India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 230 of 311 · 7,456 total
S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons v.The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons' writ petition, setting aside a decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on the registration of the 'SVS' trade mark for edible refined oil. The court ruled that the contesting respondents could not claim exclusive rights over the mark based on an ambiguous arbitration award, especially since the award did not specifically allot the mark to them. This decision reinforced the petitioner's right to use and register the mark.
Monsanto Technology Llc Thru The Authorised Representative Ms. Natalia Voruz & Others v.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Thru The Director & Others
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute between Monsanto Technology LLC and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. concerning the use of patented Bt cotton technology ('BOLGARD'). The core issue revolved around whether the defendants' rights were protected under the PPVFR Act, potentially invalidating the patent claims, or if the plaintiffs could enforce their registered patent for infringement. The court ultimately restored a Single Judge's interim injunction and remanded the suit, emphasizing that complex questions of patent validity must be decided after full evidence is adduced during trial.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
Arihant Evergreen Agro Plast And Textiles Private Limited v.EPC Industries Limited
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed in 2004 alleging patent infringement. The plaintiff-respondent sought to take product samples on record via Order VII Rule 14 CPC, despite a significant delay of over 11 years. The appellants-defendants challenged this order, arguing the delay was unexplained and irrelevant to determining patent infringement.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Maxworth Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a suit against Maxworth Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged trademark infringement concerning the medicinal preparation 'PANTOCID'. The Bombay High Court granted leave and further issued an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the deceptively similar trade mark "MAX PANTOCID" or any other similar marks.
Jasper Infotech Private Limited v.Aadi Sins & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Jasper Infotech Private Limited regarding its SNAPDEAL trademarks. The court restrained the newly impleaded defendants from infringing the trademarks or passing off their business as affiliated with the plaintiff. Crucially, the court directed several domain registrars to immediately suspend numerous domains that were allegedly used for fraudulent activities related to the brand, and also ordered a freeze on specific bank accounts.
Benden Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a commercial IP suit filed by Benden Limited against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The dismissal occurred because the Plaintif had previously received an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) directing the cancellation of its trademark registration, 'Perfect Radiance.' Since the mark was removed from the register, the court found that the Plaintiff was no longer interested in pursuing the suit, leading to its dismissal for want of prosecution.
Gebi Products v.Rose Industries
Gebi Products filed a suit against Rose Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark and copyright related to the packaging and mascot used on brooms. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and designs, and ordered the payment of damages.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Hasmi T.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Hasmi T. regarding the alleged infringement of their trade mark 'VIDVIE'. The court granted an interim order restraining the defendant from using the disputed trademark on mobile phone accessories until the final hearing.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Amit Apparels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour, Inc. against Amit Apparels & Anr., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendants were allegedly adopting and using the identical trade mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and copying its artistic features on apparel goods. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the infringing goods until further orders.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy & Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a court-supervised licensing process for proprietary edible oil trademarks, citing concerns over the integrity of the bidding. The Judge found that media reports suggesting bias had compromised the neutrality of the auction, leading to only two bidders remaining (the Plaintiff and one Defendant). Consequently, the Court Receiver was directed to halt the current proceedings, return all existing deposits, and reissue advertisements under strict conditions of silence from all parties.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Reckitt Benckiser against Patanjali Ayurved concerning alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices related to toilet cleaner advertisements. The core dispute centered on misleading claims made in both original and revised advertisements regarding the use of hydrochloric acid and product naturalness. While the plaintiff sought to challenge the defendant's revised advertisement, the Court permitted Reckitt Benckiser to amend its plaint, allowing the litigation to proceed while preserving the rights of Patanjali Ayurved.
Laila Nutraceuticals v.Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF)
Laila Nutraceuticals challenged an arbitral award requiring it to pay Rs. 84,00,000/- to Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF). The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's patent claims lacked novelty and that the license agreement was invalid because it was not registered with the Patent Office. The court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the arbitral award.
A.S. Hameed v.P. Maharajan
The dispute centered on a registered trade mark ('No.10 A.S. PHOTO BEEDI') used for beedies and tobacco products, with the plaintiff seeking an injunction against alleged infringement by the defendant. However, the case progressed to an application by the defendant seeking revocation of the 'leave to sue' initially granted to the plaintiff. The court ultimately held that neither party resided nor conducted business within its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the successful revocation of the leave and the dismissal of the main suit.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others regarding alleged trademark infringement/passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meena Prints" or "Meera Prints" on their textile goods.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others regarding alleged passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Kasthuri Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against M/s.Kasthuri Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('Gold Winner') and copyrights related to packaging for sunflower oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'Kasthuri Gold'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
Hotel Panchavati And Anr. v.Hotel Panchavati Pure Veg Family Restaurant and Ors.
The suit was filed regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's registered trade marks, PANCHAVATI / PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted leave to the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, issuing a perpetual injunction against the defendants.
Sri Bishnupada Biring v.Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Biring
The Calcutta High Court noted a prima facie case raised by the petitioner concerning procedural flaws and patent discrepancies in the commissioner's report. Consequently, the matter was directed to be heard as a contested application. An interim order granting a stay on the impugned order and related proceedings was issued.
Snj Distillers Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
Snj Distillers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to issue a registration certificate for their trademark application. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the trademark certificate had already been issued. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
dharampal satyapal sons pvt ltd v.mr satish kumar
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) sued Mr. Satish Kumar & Ors (Defendants) for infringement of their registered trademark 'PULSE' on candies, alleging deceptive similarity to the Defendants’ brand ‘PLUS’ and trade dress. Both parties were selling candies in class 30, with the Plaintiff claiming significant market share and goodwill.
Sopariwala Exports And Anr. v.Satyapal Shivkumar
The Bombay High Court vacated an earlier ex-parte order that had recognized the Plaintiff's prior use of the trademark 'PAN RAAS'. The court found that the statement claiming the Plaintiffs conceived and adopted the distinctive mark in 2008 was incorrect, noting that the word 'RAAS' was adopted after a compromise with Rasana Private Limited. This decision significantly impacts the Plaintiff's claim regarding the originality and priority of their trademark rights.
Hanuman Candle Works v.M/S Ashwini Candle Industry
The Gauhati High Court disposed of an appeal concerning alleged infringement of a trademark and copyright related to candle artwork. The respondent agreed to refrain from using the disputed artwork ('MAYUR'), leading the court to make its previous interim injunction order absolute. However, the core issue regarding concurrent usage of the 'MAYUR' trademark remains pending before the Registrar of Trademarks, necessitating further action by both parties.
Maharshi Packaging Machines Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Maharshi Udyog Thru Partner, Bhagvat Vitthaldas Shah
The Gujarat High Court stayed a commercial trademark civil suit after hearing an appeal challenging the trial court's refusal to frame an issue regarding the validity of the plaintiff's trademark registration. The petitioner argued that since they had filed a rectification application under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the IPAB, the Civil Court should not have ruled on the matter unilaterally. The court agreed that the trial court needed to properly consider the pending statutory proceedings, leading to the stay.