr. Kuzema Zainuddin, Indian Ceramic Company, Ali Akbar
The plaintiff, Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against a trial court judgment after losing a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. The suit alleged that the defendants were passing off their imitation tiles under the name 'Diana', confusing the public regarding the plaintiff's unique tile 'MONALISA'.
M/s.Bahwan Cyber Tek Pvt. Ltd. v.Aptivaa Consulting Solutions Private Limited
The Madras High Court formally accepted a Joint Memo of Compromise between M/s.Bahwan Cyber Tek Pvt. Ltd. and its defendants regarding trademark infringement concerning 'ASYMMETRIX EARLY WARNING SYSTEM'. The parties agreed that the defendants would cease all use, display, or advertising of the disputed mark in relation to software products. In exchange, the plaintiff waived most other reliefs sought in the suit, leading the court to decree the case based on the terms of the compromise.
Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation v.Sarine Technologies Limited
This writ petition challenged a Case Management Order passed by the Commercial Court, which fixed the trial schedule and mandated proceedings through Video Conferencing. The original suit involved allegations of copyright infringement concerning advisory software. The High Court upheld the lower court's order, noting that it appropriately considered guidelines from the Supreme Court regarding expeditious trials during the pandemic, thereby dismissing the petition.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Novartis AG claims that Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd is infringing on their Indian Patent No. 229051 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising Sacubitril + Valsartan. The court has previously issued an interim order restraining the defendants from using the infringing product.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Novartis AG claims that Eris Lifesciences Limited is infringing on their Indian Patent No. 229051 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising Sacubitril + Valsartan.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
The suit sought an injunction against Hetero Drugs Limited concerning Indian Patent 227963 for Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. The parties reached a settlement regarding IA No. 2333/2021, allowing the defendant to export products under Section 107A of the Patents Act, provided strict conditions are met.
Aap Ki Pasand & Anr v.New Direction Exports & Crafts
In this trademark dispute, the defendant sought to establish a prior right by claiming they purchased the 'ANDEES' trademark and logo from a third party in 2018. The court accepted the defendant's temporary commitment to cease using the disputed packaging pending further proceedings. This order indicates that the matter is still actively litigating, with both parties encouraged to attempt an out-of-court resolution.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd
The plaintiff, an insurance consultant operating under various names including Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy, sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, a private limited company, for using a deceptively similar domain name (www.katariainsurance.co.in) to his established mark. The court found that the similarity was too great and ruled in favor of granting immediate injunctive relief.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Indilina Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking an injunction against Indilina Pharmaceuticals (Defendant) for infringing their patent (IN'816) covering the compound Sitagliptin. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was offering tablets of Sitagliptin for sale in tenders. The Court granted interim relief restraining the Defendant from any infringing activities and directed disclosure of profits.
Diva Enterprises (P) Ltd v.Institute Of Medico Legal Publication (P) Ltd.
The appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellant argued that the contractual dispute, seeking damages and injunction, was arbitrable. However, the High Court held that since the reliefs sought were primarily based upon Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the dispute was non-arbitrable.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Eros International Media Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the release of a feature film, 'Haathi Mere Saathi,' alleging that its brand mark 'DRL' was being used in a derogatory manner within the movie plot. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that Dr. Reddy's failed to meet the three-pronged test for granting an injunction. The court held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants due to their substantial investment in the film production.
The Polo/Lauren Company L. P v.Reekha Bhati
The suit was filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L. P against Reekha Bhati for permanent injunction, alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks (POLO, POLO Ralph Lauren) on apparel and clothing goods. The court found that the defendant used identical/deceptively similar marks in relation to impugned goods, causing confusion and deception.