India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 241 of 311 · 7,456 total
Suru International Pvt. Ltd v.B.Braun Melsungen AG
Suru International Pvt. Ltd filed a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 210062. The Madras High Court set aside the IPAB's order to the extent that it had remanded the matter back to the Controller General of Patents & Designs, directing the IPAB to decide the issue de novo.
M/S All Well Formulations v.M/S Swathi And Co.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal, upholding the trial court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of M/S All Well Formulations. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Turky Plus Olive Oil' and its unique tin design by the defendant. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar, noting that the plaintiff's current suit was based on a registered mark, unlike a previous unsuccessful attempt concerning an unregistered mark. Consequently, the trial court was directed to expedite the final decision of the underlying infringement suit.
Rajat Agarwal & Anr. v.Quadrific Media Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This case involves a dispute over the intellectual property assets, specifically the trademark 'Spartanpoker', its logo, and the domain name 'Spartanpoker.com'. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the High Court concerning these assets, while the defendants subsequently filed a related suit (TS No. 5 of 2017) in the District Judge's court. To prevent conflicting judgments and streamline the legal process, the Calcutta High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer the Alipore suit to be heard alongside the original High Court proceedings.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., upholding a limited interim injunction granted to Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd. The court found that while the appellants held registered rights in 'Central Park', the respondents demonstrated bona fide prior use and substantial investment in their project, balancing equities in favor of the defendants. Consequently, the court allowed the respondents to continue using 'Rustomjee Central Park' provided the prominence of 'Central Park' was maintained.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd & Ors.
M/S Instapower Ltd., a company specializing in energy-efficient lighting systems, filed a suit alleging that M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd and others were infringing its registered design patents for aviation warning lights. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive market presence and proved that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products. Despite the defendants failing to contest the case effectively, the court found infringement.
Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Rishabh Lohia & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Optimus Pharma Pvt Ltd in a passing off suit against Rishabh Lohia & Anr. The court found that the defendants dishonestly adopted the trade name 'Optimus' for pharmaceutical products, causing confusion in the market. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions and awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- due to the defendant's evasion of court proceedings.
Bharatbhai Padmakant Raut v.Madhu Silica Pvt Ltd
The respondents filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the petitioners' manufacturing and trade of various grades of silica was illegal, mala-fide, and void ab initio. The petitioners challenged this by seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing it was barred by law and lacked jurisdiction. The High Court rejected the petition, finding that there was a cause of action based on the alleged transfer of secret data.
Dura Roof Private Limited v.Dyna Roof Private Limited
The Gauhati High Court allowed appeals filed by Dura Roof Private Limited, setting aside temporary injunction orders previously granted to Dyna Roof Private Limited. The court found that despite claims of similarity, the marks 'Dura Roof' and 'Dura Lume' were phonetically and visually dissimilar enough from 'Dyna Roof' and 'Dyna Lume' that there was no likelihood of public confusion. Consequently, the court held that a prima facie case for trademark infringement was absent, allowing the original title suits to proceed on their merits.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Www.Timeseducation.Co & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Triumphant Institute Of Management, to implead Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byju's) as a necessary party in its trademark infringement suit concerning the domain name 'timeseducation.co'. The court found that the proposed defendant had an admitted association with the impugned domain via a telephone number linked to them, making their presence essential for a just decision. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint and subsequently deleted two original defendants from the array of parties.
BDA Ltd. v.National Industrial Corporation Ltd.
The appellant filed an application before the Controller of Patents and Designs for cancellation of Registered Design No.182771 under Section 19 of the Act. The Registrar had previously rejected this application, and since more than ten years had passed, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v.Bombay Rayon Fashions Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. against an order that vacated its ex-parte injunction. The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'VOGUE' by the appellant and 'LINEN VOGUE' by the respondent in relation to magazines versus fabrics/apparel. The court held that the respondent's catalogues, which merely advertised their goods, did not constitute a commercial act of publishing for sale, thus finding no merit in the claim of infringement or passing off.
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals v.Union Of India
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals challenged an order passed by the Controller of Patents, arguing that the authority failed to consider superior data regarding their improved product version. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the impugned order was statutorily appealable, the petitioner must utilize the available statutory remedy.
K.Manivannan v.The Chairman Intellectual Property Appellate Board, The Controller of Patent & Designs, M.Mani
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 204322, granted to M.Mani (the third respondent), arguing that the invention was already publicly available or anticipated by his own earlier work. The petitioner sought revocation of the patent before the High Court.
M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v.M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Patent No.265920 in the Commercial Court. Due to the defendant filing a counter-claim for revocation, the suit was transferred to the High Court. The core issue before the court was whether this transferred patent dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
P.Maheswari (Propx. Venu Biriyani Hotel) v.Dindigul Venuu Biriyani
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by P.Maheswari against Dindigul Venuu Biriyani regarding the use of deceptively similar trade names for biryani services. Although the initial claim sought permanent injunction and damages, the court ultimately decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) signed between the parties. This resolution allowed both parties to settle their dispute outside of a full trial.
Kela Handloom & Co. v.Susanta Debnath
Kela Handloom & Co. filed a suit against Susanta Debnath and others, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'ASMA' and associated artistic work in textile goods like lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Compromise reached between the parties.
Holland Company Lp And Anr. v.S.P. Industries
The plaintiffs claimed ownership and copyright over the industrial drawings of the Automatic Twist Lock (ATL) system, alleging that the defendant copied these drawings to manufacture spare parts for ATL devices used by Indian Railways. The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly given that the drawings were published and available in the public domain.
Bhushan Goyal (Proprietor, Chanda Softy Ice Creams) v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Mars Incorporated
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Bhushan Goyal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and Mars Incorporated. The petitioner had sought to quash an order related to the renewal of a trademark registration granted to Mars Incorporated. However, before any substantive ruling on the merits, the petitioner voluntarily moved to withdraw the petition, leading to its dismissal.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Glaxo Group Limited against Aar Ess Remedies Private Limited & Ors for trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. The court found that the defendants were infringing on registered trademarks (ZINACEF, FORTAM) and common law rights (FORTAZ), as well as passing off the plaintiff's goods using similar packaging (trade dress/copyright). Given the multiple violations, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of ₹20 lakhs to Glaxo Group.
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. v.Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
Sarin Technology Limited v.Piyush Dantara & 2
The court heard arguments regarding the framing of issues in a civil suit concerning patent infringement. The court accepted the suggested issues and framed them for further proceedings.
Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.Omex Cables Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, despite the plaintiff claiming trademark infringement and passing off against 'OMEXGOLD.' The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2006 when it filed a trademark opposition. Due to this significant delay in approaching the court (from 2006/2015 until 2017), the court held that the plaintiff was disentitled to discretionary relief, citing established legal precedents regarding laches and acquiescence.
Modi- Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The court found that the IPAB overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. Citing Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court held that the use of an associated trade mark can be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark. Consequently, the court set aside the IPAB's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.