India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 241 of 295 · 7,068 total
K.R.Ravi Rathinam v.The Director General of Police, and others (listed as R.1 to R.11)
The appellant claimed his story 'Mullai Vanam 999', which he uploaded to YouTube in 2013, was illegally used and infringed upon in the film 'Lingaa' by respondents 7, 8, 10, and 11. The court initially held that a writ petition was not the proper remedy for such private disputes. However, considering the circumstances, the court directed the seventh respondent to deposit Rs. 10 Crores and allowed the release of the film 'LINGAA' upon initial deposit.
Amultek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed a challenge to an interim order preventing Amultek Software Solutions from using the name 'Amultek' due to trademark concerns raised by Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. The court allowed the application filed by Amultek, permitting them to temporarily change their name to Atek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd while reserving their right to contest the underlying infringement claims in the main appeal. This decision allows the litigation to proceed toward a final determination of trademark rights.
K.R. Ravi Rathinam v.The Director General Of Police and others
The petitioner, K.R. Ravi Rathinam, filed a Writ Petition seeking a detailed inquiry by police authorities into the alleged theft and unauthorized use of his story ('Mullai Vanam 999') in another film ('Linga'). The court dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute was private and that the appropriate remedy for intellectual property claims is through a Civil Suit or Criminal Law proceedings, not under Article 226.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft appealed against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court found that the authority rendered the decision without granting the petitioner's representative a proper opportunity to clarify objections, despite the petitioner having requested accommodation for his absence. Consequently, the impugned decision was set aside and the matter was remanded for a de novo hearing.
Educare Limited v.S.K. Sachdev
Educare Limited filed a suit against S.K. Sachdev alleging trademark infringement concerning its well-established school brand, 'SHRI RAM'. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's use of 'ShreeRam World School' and the domain name www.shreeram.in, which the plaintiffs argued was phonetically and conceptually identical to their mark. After considering the plaintiff's extensive reputation in the education sector, the court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the defendants' adoption of the name lacked bona fide intent.
M/S Dabur India Ltd. v.M/S Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction sought by Dabur India Ltd. against Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'PACHMOLA'. The court found that, based on prima facie examination of trade dress and product features, there was no immediate possibility of consumer deception or confusion between 'HAJMOLA' and 'PACHMOLA'. While not ruling on the merits of the full suit, the court directed the defendant to maintain and file quarterly sales accounts, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union of India & Ors.
The writ petitioner challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had revoked his patent for a 'Sealing Device' due to lack of novelty based on US prior art. The petitioner argued that his device possessed novel features, such as a transparent body and ribbed wire. The Calcutta High Court set aside the IPAB's order, finding that the Board erred in its assessment and reliance on expert opinion.
C.I.T v.M/S.Acqua Minerals P.Ltd
The dispute arose from an assessment where the Assessing Officer restricted the allowance of Rs. 2,90,602/- claimed by the assessee as royalty payment to M/s. Parle (Export) Pvt. Ltd for use of their trade mark 'Bisleri', classifying it instead as acquisition of a patent right under Section 35A. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred this question to the High Court.
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v.Jamshyad Sethna And Anr
The Delhi High Court permitted Banyan Tree Holding to amend its original suit for passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought to incorporate claims for trademark infringement based on new registrations that occurred during the pendency of the case. The court held that since the registration happened subsequently, and allowing the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy without causing prejudice to the defendants, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.M/S. Deep Industry
The Delhi High Court confirmed an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Rspl Health Private Limited against M/S. Deep Industry. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case, asserting that the defendant's use of the 'POSH' label was deceptively similar to its registered trademark and artistic work, 'XPERT.' Despite the defendant raising objections regarding jurisdiction and delay, the court found both arguments untenable, upholding the initial order against infringement and passing off.
Sunny Sales & Others v.Binod Khanna
The Calcutta High Court refused the plaintiffs' interim application for an injunction against the use of the trade mark 'LIPU' (and similarly 'SUNSHINE'). The court emphasized that while both parties claimed long-standing usage, neither had established exclusive rights. Given that both were importers sourcing goods from multiple manufacturers in China, and registration applications were recent, the court found no justification for granting an immediate injunction. However, the defendant was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts throughout the litigation.
Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v.Koninklijke Phillips Electronics
The respondent (Koninklijke Phillips Electronics) sued for permanent injunction against the appellants (Maj. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) regarding infringement of Patent No. 218255. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking revocation based on the plaintiff's failure to disclose foreign patent applications as required by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the omission was not an unequivocal admission of deliberate suppression and thus revocation is not automatic.
Fdc Ltd. v.Union Of India
FDC Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had set aside the Assistant Controller's initial ruling against the petitioner regarding the revocation of Indian Patent No.197822. The core dispute centered on whether IPAB should have decided the merits or remanded the matter, and specifically, whether directing a fresh Opposition Board was legally sound.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
The application sought permission to export 1 kg of API Sorafenib (Sorafenat), which was manufactured under a compulsory license granted to NPL. Bayer challenged this export, arguing it constituted a commercial transaction and violated the terms of the compulsory license. The Court ultimately held that the export for regulatory approval purposes falls within the exception provided by Section 107A.
Narendra Srivastava v.Ashok Chaturvedi
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging groundless threats based on a pending patent application held by defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 sought to be struck out as a party, arguing he had assigned his rights and was not involved in the alleged threat. The court dismissed this application, holding that since the claim derived from defendant no.1's original application and he resided within the court's jurisdiction, he remained a necessary party.
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited v.M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd
M/S Radico Khaitan Limited filed a suit against M/S Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd alleging infringement of several trademarks related to alcoholic beverages. The court addressed multiple interim applications, including those seeking liberty to sue for other unregistered marks and enlargement of time. Ultimately, the court partly allowed the applications, granting an interim injunction that restricts the Defendant from using identical or deceptively similar labels for specific products while permitting the use of generic terms without the protected prefix.
M/S.Grp Dairy Food Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court resolved a dispute between M/S.Grp Dairy Food Pvt. Ltd. and S.Sudhakar concerning the trademarks 'Udhayam' and 'GRB Udhayam'. The parties reached an amicable settlement through mediation, resulting in a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions by allowing the trademark registrations to continue, provided certain conditions outlined in the compromise are incorporated into the registry.
Tech Plus Media Private Ltd v.Jyoti Janda & Ors
Tech Plus Media Private Ltd filed a suit alleging that its former employees infringed upon its copyrights, passing off rights, and trade secrets by copying proprietary IT industry databases. The plaintiff claimed these detailed electronic databases constituted original literary works and confidential information developed over nine years. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit against the plaintiff, finding that it had failed to plead the material propositions of fact essential for succeeding in an action for copyright infringement.
Merck Serono S.A. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Merck Serono S.A. challenged the Controller of Patents & Design's decision to declare its patent application abandoned under Section 21(1) of the Patent Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that it had actively pursued the application by responding to both the First and Second Examination Reports. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that active pursuit negates abandonment.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.Ramesh Chopra & Ors.
Instapower Ltd., dealing in energy-efficient lighting under the Insta Power brand, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration that Defendant No. 4's claims regarding sole ownership of LED aviation obstruction light patents were false. The dispute centered on conflicting patent rights concerning LED Aviation Obstruction Lights (AOL).
V2 Corp & Anr. v.Innovative Techpack Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and delivery for infringement of their registered JAR designs. The defendant challenged an ex-parte interim order restraining it from manufacturing or selling products with identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's designs. The court modified the existing interim order to allow the defendant limited use of certain features while maintaining the rest of the injunction.
NRB Bearings Limited v.Windsor Export
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of NRB Bearings Limited against Windsor Export, finding that the latter was infringing on its trademark and goodwill through deceptive use of a similar domain name. The court held that the defendant's minor spelling variant ('nrbearing.com') was intentionally chosen to attract customers associated with the plaintiff's well-known mark 'NRB'. Given the prima facie case and the risk of irreparable confusion, the injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v.Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Neon Laboratories Ltd. against Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the Defendants' use of the 'XYLOX Family' marks was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established 'LOX Family' marks, despite the addition of the prefix 'XY'. Consequently, the Court issued an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the rival marks and ordered the appointment of a Court Receiver over the infringing goods.
Symed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Sharon Bio-Medicine Ltd. And Ors.
Symed Laboratories filed a suit for permanent injunction against Defendants, alleging infringement of their patents (IN 213062 and IN 213063) related to novel processes for preparing Linezolid. Defendant No. 3 moved an application seeking amendment of its written statement, arguing that it was merely purchasing the product from the market and not manufacturing it using the patented process. The Court partly allowed the amendment.