India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 207 of 311 · 7,456 total
International House Of Pancakes LLC. v.IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International House Of Pancakes LLC. (Plaintiff) against IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors. (Defendants). The plaintiff, a global brand owner of 'IHOP', sought protection against the defendants' use of the identical mark. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss, thereby protecting the established reputation of the trademark.
Inkpot Films Private Limited v.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Inkpot Films Private Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against various telecom and cable companies for infringing the copyright of its cinematographic film, "Is Love Enough? SIR". The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the entire suit and connected applications before the Madras High Court.
RB Health (Us) Llc v.Dabur India Limited
RB Health (US) LLC filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, alleging infringement of their registered soap bar design (No. 271671) and the tort of passing off through similar trade dress and taglines. The plaintiffs sought to prevent Dabur from manufacturing or selling a competing soap bar under the brand 'SANITIZE'. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for an injunction, noting that such cases heavily depend on specific facts rather than merely analogical precedents.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Xiaomi Inc & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents concerning UMTS enhancement (HSPA, HSPA+) and LTE technologies used in mobile phones by Xiaomi Inc & Ors. The court issued several orders regarding interim applications, including granting an ad-interim injunction request and directing the defendants to maintain Rs. 1000 crores in bank accounts.
Anil Rathi v.Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the dispute concerning the 'RATHI' trademark. The court restrained Defendant No. 4 from granting new licenses related to the mark until further hearing, providing immediate relief to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court mandated that certain defendants maintain and file detailed accounts of sales made under the 'RATHI' trademark during a specified period, while also allowing for the impleadment of proposed parties.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order passed during Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act. The respondent argued that the patent was already registered and other remedies, including Post-Grant Opposition, were available.
Starbucks Corporation v.Mr.Sunil & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Starbucks Corporation against Defendant No. 5 following a joint settlement agreement. The settlement confirmed that Starbucks owns registered trademarks (STARBUCKS, FRAPPUCCINO) and copyrights in its logos and artistic works. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 37,500/-, the defendant agreed to permanent injunctions restraining them from infringing or misusing these marks and copyrights, including ceasing the sale of counterfeit products.
Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt Ltd v.Cocosath Health Products
This original petition challenged an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, which restrained Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt Ltd from appointing exclusive global marketers and transferring confidential product know-how. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioners had not shown reason for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it would not interfere with the lower court's order.
Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. v.Aniruddha Malpani
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. against Aniruddha Malpani, who was accused of defamation and trademark infringement via social media posts. The court found that the plaintiff faced irreparable loss due to the defendant's derogatory tweets regarding its brand 'WHITE HAT JR'. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to immediately cease posting such content and take down a list of specific offending tweets within 48 hours.
Karan Bajaj & Anr. v.Pradeep Poonia
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Karan Bajaj & Anr. against Pradeep Poonia, addressing allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, defamation, and unauthorized access to confidential business data. The court restrained the defendant from using similar marks like 'WhiteHat Sr' and prohibited him from hacking or circulating the plaintiffs' proprietary curriculum. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of multiple defamatory tweets and YouTube content posted by the respondent.
Sopariwala Exports & Anr. v.Mr.Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Anr. against Mr. Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. The plaintiffs, who hold extensive trademark rights for 'AFZAL' related to tobacco products, successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement by the defendants selling similar goods under infringing marks like 'AFZAL BIDI No. 90.' This interim order protects the plaintiffs from irreparable loss while the main suit proceeds.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Park Pharmaceuticals
Glaxo Group Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement litigation against Park Pharmaceuticals through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit based on the compromise, which required Park Pharmaceuticals to cease using deceptively similar marks like AQUAMENTIN and CETUM, acknowledge Glaxo's ownership of AUGMENTIN and CEFTUM, change product branding (to CLAVPARK and PARXETIL), destroy all infringing materials, and pay a settlement amount of Rs. 1,50,000.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Micro Labs Limited, Zydus Healthcare Ltd., ERIS Lifesciences Ltd., USV Pvt. Ltd., MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought permanent and temporary injunctions against various defendants for infringing their patents related to Dapagliflozin. The court found that the defendants had laid a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, leading the court to decline the grant of interim injunction.
ASTRAZENCA AB & ANR v.AJANTA PHARMA LTD.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent IN '625. The present order addressed the defendant's request for an early hearing, noting that in connected suits, the court had previously declined interim injunctions.
Sap Se v.Chetan Maini& Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Sap Se following an amicable settlement reached with Chetan Maini. The settlement agreement established that the defendant admitted ownership of the SAP trademark and logo. Key terms included a permanent injunction against using the mark for educational services, destruction of infringing materials, cessation of providing pirated software, and payment of INR 100,000 in costs.
Adj Utility Apps Private Limited & Kyte Technologies Inc. v.Mr. Sumit Rajendra Shaha, Growthpond Technologies Private Limited, Risemetric Inc., & Rankz Inc.
This Karnataka High Court judgment records an amicable settlement between the parties involved in a copyright dispute concerning the 'Dukaan' application source code. The complex litigation, which included interim injunctions and technical evaluations by the Indian Institute of Science, was resolved through a Joint Compromise Memo. Key terms include a payment of USD 80,000 to Petitioner No. 2, an allotment of 1% common stock in Respondent No. 2-Company to one of the Petitioners, and mutual waivers of claims regarding both 'Disputed' and 'New Sourcecode'.
Microsoft Corporation & Anr. v.Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Microsoft against Pcpatchers Technology Pvt. Ltd. and associated parties. The suit alleged that the defendants were using various domain names and impersonating Microsoft's authorized technical support staff to defraud customers. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence, noting that the defendants were infringing on Microsoft's registered trademarks, domain names, and copyrights while engaging in fraudulent activities.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others regarding alleged patent infringement (Patent No.282429). The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the suit fell within the court's territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the state. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the revocation of leave to sue was incorrect due to jurisdictional concerns.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others for alleged infringement of Patent No. 282429. The core issue revolved around whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the local limits. The Madras High Court allowed the appeals, restoring the suit to the Commercial Division.
Havells India Limited v.Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd.
Havells India Limited filed a suit against Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its design and passing off. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the court.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Ashok Kumar (unknown person/s)
Unilever Plc. filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against an unknown defendant for the infringement of its registered trade marks (including LAKME and U-Logo), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to its FMCG products. The court granted immediate relief, empowering Additional Special Receivers to seize and seal all infringing goods.
Ms Gip Development Sarl v.Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Ms Gip Development Sarl, the owner of the 'Blaupunkt' trademark. The petitioner sought relief after terminating a license agreement with Ms Trigur Electronics India Private Limited due to non-payment of minimum license fees. Given that the respondent had not challenged the termination and failed to pay outstanding dues, the court ruled that the respondent lacked authority to use the mark, thereby restraining them from manufacturing or selling products under 'Blaupunkt' until the final disposal of the case.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd And Anr v.Dilip Kumar Shukla & Ors.
In this ongoing commercial suit concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to Kent RO's products, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding one of the defendants. The defendant argued that the design right relevant to their involvement had expired, prompting the plaintiff to consider removing them from the case. While no final judgment was reached, the court issued several directions for the completion of pleadings and document exchange.
Dhaval Diyora v.Union of India And Ors
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had directed the Controller to issue a patent to Pfizer Products Inc. The petitioner argued that this order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard regarding his pre-grant opposition. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioner's conduct questionable and holding that the pre-grant opposition was not maintainable in law.