India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 24 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/S Tej Ram Dharam Paul v.Sunder Lal Goyal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court accepted a compromise reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in their suit concerning intellectual property rights. The settlement mandates that Defendant No. 1 must suffer a decree of permanent injunction and undertake to withdraw specific trademark applications. The court formally decreed the suit based on these terms, effectively resolving the dispute through mutual agreement.
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited (Sr) v.Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Ab and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification, expunging a trademark registration held by Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. The petitioner, Bennett Coleman And Company Limited, successfully argued that the registered mark had never been genuinely used since its inception in 2007. Relying on Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the court found that the continued presence of the unused mark constituted a wrongful and erroneous entry, thereby favoring the petitioner's claim to prior rights.
SNV Aviation Private Limited v.Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited and Others
SNV Aviation Private Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of impersonating the company to run fraudulent job scams. The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and directed immediate action against digital assets, including suspending infringing domain names like akasaairltd.com. Furthermore, the court mandated financial institutions and telecom providers to disclose KYC details and block bank accounts and UPI IDs linked to the perpetrators, providing robust protection against trademark misuse and fraud.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed a quia timet action alleging infringement of their patent (IN'841) covering the drug 'Ruxolitinib', marketed as JAKAVI®. The defendants denied commercialization and requested protection under Section 107A. Both parties agreed to settle, with the defendant undertaking not to commercially exploit the compound during the patent's validity.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action alleging that Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited was about to infringe its Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound Ruxolitinib (marketed as JAKAVI®). The parties reached an agreement where the defendant committed not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, while retaining rights for research purposes.
Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi v.Maya Appliances Private Limited
This Madras High Court judgment addresses the maintainability of a patent revocation application filed by Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi against Maya Appliances Private Limited. The core issue was whether the petitioner could file this separate revocation petition when they had already contested the validity of Indian Patent No. 351954 as a counter-claim in an infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The court held that once a defense is exercised in one forum, it cannot be re-agitated in another.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed a matter concerning an impugned patent. The respondent (patentee) submitted that the patent, granted in 2019, was due for renewal but the patentee had resolved not to seek renewal and would not exercise its right to revive it. Both parties agreed to this submission.
Xx And Ors v.Yy
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Exemed Pharmaceuticals) from infringing the Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an interim injunction and passed various procedural orders related to the case.
Sapat International Pvt Ltd v.Niravi Consumer Llp And Ors.
This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.
Banayan Tree Services Ltd & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr. (including WhatsApp LLC)
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and impersonation. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file additional evidence, exempted them from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought, and directed WhatsApp (Defendant No. 2) to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for implicated mobile numbers. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the cyber fraud aspect of the case, directing steps be taken by the Cyber Police Station regarding the filed Crime Incident Report.
Indian Express And Commercial Ventures and ... v.Fundamental Hospitality Private Limited and ...
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking to restrain the Defendants from using the mark 'HOM'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Key factors included the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating substantial goodwill associated with the acronym 'HOM', the distinct calligraphy used by the Defendant, and the fact that both restaurants cater to discerning customers in premium segments, making confusion unlikely.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks
The writ petition was filed seeking direction to accept and process an Indian Patent Application (IN202447028876) after the statutory deadline for filing a request for examination lapsed. The lapse occurred due to an inadvertent calculation error by the petitioner's Indian patent agent, who mistakenly used the second priority date instead of the first.
Dr.Vishwanath Padmanabhan v.The Joint Controller of Patents & Designs, Head of Office, Patent Office Chennai
Dr. Vishwanath Padmanabhan challenged the Patent Office's decision to deem his invention application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to a technical uploading error in the e-filing portal. The court found that since the petitioner intended to proceed and had paid all requisite fees, the rejection was unjust.
Kirti Dal Mills Limited v.Rajesh Lunkad
Kirti Dal Mills Limited challenged an order that stayed its Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024, citing the pendency of a previous suit. The core dispute involved claims of passing off and copyright infringement related to edible oils under the brand 'CHAMPION'. The High Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act while applying Section 10 CPC. Consequently, the impugned stay order was quashed, allowing the commercial suit to proceed.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks, Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs, Union Of India
The petitioner filed an Indian patent application related to satellite conjunction prediction. The deadline for filing the request for examination lapsed because the Indian Patent Agent mistakenly calculated the deadline, leading to a rejection by the Patent Office. The court allowed the petition, finding that there was no intent to abandon the application.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Delhi High Court passed several orders in CS(COMM) 1356/2025. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of interim relief, allowed applications for discovery and additional documents, and addressed an ad-interim injunction request.
M/S BRAHMAPUTRA DISTILLERY AND ANR v.ASSOCIATED ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGES COMPANY
This appeal was filed by M/S Brahmaputra Distillery against an ad-interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Jorhat. The underlying commercial suit involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the product 'Raagi' and its packaging. However, the Gauhati High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on preliminary grounds, ruling that due to the specific mandate of Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appeal ought to have been filed before the District Judge, Jorhat.
Kannan Gopalakrishnan v.Controller of Patents
Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenged the proceedings of the Controller of Patents, arguing that his patent application for 'Solar Supplemental Power Source' was rejected and subsequently his review petition was dismissed without giving him a fair hearing opportunity. The petitioner sought to demonstrate the working prototype before the Patent Office.
Baldev Raj v.Brothers Tobacco & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted Baldev Raj limited permission to introduce registered trademark certificates into the ongoing passing off suit against Brothers Tobacco. This relief was contingent upon a strict clarification: the Petitioner could not use these documents to convert the cause of action from passing off to infringement. The court emphasized that since the Petitioner possessed these registration details prior to framing issues, they must adhere strictly to the original claim of passing off.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Ambush Cement Private Limited
Ultratech Cement Limited filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to challenge the validity of trademarks registered by Ambush Cement Private Limited. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for a formal challenge to the defendants' trademark registrations before the Joint Registrar.
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited appealed the rejection of its trademark application for 'PROMAX' under Class 31, arguing that it was a prior user and should be accepted despite objections based on similarity to existing marks. The Madras High Court upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the appellant’s mark was deceptively similar to cited marks already registered in the same class. The court emphasized that registering the single word 'PROMAX' would create an undue monopoly over a common formative mark.
R P Scherer Technologies Llc v.The Patent Office of India
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202127050600) by the Assistant Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core issue was whether the claimed formulation for oral delivery of poorly permeable proteins/peptides was non-obvious over cited prior art. Given the technical nature, the Court appointed a Scientific Advisor to render an opinion.
Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd. v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd., which sought to record its rights as a subsequent proprietor of the 'Dasaprakash' trademark. The court upheld the Trademark Registry's rejection, ruling that the transfer agreement was void ab initio because it was executed while the original proprietor, Balakrishna Rao, was legally incompetent due to insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the mark was a family mark jointly owned by legal heirs, no single proprietor could unilaterally transfer rights.
Max India Investment Services Private Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that had directed petitioner, Max India Investment Services Private Limited, to change its name. The dispute arose because a respondent company claimed the petitioner's name was too similar to their registered trademarks ('MAX' and 'Max India Limited'). The court found that since the petitioner has been using the name incorporating 'Max India' since 2007, it established a prima facie case for interim relief. Furthermore, the parties were referred to mediation to explore an amicable resolution.