India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 203 of 311 · 7,456 total
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling a pharmaceutical composition that allegedly infringes their patent.
Rajendra Kumar Nanda & Ors. v.Dinesh Chandra Khimji Nandha & Ors.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions related to business operations, trade name usage, and trademark registration. While the court noted the plaintiffs' claims regarding family rights and potential infringement of their 'Khimji Jewels' mark, it also considered the defendants' counter-arguments, including challenges to existing agreements. The court ultimately issued an interim restraint order preventing the defendants from publishing any defamatory or disparaging advertisements against the plaintiffs until further hearing.
Good Life Industries v.J R J Foods Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by J R J Foods Pvt Ltd against an earlier order that granted interim injunction to Good Life Industries. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off, where Good Life claimed its mark 'MICHI'S' was being imitated by J R J Foods' mark 'MISHI'S'. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that in a passing-off action, the likelihood of confusion among an ordinary purchaser is key, regardless of actual damage or intent.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
The dispute involves H. Lundbeck A/S challenging Hetero Drugs Limited's export activities, which are claimed by the defendants to be permissible under Section 107A of the Patents Act for R&D purposes. The court issued an interim order allowing the defendants to continue exports to seven specified entities while addressing objections raised by the plaintiff.
Larsen & Toubro Limited v.Radheshyam Singh
The plaintiffs (Larsen & Toubro Limited and General Industrial Controls Private Limited) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were infringing their trademarks (including Larsen & Toubro, L&T, LT, etc., and GIC/GIC) and violating copyrights related to their product labeling. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement and passing off.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Snapdealluckydraws.Org.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Snapdeal Private Limited's application to implead numerous rogue websites as defendants in its ongoing infringement suit. The court extended existing interim orders, restraining these newly added parties from passing off the 'SNAPDEAL' trademark. Furthermore, it issued specific directions compelling certain defendants and registrars to suspend domain name registrations and notify internet service providers to block access to the infringing sites.
Jagmohan Ratra v.Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Jagmohan Ratra against Ampa Cycles Pvt. Ltd., finding that the latter was engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant was illegally using the identical mark 'AMPA' and a deceptively similar logo to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill, which had been built over nearly three decades. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trademarks under common law principles of passing off.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Amman Trader
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark dispute where M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited sought permanent injunctions against M/s.Amman Trader for infringing its registered mark 'DHEEPAM' by using 'SRI DEEPAM' on edible oil products, and for passing off inferior goods as the plaintiff's. The parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo, which was accepted and decreed by the court. This settlement ensures that the defendant will cease all infringing activities related to the plaintiff's brand.
N Dinesh Kumar v.Shweta Khandelwal
This appeal challenged a lower court's temporary injunction that restrained the appellant from using his trademark 'Matruveda' due to alleged deceptive similarity with the respondent's registered mark, 'Matru Ayurveda'. The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal test—considering the marks through the eyes of the 'quintessential common man.' Consequently, the High Court set aside the injunction order and directed the lower court to rehear the matter afresh.
Unilever Plc v.Radhe Cosmetics
The Bombay High Court passed an interim application order, confirming a previous order and granting a temporary injunction. The injunction restrains Radhe Cosmetics from manufacturing or trading cosmetic preparations using marks or trade dress deceptively similar to Unilever's registered trademarks (like LAKME NINE TO FIVE) and copyrighted artistic works.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.BRD Medilabs & Anr
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against BRD Medilabs & Anr regarding trademark infringement. The court decreed the suit in specific terms, requiring the defendants to apply for the cancellation of their registered mark 'Sanaret Labs' and withdraw their service mark application within four weeks.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
H. Lundbeck A/S filed a suit against Hetero Drugs Limited regarding alleged infringement of Patent IN227963, which covers Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. During the hearing, the defendants asserted that they were not commercially launching any product and were using the substance solely for regulatory and R&D purposes.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Mhs Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Centaur Pharmaceuticals filed a Leave Petition against MHS Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged infringement of its long-standing pharmaceutical trademark, SINAREST, by the Defendant's mark, SINARITE. The court granted the leave petition and directed both parties to file affidavits in reply and rejoinder within specified timelines.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The dispute involved allegations that the Defendant was illicitly using the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, including trademarks, trade dress, and copyright in label artwork. The Defendant claimed a license from a proprietor in Saudi Arabia.
B4U Television Network India Limited v.Jay Shree Praveen Enterprises And Ors
The Bombay High Court addressed an Interim Application filed by B4U Television Network India Limited concerning the pending Commercial IP Suit. The court noted that some defendants had not yet been served and directed the plaintiff to complete service at the earliest.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The Plaintiff (Unilever Plc) filed suit alleging that the Defendant was illicitly using its trademark, trade dress, and copyrighted artwork on rival products. The court found prima facie evidence of violation, noting that the defendant's claim of an international license did not negate infringement rights in India.
Unilever PLC v.Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics
Unilever PLC filed an IP suit against Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics alleging infringement of its trademark, copyright, and common law rights related to product labeling and trade dress. The defendant claimed they were operating under a license in Saudi Arabia. The court found the use illicit but allowed the defendant to proceed by accepting their submission regarding the prayer clause.
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Yc Electric Vehicle & Ors.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Bajaj Auto Limited sought compliance regarding the use of its 'CHETAK' brand. The Delhi High Court noted that the defendants claimed no E-rickshaws under the 'CHETAK' trademark had been sold since a previous interim order was issued. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit addressing these claims within three weeks, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking an injunction against Actis Generics Pvt Ltd for infringing Patent No. IN'816, which covers the compound Sitagliptin. The court examined the prima facie case and found that the Defendant was distributing and selling infringing Sitagliptin API without authorization.
Khaitan India Limited v.Khaitar Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of its distinctive trade mark 'Khaitan' and passing off against the defendants, who used the similar mark 'Khaitar'. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that since the defendant also possessed a registered trademark, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court ultimately dismissed the interlocutory application seeking dismissal.
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.