India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 209 of 311 · 7,456 total
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The case involves requests for injunctions against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v.CHARANJEET SINGH
The plaintiff, Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling perfumes under deceptively similar trademarks ('DAVIDOFF'/'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER'). The court found that the defendant's use of the mark caused confusion and injury to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, ordered delivery up of goods, and awarded damages.
Worknest Business Centre Llp & Anr. v.M/S Worknests Through Rajesh Goyal
Worknest Business Centre LLP filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against M/S Worknests, claiming that the defendant's use of 'WORKNESTS' in the co-working space business infringed upon its established mark 'WORKNEST'. While the plaintiff presented evidence of prior domain registration and trademarks, the court found no immediate grounds to grant an interim injunction. The matter was directed to proceed as a full suit for detailed examination.
Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd. v.Culinary Communications Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd., challenging a restraining order issued by the District Judge regarding the use of the 'Culinary Culture' trademark. The appellant argued that the injunction unfairly restricted its business operations in Classes 38 and 42, where it holds registered marks. While the respondents initially sought restraint only in Class-35, the court allowed both parties time to file comprehensive replies and rejoinders before the matter is heard expeditiously by the Trial Court.
Bharat Bhushan Gupta Prop. Bharat Light Machines v.Nitin Mittal Prop. M/S G.K. Trading Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bharat Light Machines regarding its trademark OZOMAX. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was deceptively using a similar mark, OZOWAX, and copying the artistic packaging for body massagers. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting the phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and the clear imitation of the product packaging.
M/s. M.S.Milk Product v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks Intellectual Property Building, et al.
M/s. M.S. Milk Product filed a Writ Petition seeking an order to expedite the registration process for two trademark applications in Class 29. However, during the hearing before the Madras High Court, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that both trademark applications had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous.
Living Media India Limited & Anr. v.Www.News-Aajtak.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Living Media India Limited, who claimed ownership of the 'AAJ TAK' trademark. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement by various defendants using similar marks in their domain names. Consequently, the court directed the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to immediately block and suspend the infringing websites and take down related content from social media platforms.
Vikas Jain And Anr. v.State Drugs Controller Haryana & Ors.
This petition challenged an order issued by the State Drugs Controller, Haryana, which directed the petitioners to cease using two cosmetic brand names, 'COSMO SILKY' and 'COSMO'. The controller had acted based on the lack of ownership proof in a family dispute pending before the Delhi High Court. The Punjab-Haryana High Court set aside this order, ruling that the regulatory authority overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing a blanket ban while complex trademark disputes were still sub judice.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Indoco Remedies Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to sell approximately 58,000 strips of its generic product APIXABID (Apixaban), which had been manufactured prior to a restrictive injunction being passed by the Single Judge. The court dismissed the application, holding that without a decision on the merits, it could not reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge.
M/S Emco Thr. v.Union Of India Thr.
M/S Emco Thr. approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking intervention against the Trade Marks Registry's inaction regarding a trademark correction application for 'MADHUVAN'. The petitioner argued that due to administrative errors, they were not recognized as the registered owner despite having exclusive rights via an assignment deed and continuous use since 1982. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to adjudicate the pending representation/appeal within a stipulated period of three months.
Capital Food Pvt. Ltd. v.Radiant Indus Chem. Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. While the court found that 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' is likely a descriptive and common term, thus denying the injunction against the mark itself, it granted protection for the plaintiff's trade dress/packaging and marketing content. This mixed ruling highlights the distinction between protecting generic product descriptors versus unique visual branding elements in IP law.
Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.
Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed cross-suits concerning the identical mark 'MODERN' used in the FMCG sector. While acknowledging that the plaintiff (Modern Foods) was a prior adopter of the mark, the court granted an interim injunction with significant caveats. The defendant (Modern Snacks) is restrained from expanding its product range using 'MODERN', but is allowed to continue using it on existing labels and registered goods. This decision balances the rights of both parties while preserving the status quo pending final determination.
M/s. Cothas Coffee Co. v.Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'Cothas'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Cotha Giri' on coffee products. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit against UPL Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringing its India Patent No. 262428, which covers Boscalid anhydrous Form-II. The court considered affidavits from both parties regarding infringement and R&D activities. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in favor of BASF SE, granting a permanent injunction.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Carneige Institute Of Washington v.Fenix Diamonds Llc
The application sought to execute a Letter Rogatory from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York, requesting deposition testimony, facility inspection, and document production related to patent infringement litigation concerning CVD diamonds. The court partially granted the request by appointing a Principal District Judge in Surat to record witness evidence.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Vision Prime Tech Pvt Ltd
In a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on September 4, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents while also accepting assurances from the defendant. Crucially, the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and provided statements denying the use of the impugned mark in the market. These procedural steps move the case toward a resolution based on the parties' commitments.
Sanjay Lalwani v.M/s.Jyostar Enterprises
Sanjay Lalwani filed an Original Application seeking an interim injunction against M/s. Jyostar Enterprises and others to prevent the alienation and telecasting of copyright and satellite rights for the film “PSV GARDA VEGA”. The applicant claimed that a subsequent assignment of these rights was in contravention of his original Deed of Assignment. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the application, holding that disputes concerning copyrights are generally considered non-arbitrable under established Supreme Court precedents.
VELCRO BVBA v.VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning the 'VELCRO' brand, VELCRO BVBA filed an application seeking an urgent hearing due to allegations that the defendant continued infringing its trademark despite existing interim injunctions. The court noted the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and directed notice to be issued to the defendants for a returnable appearance on November 23, 2020.
FMC Corporation v.Modern Insecticides Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its valid Indian Patent (IN 201307) related to the insecticide Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The plaintiffs, who are co-owners of the patent, claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and exporting the compound, thereby violating their intellectual property rights. Based on the prima facie case presented by FMC Corporation, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.