India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 237 of 295 · 7,068 total
Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal (Alias Ashok Panchal) v.Hitesh Vishnuprasad Panchal
The appeal was filed under Section 19(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that there was an inordinate delay (more than two years) between the conclusion of the hearing and the delivery of the final order regarding registered design no. 222514.
Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited v.Mr.Nitin Blaggan & Ors.
In a significant resolution, Bestochem Formulations(I) Limited successfully concluded its dispute against Mr. Nitin Blaggan & Ors. by reaching an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this agreement, which confirmed that Bestochem is the rightful owner of the trademark 'FLUWEL' for pharmaceutical preparations. In exchange for this confirmation, the plaintiff agreed to forgo claims for damages and costs, bringing a long-pending infringement case to a definitive close.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.M/S Best It World (India) Private Limited (iBall)
Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against iBall for infringing its patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies. The court considered arguments regarding the execution of a FRAND agreement and the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents.
Ashiana Housing Ltd. v.M/S Total Property Solutions
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ashiana Housing Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against M/S Total Property Solutions for infringing its trademarks and copyrights. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks and replication of proprietary content on their website caused confusion among the public. Furthermore, given the defendant's ex-parte conduct and deliberate infringement, the court awarded punitive damages of Rs. 3 lac and costs to the plaintiff.
Dr. Ambujaksha Mahanti v.Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd.
The petitioner filed an application seeking revocation of leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. The court found that the cause of action related to damages caused to a vehicle, which occurred outside the court's jurisdiction in Kolkata. Consequently, the leave was revoked.
Matrix Laboratories Ltd. v.Income Tax
The assessee, Matrix Laboratories Ltd., appealed against the Assessing Officer's order regarding various deductions. A key issue was whether patent infringement income received from Les Laboratories Servier related to 'Perindopril' could be included in export turnover for Section 10B deduction. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of superannuation contributions.
Gap(Itm) Inc And Anr v.D.K. Srinivas
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Gap(Itm) Inc and D.K. Srinivas based on an out-of-court negotiated settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in the 'GAP' trademark and agreed to specific undertakings. Furthermore, the defendant committed to paying Rs. 25 lacs in damages should they breach these future agreements, effectively resolving the dispute.
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Group
Parul Homoeo Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction and passing off against Royal Group regarding the use of similar trade marks ('HAEMOFORTE' vs 'HAEMO FORTE') in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed prior user rights, but the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that its operations were based outside Delhi. The Court ultimately found that since neither party had a presence or cause of action arising within Delhi, it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India And Others
Bayer Corporation appealed an order allowing Nacto Pharma Ltd. (NPL), a compulsory licensee, to export its product 'Sorafenat' outside India for clinical trials. Bayer alleged this violated the terms of the compulsory license granted under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court directed that instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the underlying writ petition be disposed of expeditiously by impleading relevant regulatory authorities.
Aktiebolaget Skf And Ors v.Zakir And Ors
In this Delhi High Court judgment, the dispute between Aktiebolaget Skf and Zakir was resolved through a negotiated settlement involving Defendant No. 5. The court accepted the mutual agreement, which included Defendant No. 5 providing undertakings to the plaintiffs regarding the delivery of goods and acknowledging their trademark ownership. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement terms, allowing the plaintiffs to take possession of the infringing goods for destruction.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh v.M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Assessing Officer's order disallowing royalty payments made by M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd. to Tarun Mohan for using the brand name 'phoneytunes.com'. The court held that since Tarun Mohan merely licensed the trademark, and the company was a separate legal entity, the payment of royalty was permissible as business expenditure.
Sanjeev Goel v.Neelkanth Polytech Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sanjeev Goel against a trial court's rejection of his injunction request concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Although the appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider his claim of passing off, both parties agreed on a path forward: expediting the suit. The court disposed of the appeal by issuing strict directions for the timely filing of evidence and witness testimonies, ensuring the matter could be concluded quickly.
M/s Raj Son Agro Engineers Regd v.M/s Kalsi Metal Works Private Limited
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order that allowed a trademark infringement suit to proceed. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could sue in its own jurisdiction based on registered trademark rights, or if the admission that certain goods were unregistered would limit the case to 'passing off.' The court ruled that even if treated as a passing off action for unregistered marks, the plaint contained sufficient averments regarding clandestine sales within the court's territorial jurisdiction to sustain the suit.
Acme Tele Power Limited v.Intelux Electronics Private Limited
Acme Tele Power Limited filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against Intelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of IP rights. The matter was transferred to the High Court due to a counter-claim for patent revocation under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw all pending suits and the court dismissed the original suit and counter-claim as withdrawn.
Novartis AG v.Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging that Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited was infringing its Indian Patent No. 212815 related to Vildagliptin API and formulations. The dispute was resolved after the defendant submitted an affidavit undertaking to cease all infringing activities, leading the court to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company And Ors.
This appeal involved Shilpa Medicare Limited challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a patent infringement suit filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. The core dispute centered on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that Shilpa's manufacturing unit was located outside Delhi. Bristol-Myers argued that the threat of infringing products being sold or offered for sale in Delhi, through generic partners like Natco, established sufficient cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the original order, finding no infirmity with the jurisdictional ruling.
Novartis AG v.Union of India
Novartis AG challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which allowed a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Wockhardt Limited. Novartis argued that the IPAB exceeded its jurisdiction and violated procedural rules by permitting additional grounds and documents in the patent revocation case. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding it within its powers to regulate procedure based on principles of natural justice.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft v.M/S Appsone Consulting India (P) Ltd.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against M/S Appsone Consulting India for infringing its copyrights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were illegally providing training programs using their proprietary SAP ERP software modules without authorization, despite having specific license agreements in place. The court found the defendants liable for unauthorized use and granted the plaintiffs permanent injunction along with punitive damages.
Win Plast Ltd v.Symphony Ltd
Win Plast Ltd appealed an order passed in Civil Suit No. 2 of 2015 regarding alleged infringement of a registered design related to an air cooler. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and the basis of the interim relief, arguing that the suit was based on mere apprehension and should have been filed in Mumbai. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order.
Nacto Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Nacto Pharma Limited challenged the actions of a respondent authority regarding the grant of a patent to another party. The petitioner alleged that the authority proceeded with merit-based objections without first addressing preliminary objections concerning a breach of Patent Rule 55 (4).
S.M.Anand Vel v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs which deemed his patent application abandoned because it was not put in order within the prescribed time. The petitioner argued that since multiple sets of fresh objections were raised during the examination process, the abandonment could not be applied. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration.
Reckitt Benckiser Health Care (India) Pvt. v.Emami Ltd & Ors.
The appeal challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court, which restrained the defendant from displaying an advertisement for 'MOOV' that compared it to the plaintiff's product, ZANDU BALM. The High Court examined whether such comparative advertising amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd, an MSO operating in Bihar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was extensively using its repertoire of copyrighted music and films on its cable network channel without obtaining necessary licenses. Despite repeated notices, the defendant continued the infringement, leading to the court proceeding ex-parte. The Delhi High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting punitive damages and costs due to the willful nature of the violation.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc And Anr v.M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction against M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. However, following a decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arose in Mumbai. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the Bombay High Court.