India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 212 of 311 · 7,456 total
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
USV Private Limited v.Paksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of USV Private Limited against Paksons Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark for 'Multi Vitamin Infusion' could mislead consumers into believing the product originated from the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the infringing trademark until further hearing.
Delhivery Private Limited v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Private Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of the deceptively similar mark 'DELIVERE' by the defendant, which closely resembles Delhivery's registered trademark 'DELHIVERY'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from using the infringing mark across its goods and services until further proceedings.
USV Private Limited v.Akme Biotec
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of USV Private Limited against Akme Biotec. The court found that USV had established a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, noting that the defendant was attempting to capitalize on the goodwill associated with USV's registered marks (VI-SYNERAL/VISYNERAL). Consequently, the defendant and its associates were restrained from using any deceptively similar trademarks until further orders.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Mahadev Confectionery & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters concerning trademark disputes between Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. and Mahadev Confectionery & Ors. In the main suit, the matter was adjourned to allow further negotiation regarding a proposed change of trademark by the defendants. Separately, the court issued notice for an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, setting a date for the defendant's reply.
Astrazenca Ab v.Ajanta Pharma Ltd.
The court heard an application seeking condonation of a 6-day delay by the defendant, which was granted. The court also directed the parties regarding the filing of written statements and clarified the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) held by Astrazenca Ab.
Astrazenca Ab & Anr v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard the matter concerning suit patents held by Astrazenca Ab & Anr against West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. The court addressed the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) and accepted an undertaking from the defendant that they do not manufacture or sell infringing products related to Dapagliflozin.
Condor Footwear Limited v.Rajesh Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Condor Footwear Limited against Rajesh Jain, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant's proposed trademark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'AEROWALK' and was being used for the same goods (footwear). Given the potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff's established business interests, the court issued an immediate stay on the use of the disputed marks.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Volvo, granting permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing and passing off the 'VOLVO' trademark. The court also ordered the transfer of specific domain names held by other defendants to Volvo. Furthermore, substantial damages were awarded to Volvo against those who willfully used the mark while evading legal proceedings, reinforcing the principle that evasion does not shield commercial gain.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Honour Lab Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Honour Lab Limited was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN (an API for diabetes treatment). The plaintiffs sought interim relief against the defendant's alleged commercial supply of the patented API.
Ms Industries And Spirits P Ltd v.M/S. Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt ...
This appeal challenged the orders passed by the City Civil Court that granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in a suit concerning alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The plaintiff claimed their 'Officer's Choice' brand was being copied by the defendant's 'Manjeera Classic No.1 Whisky'. However, the Telangana High Court set aside these initial injunction orders, finding that the lower court failed to provide adequate reasons for granting the ex parte relief as mandated by law. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the trial court for a fresh and balanced adjudication.
Ms Industries And Spirits P Ltd v.M/S. Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt ...
This appeal challenged the grant of ex parte ad interim injunctions by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The original suit involved allegations of trademark and copyright infringement (passing off) concerning alcoholic beverages, specifically comparing 'Officer's Choice' with 'Manjeera Classic No.1 Whisky'. However, the Telangana High Court ultimately set aside these injunction orders, finding that the lower court failed to provide reasons for granting the ex parte relief as mandated by law.
Ms Industries And Spirits P Ltd v.M/S. Allied Blenders And Distillers Pvt ...
This appeal challenged the grant of ex parte ad interim injunctions by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The original suit involved allegations of trademark and copyright infringement (passing off) concerning alcoholic beverages, specifically comparing 'Officer's Choice' with 'Manjeera Classic No.1 Whisky'. However, the Telangana High Court did not rule on the merits of the IP dispute but instead focused on procedural lapses. The court found that the lower court failed to record reasons for granting the ex parte injunctions as mandated by law, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the orders.
M/s Audioplus v.Manoj Nagar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s Audioplus against Manoj Nagar regarding trademark infringement. Audioplus, owner of the registered mark 'STUDIOMASTER' for audio equipment, alleged that Nagar was attempting to capitalize on its reputation using deceptively similar marks like 'STUDIOMIN' and 'STUDIOMAN'. The court found that Audioplus had established a prima facie case and granted immediate relief, restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademarks pending the full trial.
Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico, S. De R.L. de C.V. v.Whiskin Spirits Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Cerveciria Modelo De Mexico regarding its registered trademark 'CORONA'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using social media advertisements that disparaged its product by likening it to Coronavirus. The court found a prima facie case for disparagement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff's statutory and commercial interests, temporarily halting the offending advertisement.
Darshan Singh & Sons (Huf) v.Baldev Singh Trading As M/S Madaan Plastic Industry & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Darshan Singh & Sons (Huf) challenging an injunction preventing them from using the trademark 'House of Madaan'. The court found that the respondent, Baldev Singh Trading As M/S Madaan Plastic Industry, was the prior and exclusive owner of the similar mark 'MADAAN' since 2003. Although the appeal was dismissed, the parties reached a settlement where the injunction was modified into a comprehensive undertaking by the appellant to cease using the disputed trademark until the final disposal of the suit.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The petitioner seeks to quash an interim order by the IPAB that stayed the revocation of a patent. The case involves a post-grant opposition filed by the petitioner against the patent granted to respondent No.3.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought the discovery of two sets of documents from the defendant: those concerning the manufacturing process of optical fibre and sales data. The court allowed the discovery of sales documents, requiring the defendant to file its audited balance sheet. However, the court denied the immediate necessity of discovering the manufacturing process documents, stating that the initial burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.
Ds Confectionery Products Limited v.Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ds Confectionery Products Limited against Mehul Bhai Kachhadiya and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling fruit candies under a phonetically similar mark ('PULLS') and using deceptively similar packaging to the registered trademark 'PULSE'. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and granted relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the Plaintiff was granted a permanent injunction and compensation for loss of profits. The Defendants were directed to render accounts of profits and pay a specified amount to the Plaintiff.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking action under Contempt of Court because defendant No.1 submitted a tender offering for the sale of Apixaban, despite a prior interim injunction restraining them from dealing in any infringing product covered by Indian Patent No. IN 247381. The court issued show cause notices to the Chairman and Director of defendant No.1 regarding potential contempt proceedings.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Mega Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a copyright infringement suit filed by Triumphant Institute of Management against Mega Limited. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's claims regarding its registered trademark 'TIME' and copyrighted study materials. However, recognizing the intermediary status of the defendant, the court issued an interim order stipulating that the defendant must take down infringing content only upon receiving specific notice (URLs) from the plaintiff, aligning with safe harbor provisions under the IT Act.
M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash v.Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a settlement reached between M/S Tirath Ram Jai Prakash and Tirath Ram Jai Prakash & Co. regarding the trademark 'POOJA RAKHI'. The parties, who had previously sought mediation, agreed that the defendant would cease using the mark in Class 25 Wrist Band items. In exchange for this undertaking, the plaintiff waived claims for damages or profits, leading to the suit being decreed based on the settlement terms.
Yanka Industries Inc. v.Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd.
In a settlement order issued by the Delhi High Court, Yanka Industries Inc. and Starnet Masterschool Pvt. Ltd. reached an agreement regarding trademark infringement concerns. The defendant agreed to change its trademark and logo from 'Master School' to 'Celebrity School' within two weeks. Furthermore, Starnet Masterschool committed to transferring the domain name www.masterschool.in to Yanka Industries, disclosing subscriber details, and removing infringing content from social media platforms.