India IP Litigation
7,177 annotated decisions
Page 242 of 300 · 7,177 total
M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Nalli Silk House A/C
This Madras High Court case involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty and Nalli Silk House A/C. The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to dispose of the suit based on the compromise memo. Under the agreement, the defendant committed to changing its business name from 'NALLI SILK HOUSE' to 'NALLAPPA SILK HOUSE' and ceasing all use of the infringing trademark by December 31, 2015.
M/S.Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant challenged the refusal of design registration (Application No. 233798) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller overlooked previous judicial observations regarding consistent application of registration parameters and incorrectly assessed the originality of the bottle design.
Amit Jain v.Ayurveda Herbal & Ors
Amit Jain filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ayurveda Herbal and others for infringing his registered designs used on plastic bottles and tubes for cosmetic products. The plaintiff claimed ownership through assignment of several design registrations. However, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the designs were not novel or protectable under Section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff was penalized for failing to disclose details of a prior withdrawn suit.
M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. v.Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai
The dispute concerned whether the royalty paid for music embedded in master CDs should be included in the assessable value when M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. manufactured duplicate CDs on a job work basis. The appellant argued that since they only copied the content and did not exploit the intellectual property, no royalty could be charged. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant.
M & H Management Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Shankar
M & H Management Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for passing off their goods and services by using the 'Anantara' trade mark, which is held by the plaintiff. The court partly decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions but rejecting the claim for damages.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Vignesh Refineries
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed suit against M/s.Vignesh Refineries alleging infringement of its registered trademark (GOLD WINEER) and copyrighted pouch design. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of 'SKS GOLD' packaging, which was deemed infringing by the plaintiff. Both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, amicably settling their differences.
Mr.Veeramani Kannan v.M/s Super Audio (Madras) Private Limited
The singer (plaintiff) sued the music company (defendant) alleging that the defendant commercially exploited and streamed songs from the album 'Shiva Murugan Paamalai' without permission or royalties, violating the performer's rights under Section 38A of the Copyright Act. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had assigned all his performance rights for a lump sum consideration in an agreement dated 15.04.2015.
Mw Eat Ltd v.New Masala Zone & Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Mw Eat Ltd against New Masala Zone & Anr, resolving a dispute over trademark infringement. Although the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement where the defendants agreed to cease using their name, the court formally granted the decree. The judgment specifically restrained the defendants from using 'New Masala Zone' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to restaurants and hospitality services, thereby protecting the plaintiff's trademark 'MASALA ZONE'.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
This appeal involved a minority shareholder, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, challenging Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and its Managing Director (Defendant No. 2). The core grievance was that Defendant No. 2 had obtained several patents in his individual name despite using the company's substantial research and development infrastructure and investment. The plaintiff argued these patents belonged to the company, asserting a fiduciary duty breach by the MD. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief, finding no compelling reason to grant protection based solely on apprehension.
Symphony Limited v.Roman Marketing & 12
The Gujarat High Court granted interim relief in favor of Symphony Limited concerning the manufacture and sale of aircoolers. The court considered an agreement involving the custody of a cooler mould and referenced a prior restraint order from the Mumbai High Court against one of the respondents for trademark infringement and passing off related to the design. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff while the appeal proceeds.
M/s.Varsha Productions v.Shivaji Rao Gaikwad
The appeal arose from an interlocutory order concerning a suit filed by the respondent, Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (Rajinikanth), seeking to restrain M/s.Varsha Productions from using his name, image, or style in their film project 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth'. The parties subsequently reached a settlement.
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc v.Sharekhand Limited
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a settlement agreement reached between The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group Plc and Sharekhand Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement of the trademark 'MAXTRAD'. Under the settlement, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed not to use the deceptively similar mark 'MAXTRADE'. Consequently, the court decreed the suit based on these terms, concluding the litigation.
Ashim Ghosh v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner challenged the Controller's action of treating his patent application (No. 1350/DEL/2007) as 'Deemed to be Withdrawn'. The withdrawal was based on the assumption that the request for examination was not made within the prescribed period, despite the petitioner having filed Form-18 correctly and within the time limit. The court found that the clerical error in the covering letter did not invalidate the timely filing of the substantive examination request.
M/S Today Tea Ltd v.M/S Aggarwal Tea Co.& Anr
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit between M/S Today Tea Ltd and M/S Aggarwal Tea Co. based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The defendants agreed to pay a balance sum, cease using the disputed trademarks ('T-STAR' vs 'TODAY/TODAY STAR'), and further committed to destroying all infringing tea and coffee packaging material at a designated premises under court supervision. This judgment underscores the effectiveness of mediation in resolving complex IP disputes.
Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
Plaintiffs, a production house, filed suit alleging that their concept notes and literary works for a TV series titled 'Badki Bahu' were shared with Defendant No.1 under confidence. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants subsequently produced a serial, 'Badi Devrani', based on this confidential material and infringed their copyright. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction to protect the Plaintiffs' material.
Rohini Seeds Private Limited v.Reshma Chemicals Private Limited
The appeal challenged an order that granted a temporary injunction restraining Rohini Seeds Private Limited from using numbers 2222 on its seed packings, based on Reshma Chemicals Private Limited's claim of trademark infringement (R.S.2222). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of confusion or irreparable injury.
M/S Bilcare Limited v.M/S Associated Capsules Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a trademark suit (TM-75/2011) against the defendant. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall previous orders, primarily to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The court dismissed this application, finding it devoid of merits and intended for dilatory tactics.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals regarding the patented drug Sitagliptin. MSD alleged that Glenmark's products, marketed as Zita and Zitamet, infringed upon its patent (Indian Patent No. 209816), which covers a key molecule used to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, granting an interim injunction in favor of MSD, thereby restraining Glenmark from further selling or distributing the infringing products while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Sivanesan & Co. v.M/s. Kanchan Home Appliances and others
The Madras High Court granted an absolute interim injunction in favor of M/s. Sivanesan & Co., who held the registered trademark 'Premier'. The court found that the defendants' use of 'Premier Dezire' constituted both infringement and passing off, causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation. This decision underscores the importance of continuous usage and established market presence when enforcing trademark rights.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Intex Technologies (India) Limited for infringing eight patents related to advanced telecommunication technologies, specifically AMR, 3G, and EDGE. The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The court granted several stringent interim orders, including restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing devices and directing Customs authorities not to allow the import of such products.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel & 2
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel and others concerning Patents Nos. 218301 and 221999. The defendants challenged the validity of these patents by filing a counter-claim for revocation. This order framed various issues, including novelty, inventorship, infringement, and entitlement to injunctions.
Tata Sons Ltd v.Neil Sombuntham & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against Neil Sombuntham and others for infringing on the well-known 'TATA' trademark. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain name 'www.tatamassage.com' constituted misappropriation and an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the Tata brand in the global market. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or domain name, and the court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name to the plaintiff.
Atlas Plastic v.C G Enterprise
Atlas Plastic filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against C G Enterprise for infringement of its registered designs. Atlas Plastic subsequently filed an application seeking to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding the cancellation petition status of one of the defendant's impugned designs.
M/S Rspl Health Pvt. Ltd. v.Giani Ram Mittal & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for alleged infringement of its trade mark XPERT and copyright, claiming prior adoption in respect of laundry products. The defendants countered by asserting their own established use of the 'SAGAR' trademark and arguing that the marks were dissimilar. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.