India IP Litigation
7,177 annotated decisions
Page 228 of 300 · 7,177 total
Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by the plaintiff seeking a stay of infringement proceedings while rectification/cancellation proceedings against the defendant's trademark were pending. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act requires the issue of invalidity to be formally raised and framed in the suit before a stay can be granted. Since the plaintiff failed to press this issue during the framing of issues, the application was dismissed, emphasizing procedural adherence over subsequent actions.
Mutha Brothers & Ors v.Arjun Singh Rajguru & Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off involving the marks 'RADIUM' and 'SPEED RADIUM'. The petitioners successfully established a strong prima facie case, demonstrating that the respondents were imitating their unique artistic get-up, color combination, and layout on packaging. Consequently, the court granted an interim order, appointing a Special Officer to inventory the infringing products while the main litigation proceeds.
M/s Hotel Swagath v.M/s Hotel Swagath East Court
The appellant, M/s Hotel Swagath (registered partnership firm), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s Hotel Swagath East Court for infringing its registered trademark and passing off. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application, which was subsequently challenged in this appeal.
Munish Kumar Singla Trading As: Chakshu Food Products v.Jollibee Foods Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Chakshu Food Products, setting aside a restrictive ex-parte injunction granted against it by the trial court. The core issue was whether Jollibee Foods Corporation could enforce its trademark and copyright rights over a bee image when it had not commenced business in India despite having registered the marks since 2005. The Court ruled that without actual use or entry into the Indian market, an ex-parte injunction against a local competitor is unwarranted, emphasizing principles from cases like Milmet Oftho Industries.
Ramesh Mardia & Anr v.M/S Koxan India & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ramesh Mardia, setting aside a previous single judge's order that had granted an injunction against him. The court recognized the complexity of the trademark ownership dispute concerning 'Mardia Cables,' which involves multiple assignments and prior registrations. To expedite the lengthy litigation, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence on a day-to-day basis, allowing the trial process to move forward.
M & K Technologies v.Hi-Tech Carbons and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
M & K Technologies filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's order cancelling design registration no. 190949. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the High Court due to the appellant failing to appear and filing a memo stating there were no instructions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Neelkanth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Neelkanth Minechem
This judgment addresses a jurisdictional challenge raised by petitioners against a trademark infringement suit filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The core dispute was whether the case qualified as a 'commercial dispute' exclusively triable by a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court ruled that since there was no evidence in the plaint suggesting the subject matter value exceeded the statutory threshold of one crore rupees, the suit remained maintainable before the District Court.
M/S Adiga Sweets v.M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court upheld a prior injunction decree in favor of M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd against M/S Adiga Sweets. The core issue was whether the use of 'ADIGA'S SWEETS' by the appellant constituted passing off against the respondent, who had established goodwill using variations of 'ADIGA'S' since 1993. The court found that due to the common food industry context and phonetic similarity, an average consumer is likely to confuse the two businesses, thus affirming the finding of passing off.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.
Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
Praveen Kumar Maakar v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark applicant, Praveen Kumar Maakar, setting aside an order that deemed his application for 'FRONTIER BAKERY' abandoned. The core issue was whether he received a Notice of Opposition filed by M/s Frontier Bakery Pvt. Ltd. Despite evidence showing dispatch to a related service, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim that he never received the notice. Consequently, the applicant was granted an eight-week window to file his counter-statement.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
M/S Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for infringing its registered design related to TMT steel bars. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant copied the unique double-rib surface pattern of their patented bar, which was protected under Design Act, 2000 (No. 250968). The defendant countered by arguing that the design was based on a public domain British Standard and lacked novelty. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Kamdhenu Limited, finding a prima facie case for infringement.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vivek Kochher & Anr challenging an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that rectified the trademark 'KYK'. The court upheld the finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the mark since the dates claimed in their registration applications. Consequently, the court affirmed the IPAB's conclusion that the original registration was obtained based on a false statement and fraud, favoring the respondent, KYK Corp.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
The plaintiff, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for patent infringement against Xiaomi Technology. The current application sought the constitution of a confidential club to allow filing of highly sensitive patent licensing agreements necessary for determining FRAND issues.
Lifestyle Equities CV v.QDSeatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addresses intra-court appeals concerning a business relationship between Lifestyle Equities CV (owner of the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark) and QDS entities. The core dispute revolved around an agreement governing the organization and support of the BHPC brand in apparel, leading to litigation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ultimately allowed the appeal filed by Lifestyle while dismissing the counter-appeal by QDS, affirming that the disputes are arbitrable.
A.Rajendran v.Thenandal Studios Limited
The appeal was filed by A.Rajendran against an order dismissing his application for injunction, which sought to restrain respondents from using the title 'Mersal' (an adopted version of 'Merrasalaitan'). The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove that the subject title had acquired any goodwill or reputation.
Saregama India Limited v.Eros Digital Fz Llc
Saregama India Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Eros Digital Fz Llc, alleging copyright infringement and default payments following the expiry of a content license agreement. The core legal battle revolved around whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court examined Clause 29 of the License Agreement, which explicitly mandated that disputes arising from the contract must be heard exclusively by the High Court of Calcutta.
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.HRCN Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against HRCN Cable Network alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music, sound recordings, and cinematographic films. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership through assignment deeds and copyright certificates, proving that the defendant was illegally broadcasting their content on cable television networks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against further infringement and awarding the plaintiff compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-.
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Ea Water Pvt Ltd & Ors
M/S Xegent Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Ea Water Pvt Ltd was illegally copying and misusing its proprietary literary work, 'India Water Review' (IWR), which covers water sector news. The plaintiff demonstrated that IWR is a recognized source of information in the Indian water industry. Despite initial legal notices, the defendants failed to cease the infringement or appear before the court. Consequently, the Delhi High Court found prima facie violation and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Michele Caboni v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of certain sections and rules of the Patents Act, 1970, primarily arguing that the rules did not provide an opportunity to be heard before rights were closed, and that no appeal was prescribed against orders under Rule 137. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the statutory provisions.
Mohd Anesur Rahaman v.Mosarraf Hossain And Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Mohd Anesur Rahaman, to amend his plaint in a trademark dispute. The amendment was necessary because the plaintiff had successfully registered the 'ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL' trademark during the pendency of the suit. This allows the plaintiff to formally pursue infringement claims based on the newly secured registration. The court emphasized that such amendments are allowed under principles of justice and equity to ensure all rights are properly adjudicated.
Ahuja Radios v.H K Sound Electronics & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ahuja Radios, finding that the defendants were engaged in trademark infringement and passing off by selling counterfeit Public Address Systems (PAS) under a deceptively similar mark. The court emphasized that the defendants' deliberate evasion of court proceedings warranted punitive damages. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions and an award of ₹3,00,000/- in damages.