India IP Litigation
7,177 annotated decisions
Page 221 of 300 · 7,177 total
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Modi Powder And Shop Company and 2 Others
The petitioner filed an IP suit against the respondents regarding impugned goods. The court noted that local police authorities refused to assist the Court Receiver in seizing and sealing the goods as directed by a previous order. Furthermore, Defendant No.2 failed to appear in court, leading the court to issue a bailable warrant.
Powerhouse Licensing LLC v.Ashok Banwarilal Gupta Trading As Qs
In this Bombay High Court matter concerning alleged trademark infringement, the court accepted an undertaking from the defendants. The defendants committed to refraining from using the trademark or trade name 'POWERHOUSE' across all platforms, including websites and social media. This interim order allows the case to proceed while securing immediate protection for the petitioner's brand.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
The Madras High Court modified existing interim injunctions in a dispute between Vennila Clothing Company and M/s.Arrs Silks regarding trademark and trade dress infringement. The court partially allowed the applications seeking to vacate the previous injunctions, establishing an interim arrangement where the defendants could use specified changed trade dresses for a period of eleven months. This decision allows the main suit to proceed while providing temporary relief to both parties.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed an IP suit against Shri Ajanta Fabrics and others for infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks in relation to textile goods.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner filed an IP suit against the respondents alleging infringement and passing off related to their registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights used in textile goods. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks and ordered them to pay damages.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Modi Powder and Soap Company & Ors
The petitioner filed a notice of motion regarding the execution of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order. The court found that local police authorities refused to assist the Court Receiver, and the defendants also obstructed the seizure and sealing of the impugned goods. Consequently, the court passed further orders directing the concerned parties to appear before it.
Cello Plastic Industrial Work And Ors. v.Ajay Shantilal Raka
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute involving Cello Plastic Industrial Work and Ajay Shantilal Raka. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to produce specific application and opposition records before the next hearing date. This procedural step indicates that the case is actively moving forward, requiring both parties to prepare for detailed examination of the relevant intellectual property filings.
Pradeep Cholayil & Cholayil Private Limited v.Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited
The Madras High Court confirmed the existing interim injunction in favor of Pradeep Cholayil and Cholayil Private Limited against Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MYSOAP' was deceptively similar to the applicants' registered trademark 'MYSOP' for cosmetic soaps, constituting infringement and passing off. The injunction was confirmed post-contest and ordered to operate for a period of one year, allowing the main suit to proceed expeditiously.
Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors. v.Imran Khan
In the case concerning the trademark 'SNJ TOOFAN', the defendant, Imran Khan, filed an affidavit affirming that he has ceased using the mark and undertakes not to use it in the future. The court accepted this submission, allowing the matter to proceed while granting time for the plaintiffs to take instructions. This indicates a potential path toward resolution through settlement or compliance.
Radio Next Webcastion Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India And Anr.
Radio Next Webcastion Pvt. Ltd. challenged an administrative order that declined to list its application under Section 31D of the Copyright Act before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The denial was based on the absence of a dedicated technical member for copyright matters. The Delhi High Court examined whether the IPAB, which is primarily constituted under the Trade Marks Act, could exercise jurisdiction over copyright issues. The court held that due to statutory amendments, the existing Appellate Board has sufficient jurisdiction and can proceed with examining copyright applications despite the temporary vacancy in specialized membership.
Unilever Plc. v.Bhanu Chauhan
Unilever Plc. filed a Notice of Motion seeking restraining orders against Bhanu Chauhan and others for using logos and trademarks deceptively similar to Unilever's well-known brands (DOMEX). The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order.
Simon, S. A. U. v.The Controller Of Patent & Designs & Anr.
Simon filed three applications for the registration of a design related to 'Accessories For Electrical Devices', claiming priority from a Spanish application. The Controller found that the design lacked novelty because it was taught by earlier, prior published designs and compared unfavorably with Registered Design No. 216507.
M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass v.Ashok Kumar Sethi
The main suit involved a claim by M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass against Ashok Kumar Sethi for copyright infringement and passing off related to their Henna products bearing the mark 'AMIN'S'. The defendant filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
Magnolia Ltd. v.Softgel Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction favoring Magnolia Ltd. against Softgel Health Care Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that pending the final disposal of the suit, the defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling, exporting, or using the disputed trademark 'VAGICLIN Plus' in connection with any pharmaceutical product. This interim order significantly protects the plaintiff's brand rights while the main infringement case proceeds.
Novartis Ag v.Aanchal Corp
The case involves a Notice of Motion filed by Novartis AG seeking an injunction against Aanchal Corp. for infringing their Indian Patent No. 212815 related to pharmaceutical products containing Vildagliptin.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sainath Enterprise
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial suit against Sainath Enterprise alleging that the defendant was using an identical or deceptively similar label mark and trade dress on their detergent powder, thereby passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order.
Joy Creators Pvt Ltd v.Natures Essence Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the use of 'Honey & Almonds' in cosmetic products. While the Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendant's use of the phrase, the court allowed the Defendant to continue using 'Almond and Honey' as a descriptive ingredient term. However, strict conditions were imposed on packaging design, ensuring that this descriptive phrase does not gain undue prominence over the Defendant's own trademark, 'Nature's Essence'.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd v.Ganesh Industries
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Ganesh Industries alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark (MAXX), copyright violation in packaging art, and passing off related to detergent products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for these illegal activities. Both parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise.
Vocco Consultants And 2 Ors. v.Vicco Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'VICCO'. While the original suit was stayed pending a rectification application before the IPAB, the court took proactive steps to address the core dispute. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court framed an additional issue specifically questioning whether the Defendant's registration of the mark 'VICCO' is bad in law and liable for invalidation.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Joshi Products
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP suit against Joshi Products alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic label and distinctive trade dress for its detergent powder, WHEEL. The Bombay High Court granted leave to defend the suit and subsequently decreed it in favor of HUL.
Novartis AG v.Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited
Novartis AG filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered patent (No. 212815) concerning Vildagliptin. The defendant, Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited, contested the claim by stating it neither manufactures nor intends to manufacture the patented drug. By mutual consent, the court disposed of the suit, granting permanent injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Prime Comfort Products Private Limited v.Lal Bahadur Trading As Sulakshmi Enterprises
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment, upholding its territorial jurisdiction to hear the trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant was conducting business and soliciting sales within Delhi via its website and through market confusion involving distributors in the region. This ruling reinforces the principle that digital presence and market impact within a specific territory can establish jurisdictional grounds under IP law.
Sunil Kishore Ahya v.Election Commission of India
The appellant sought information regarding the design and engineering of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The respondents argued that disclosing this technical information, which falls under patent rights, could enable the manufacturing of spurious machines and threaten the democratic process. The Commission agreed with the respondents' stance.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Lite Detergent Soap
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Lite Detergent Soap. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent and also granted specific interim reliefs sought by the plaintiff, which will remain in force until further orders.