India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 21 of 295 · 7,068 total
Agco International GmbH v.Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited
The Madras High Court heard multiple Original Applications filed by Agco International GmbH against Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited concerning trademark infringement, domain name misuse, and interference with licensed intellectual property. Despite the detailed prayers seeking interim injunctions to protect trademarks like 'Massey Ferguson' and associated livery, all parties subsequently filed withdrawal memos. Consequently, the court closed all related Original Applications without issuing a substantive judgment on the merits of the IP disputes.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging patent infringement regarding heat exchanger plates. The Defendants asserted that their product does not infringe the suit patent. To resolve this dispute, the Court ordered the appointment of an independent Scientific Advisor to inspect the impugned product and provide a technical report on potential overlap with the patented claims.
Suneeta Sharma v.German Plast Industries Private Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Suneeta Sharma's registered design, Design No. 331213-001. Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking fresh summons and directions for the Controller of Patent and Designs (Defendant No. 2) to produce complete records related to the design registration.
Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Mohammed Firoz Mohammed Shafi v.Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Sayyad Kadar Sayyad Shabbir
This contempt petition was filed by Baba Wheel Alignment against Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment, alleging continued use of a registered trademark despite an existing court injunction. The petitioner argued that the respondent had committed grave contempt by continuing to use the protected name and style. Although the petitioner requested a bailable warrant, the Court decided to stand over the matter for further hearing on October 7, 2025.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.Fly- Hi Maritime Travels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court modified an interim injunction in a trademark dispute between Frankfinn Aviation Services and Fly-Hi Maritime Travels. The court allowed the defendant to use its logo mark 'FLY HI' for its current, specified services, subject to plaintiff's consent. Furthermore, the defendant was granted conditional liberty to use the word form 'FLY HI' only as a reference in its normal course of business, provided it identifies specific, necessary circumstances and avoids trademark usage.
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited against Mensa Futura Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., addressing the alleged infringement of the 'ZECUF' trademark. The court recognized the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's pharmaceutical brand, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with verifying stock and seizing infringing products, underscoring the judiciary's commitment to protecting registered trademarks in the fast-moving pharma sector.
Purvish Indrakant Shah & Ors. v.Shyamal Jagdishchandra Sheth
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal filed by the original defendants against a trial court's temporary injunction favoring the plaintiff. The core dispute revolved around the ownership rights of the logo 'Taste of Vadodara,' which was governed by two Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs). The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, leading it to set aside the injunction and reject the application.
Fox And Mandal And Anr v.Somabrata Mandal And Ors
This case involves an application filed by Fox And Mandal And Anr seeking to consolidate their civil suit (IP-COM/6/2025) with two other related proceedings, including a writ petition concerning trademark disputes. The core dispute revolves around rival claims over the partnership firm's mark 'Fox & Mandal'. However, the court rejected the consolidation request, finding that the current suit was stillborn and lacked sufficient material bearing to the issues in the other cases.
Saptarishi Herbals Llp v.Asif Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saptarishi Herbals Llp against Asif Enterprises & Anr. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting the plaintiff exemptions regarding e-filing advertisements and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the plaintiff was granted leave to administer interrogatories upon the defendants, setting a clear path for the commencement of substantive litigation.
Asian Paints Limited v.Galaxy Paints Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted Asian Paints Limited leave to combine its claims for trademark/copyright infringement with passing off against Galaxy Paints Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between the 'TRACTOR SHYNE' and 'MAGIC TOUCH' trade dresses. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products using similar branding until the suit is finally disposed of.
Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S. Safed Parindey Event Management LLP and Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, upholding the Commercial Court's rejection of her request for an interim injunction. The court found that Ms. Pancholi failed to establish a prima facie case regarding her proprietary rights over the trademarks "Safedishq" and "SafedParindey." Crucially, the judgment highlighted that while she was associated with 'the Sheri Affair,' ownership lay with another entity, Loop Events & Entertainment, making her claim of prior usage unsubstantiated at this stage. The ruling emphasizes that mere association is insufficient to secure injunctive relief without concrete proof of proprietary rights.
Grasim Industries Limited And Anr. v.Omni Cement Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Grasim Industries Limited against Omni Cement Private Limited. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and permission to file additional pleadings. Crucially, the court directed a Local Commissioner to execute an inventory of goods, seize infringing stock under superdari, and ensure compliance with interim injunction procedures, setting the stage for the substantive dispute over the 'ULTRATECH' trademark.
Kowa Company Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kowa Company Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order issued by The Controller of Patents & Anr. on May 14, 2025, concerning Patent Application No. 201717010446.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to enforce its registered trademark 'Mather' against entities registering deceptively similar corporate names. The petitioner argued that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) was failing in its duty to prevent serial infringement of their well-known brand name, which has been used since 1944. While the respondents initially raised a challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, the court ordered notice to all parties and scheduled further hearings to examine the maintainability and merits of the trademark enforcement claim.
Aries Agro Limited & Anr. v.Indiamart Intermesh Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aries Agro Limited against Indiamart Intermesh Limited. The court granted exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgent need for interim relief to prevent the suppression of infringing business operations. Furthermore, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit and set out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements and replication, while also permitting the Plaintiffs to introduce additional documents.
Parth Formulation Pvt Ltd v.Paam Biotech Private Limited
In a passing-off dispute concerning pharmaceutical packaging, the Delhi High Court found prima facie that the defendants' packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's. While the court noted the parties were open to settlement, it directed Paam Biotech to change its packaging color away from red and mandated Parth Formulation to submit sales data for the past three years.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Novartis Ag challenged the Controller's orders that deferred and then reserved decisions regarding post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning a request for cross-examination of the opponent's experts in relation to Patent IN'518. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the Petitioner's plea and noting that the Petitioner had waived their right to cross-examine by conscious election.
Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
M/s.Darshan International v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Gi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Darshan International, allowing them to proceed with their trademark registration for 'Darshan Incense.' The court addressed the issue of non-receipt of the notice of opposition by the petitioner, which led to the abandonment of their application. Citing a similar precedent, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the application and permit the petitioner to file a counter statement, ensuring they receive a fair opportunity to defend their mark.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr v.Mr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.
Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. v.Haridwar International Ayurveda & Ors.
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark and copyright, Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court also permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and potentially seize infringing stock bearing the 'PET SAFFA' mark. This order allows the plaintiffs to proceed urgently with their infringement claims while setting out procedural timelines for filing pleadings.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd v.Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Defendants were infringing their Indian Patents (Suit Patents) through the sale and distribution of the Honor 200 series smartphones. The court found a prima facie case of infringement, considering test analyses and tear down reports.
3Sk Innovations Private Ltd v.Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd Esfbl
The parties appeared before the Delhi High Court for case management proceedings. The court framed several issues concerning territorial jurisdiction, patent infringement, ownership rights, and the validity/revocation of two specific patents (IN'627 and IN'730). Furthermore, the Confidentiality Club was constituted to manage the exchange of sealed data between the parties.