India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 218 of 311 · 7,456 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 for the drug Sitagliptin by manufacturing and selling a product named 'Swizglipt' containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (SPM). The dispute centered on whether manufacture solely for export fell under patent infringement, and the court ultimately confirmed the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
M/s Elofic Industries (India) v.Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Elofic Industries (India), a long-standing partnership concern dealing in filters, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was infringing its trademark ELOFIC and passing off goods under similar names. The court found that the plaintiff successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding infringement.
Arun Chopra v.Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court modified an existing interim injunction in the trademark infringement suit filed by Arun Chopra against Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's prior use and reputation in Delhi, the court balanced this against the Defendants' established presence in Nashik. The final order permits the Defendants to continue operating their existing outlets under certain names but strictly prohibits them from opening new branches or using the name 'Kaka-Ka Hotel', ensuring a status quo while the main suit proceeds.
M/s.Ambika Appalam Company v.Nandi Food Products
M/s. Ambika Appalam Company filed a civil suit against Nandi Food Products, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AMBIKA APPLAM' and copyright over the associated artistic work and trade dress. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of similar labels like 'AMBUJA APPALAM'. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors. v.Usha International Limited
In this trademark dispute, Shambhu Nath & Brothers successfully secured a favorable outcome against Usha International Limited. The respondent company voluntarily agreed to withdraw its application for the trademark 'TOOFAN' and provided an affidavit undertaking that it would neither use nor register the mark, or any similar mark, in the future. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit based on this binding commitment.
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s Anitha Marketing
M/s Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s Anitha Marketing alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'The Gold Drops' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the memorandum.
M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v.Sangeetha Food Corner
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP against Sangeetha Food Corner for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SANGEETHA FOOD CORNER' was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark 'SANGEETHA'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse of the mark.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt.Ltd. v.Crazy Concepts & Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Bluechip Amusements, granting a perpetual injunction against Crazy Concepts & Mazes. The dispute centered on the use of the terms 'HORROR HOUSE' and 'HOUSE OF HORRORS' in the amusement industry. Despite the defendant claiming prior rights and trademark registration, the court found that the plaintiff had established continuous business operations under these names since 2008. Consequently, the court held that the defendant's caution notice was unjustified and groundless, protecting the plaintiff's business interests.
M/s. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed a civil suit against Bajaj Auto Limited seeking permanent injunction, accounts of profits, and damages for infringing Patent No.195904 related to 2/3 wheelers. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the Civil Suit.
N.Sathish Proprietor Om Tech Plastics v.Mr.C.Murali Kannan
N.Sathish filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr.C.Murali Kannan and others, initially alleging passing off related to plastic taps under the mark 'SIVA'. However, the judgment ultimately focused on copyright infringement claims regarding compilations. The court found that the plaintiff himself had copied material from earlier books, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.Fermat Education and Ors
The appeal challenged a judgment that dismissed applications filed by Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited to vacate an interim injunction granted to Fermat Education and Ors. The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that the plaintiffs failed to file a complete transcript of the alleged copyrighted content in the plaint.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Modi Mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited
In this interim application, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sought clarification regarding a previous court order concerning the use of the trademark 'CANDID'. The Bombay High Court addressed the request by formalizing an undertaking from Defendant No. 1. This ruling reinforces the immediate injunctive relief against the defendant, requiring them to cease importing or distributing goods under the disputed mark while the main litigation proceeds.
Nippon Life Sciences Private Limited v.S. R. Life Science And Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'EPILIGHT'. While the court noted that previous orders needed extension, it confirmed that the existing restraining order against the defendants for using deceptively similar marks would continue to operate until November 18, 2019. The matter was subsequently scheduled for further hearing.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
The plaintiff, Marico Limited, filed a Notice of Motion seeking various reliefs against the defendant, Chandrakant Gholap. The court granted leave to the Plaintiff and further granted prayer clause (d) of the Notice of Motion, which sought an injunction against the Defendant for using counterfeit PARACHUTE trade marks or trade dress in relation to edible oil preparations and other FMCG goods.
Marico Limited v.Chandrakant Gholap
Marico Limited filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave and an interim injunction against Chandrakant Gholap regarding the use of the PARACHUTE trade mark and trade dress. The Court granted the leave sought by the Plaintiff and further granted the prayer for an interim injunction, restraining the Defendant from manufacturing or distributing packaging materials bearing the infringing trademark/trade dress.
M/s Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd v.Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed disputes concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off between Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. The core dispute revolved around the similarity of trademarks 'AROKYA' and 'AAROGYA', particularly in relation to biscuit products. While the lower court had vacated an interim injunction, the appellate court focused on the procedural aspect of a Summary Judgment application filed by the defendants. Finding that the Single Judge dismissed the summary judgment request without sufficient reasons under commercial courts law, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.Bajaj Auto Limited
Mr. P. Radhakrishnan filed a civil suit alleging that Bajaj Auto Limited infringed his Patent No. 182682, which covers a four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the Pulsar series. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v.Kotak LLC
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Kotak LLC alleging infringement and passing off concerning the registered trademark 'KOTAK'. The court granted temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the Defendant from using similar marks, names (like KOTAK LLC), apps (App KOTAK), and domain names (www.kotakapp.com) that are deceptive or identical to the Plaintiff's mark.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringed their patent. The court issued an injunction and required the defendants to deposit a percentage of sales during the pendency of the suit.
Ifrs Foundation v.Rammohan Bhave & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of IFRS Foundation against Rammohan Bhave & Ors following a comprehensive settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'IFRS' trademark and its copyrighted standards. Key terms included the payment of ₹11 lakhs, the surrender of multiple domain names, the withdrawal of related trademark applications, and an undertaking to cease unauthorized use of the IFRS mark in training materials or goods.
K.P.Selvah @ Panner Selvam v.Atlee
K.P.Selvah filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Atlee and M/s. AGS Entertainment Pvt., Ltd., claiming copyright infringement over his story 'Kalki', which was registered with the South Indian Film Writers' Association. After facing procedural hurdles in the trial court, Selvah sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Madras High Court intervened via revision petition, holding that the trial court erred by allowing withdrawal but denying the crucial liberty to institute a new suit on the same subject matter.
Meto Polymers Private Limited v.Hindustan Healthcare Products
The civil suit was filed by Meto Polymers Private Limited against Hindustan Healthcare Products seeking a permanent injunction and damages for infringing a registered patent related to 'water beds'. However, the court noted that the plaintiffs had repeatedly indicated their intention to withdraw the suit but failed to prosecute it.
Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the alleged abandonment of a registered trademark due to non-renewal. The petitioner argued that the mandatory O-3 notice for renewal was improperly backdated and uploaded using an outdated form (RG-3), making it invalid. The court recognized serious inconsistencies in the Trademark Registry's process, directing senior officials and the concerned Examiner to appear in court with explanations and documentation regarding the improper uploading of notices. Crucially, the court granted interim relief, ensuring the trademark would not be treated as abandoned pending a full inquiry.
M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals, sought a writ of mandamus compelling the State of Andhra Pradesh to implement instructions mandating the use of its patented anti-corrosion admixture inhibitor liquid, CONCARE, in RCC structures. The state argued that it only recommended 'CONCARE or equivalent products' and was not bound to procure from the petitioner alone. The court ruled that while policy decisions are generally beyond judicial interference, the respondents must ensure that if they choose to use an anti-corrosion agent, it must be a licensed product.