India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 242 of 295 · 7,068 total
Ram Pal Chauhan v.M/S County Apparels And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ram Pal Chauhan, proprietor of 'M/s. Classic Apparels,' who sued for passing off against M/S County Apparels and others regarding the trademark 'DEVIN.' The court found that the Plaintiff had established prior use and goodwill associated with the mark before the Defendants began using it to pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. Crucially, the judgment affirmed that a right of action for passing off exists even if the trade mark is unregistered, citing Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
Novartis Ag And Ors. v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 212815, which covers the compound Vildagliptin for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Plaintiffs claimed that despite no immediate launch by the Defendant, its listing of Vildagliptin as an API on its website posed a significant threat to their market share. Considering the potential infringement and the balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Ranbaxy from manufacturing or selling products containing Vildagliptin.
Bharti Airtel Ltd v.Airtelasia & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bharti Airtel, confirming a decree against Defendant No. 1 for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'AIRTELASIA' was identical and deceptively similar to Airtel's well-known mark 'AIRTEL,' leading to consumer confusion. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to transfer the domain name www.airtelasia.com to Bharti Airtel.
Manmohan Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v.Ganpati Plastic Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief regarding the use of the 'MONICA' trademark. The court found that despite the petitioner holding a registered mark ('MONICA GOLD'), the respondents could demonstrate prior and continuous user of similar marks ('MONIKA') dating back to 1986, predating the plaintiff's claimed usage date. Consequently, the court declined to grant an injunction but mandated the defendants to maintain and submit quarterly sales accounts for all products sold under the disputed trademark.
Arif Abdul Kader Fazlani v.Hitesh Raojibhai Patel & Co & 1
The plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2012. The court granted this permission, disposing of the main suit as withdrawn. However, the defendants' counterclaim, which sought the revocation of Patent No. 226534 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, was held to survive for adjudication.
Diageo Brands B. v.Khoday Breweries Ltd
Diageo Brands successfully secured an ad interim injunction against Khoday Breweries Ltd in a trademark infringement and passing off case. The Delhi High Court found that the defendants were using deceptively or confusingly similar marks, such as KHODEY BLACK & WHITE and VAT 999, which infringed upon Diageo's globally recognized portfolio of alcohol brands like Johnnie Walker and Guinness. This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing to use these infringing trademarks until the final outcome of the suit.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.South Konkan Distilleries
The Plaintiff, holding a registered trademark 'TANGO PUNCH', filed suit alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling country liquor in bottles embossed with the Plaintiff's trade mark. The Plaintiff claimed this constituted infringement and passing off. The Court found that the Defendant's use fell squarely within Section 29(3) of the Act, leading to the grant of injunctions.
Radhe Krishna Products - A Partnership Firm v.Parshottambhai Dharamshibhai Lunagriya
This petition challenged a trial court's order rejecting the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which argued that the respondent's second civil suit was not maintainable. The petitioners claimed that since the respondent had previously restricted their claims to copyright infringement after filing an initial suit alleging both copyright and passing off, they could not file a subsequent suit for similar relief. The High Court ultimately upheld the trial court's decision, finding no fault in the impugned order.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Midley Pharmaceuticals Limied
This Calcutta High Court case involves a passing-off dispute between Sun Pharmaceuticals and Midley Pharmaceuticals concerning the trademarks CARDIVAS and CARVAS. The court framed ten detailed issues, focusing on whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of CARDIVAS, whether the defendant's mark CARVAS is confusingly similar or an imitation, and ultimately, whether the defendant is engaging in passing off. The case was fixed for settlement of these complex trademark infringement claims.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Mr. Gigaram M.Patel appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered design (No. 225589). The High Court set aside the original order, finding that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to produce the complete set of Yellow Pages necessary to establish the date of publication.
sandisk corporation v.raju aka bilal
Sandisk Corporation sued Raju A.K.A Bilal for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and delivery up concerning counterfeit SanDisk memory cards being sold in Delhi's Old Lajpat Rai Market. The defendant was selling inferior quality fake memory cards bearing the SanDisk trademark at significantly lower prices.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v.Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction alleging infringement of their patent (IN 200572) related to mobile communication handover decisions by the defendants, who manufacture and sell telecommunications equipment like Base Station Controllers. The court disposed of the application regarding the ad interim stay.
M/s.Vijay Industries v.Vijay Solvex Limited
M/s. Vijay Industries appealed against the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dimapur's order which returned their plaint. The suit alleged infringement of the 'SCOOTER' trademark and associated artwork by Respondent No. 1 (Vijay Solvex Limited) and its agent. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding jurisdiction.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v.MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted temporary relief in favor of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited against MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd., finding that the abbreviation 'M & M' enjoys protection as a registered trademark. The court issued a comprehensive injunction preventing the defendants from using the impugned marks, similar domain names (like www.mandmstores.in), or passing off their goods and services as those of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was mandated to delete 'MNM' from its corporate name within four weeks.
Mr Arnab Basu & Ors. v.Monginis Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court modified an existing ex parte interim order in the dispute between Mr Arnab Basu & Ors. and Monginis Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court acknowledged the long-standing use of the 'Monginis' brand by the plaintiffs since 1989, despite their manufacturing other products. To balance the interests of both parties, the court mandated that the plaintiffs must continue to dedicate at least 80% of their manufacturing capacity and display Monginis products in proportion within their outlets, ensuring no interference with the plaintiffs' business while protecting the defendant's brand rights.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India Through The Secretary; The Controller of Patents; Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Corporation challenged the order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which upheld the Controller's decision to grant a Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited. The license was granted for Bayer's patented drug, Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar), used in treating various cancers.
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited v.Regional Director - North Western Region - Ministry of Corporate Affairs
This Gujarat High Court order addressed a challenge to the Regional Director's decision, which had previously rejected an application under Section 22 of the Companies Act. The core dispute involved whether pending trademark proceedings should prevent the approval of a company name ('Sahajanand Laser Technology Private Limited'). The court admitted the appeal, recognizing that the distinct legal nature of the Companies Act application does not automatically render it sub-judice to ongoing trademark disputes.
Microsoft Corporation v.Mr. Rajeev Trehan
Microsoft Corporation filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages against Mr. Rajeev Trehan and others for the alleged piracy of its software products. The court examined evidence establishing that the defendants were loading Microsoft's copyrighted software onto computers they sold without permission. Given the defendants' failure to appear in court, the plaintiffs successfully made out a case for infringement.
Baroda Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision to dismiss a notice of motion seeking perpetual injunction against trademark infringement. The suit involved the trademarks 'VAL' and 'VALZ'. The High Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that there was no sufficient basis for immediate injunctive relief, noting differences in pronunciation, structure, and packaging between the two marks. Furthermore, the court emphasized the limited scope of appellate review over discretionary interim orders, directing the trial court to expedite the final hearing on merits.
Salzer Electronics Limited v.S.G.Controls & Switchgear (P) Ltd.
Salzer Electronics Limited appealed against a single judge's order that dismissed its applications seeking temporary injunctions regarding alleged infringement and passing off of its registered patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it lacked necessary details and discussion on the merits of the case.
Dr. Aloys Wobben and another v.Yogesh Mehra and others
Dr. Aloys Wobben (Appellant) filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others (Respondents), who were also filing revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court examined whether these two actions could proceed concurrently.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra
Dr. Aloys Wobben filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others, despite them having already filed numerous revocation petitions before the IPAB challenging his patents. The Supreme Court addressed whether these two proceedings could run concurrently.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application challenging a prior ex-parte injunction restraining M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling a respiratory protection device, which was claimed to infringe Patent No. 211175 held by 3M Innovative Properties Company. The court examined the prima facie case presented by the plaintiff regarding the infringement of their patented flat-folded personal respiratory device. Given that the defendant had been using the impugned device since April 2011 and had made considerable investments, the court found the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries challenged an order that returned its patent infringement suit against Natco Pharma Limited, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The core dispute revolved around whether the process patent infringement claim was limited only to exports from Hyderabad or if it extended to the apprehension of marketing within Delhi. The court held that since the plaint pleaded an apprehension of sale/marketing in Delhi, the court possessed jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored.