India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 246 of 295 · 7,068 total
Saregama India Ltd. v.Alkesh Gupta & Ors.
The petitioners filed for interim relief seeking orders to restrain websites from streaming their copyrighted sound recordings. The respondents argued that personal use is permitted and ISPs should not act as watchdogs. The Court found infringement occurred through commercial exploitation via streaming and directed an injunction against the specified websites.
Urooj Ahmed v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited
The appellant, Urooj Ahmed, filed an Original Side Appeal challenging the single judge's decision to dismiss an application seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The suit involved claims of design infringement and passing off under the Designs Act, 2000. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order regarding maintainability.
Ajanta Limited And Anr. v.M/S Ajanta Transistor Clock Manufacturing Co and Others
This appeal before the Delhi High Court involved a complex family business dispute concerning the ownership and use of the 'Ajanta' trade mark. The core controversy stemmed from various settlement deeds and an MoU executed between members of the same family. Given the sensitive nature of the family arrangement, the court recognized the need to maintain peace and harmony by avoiding litigation. Consequently, the High Court modified the previous order to mandate interim compliance with the terms of the existing Memorandum of Understanding until the Arbitral Tribunal delivers its final award.
Dr.Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had cancelled his patents against him. The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the IPAB possessed the jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, to examine the validity of a resolution used to authorize actions.
Dabur India Ltd v.M/S Mughals Herbal Products & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dabur India Ltd in a passing off suit against M/S Mughals Herbal Products. The court found that the defendant's rose water packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established 'DABUR GULABARI' trade dress, specifically noting similarities in color combination and overall configuration. Given Dabur's long-standing reputation, extensive advertising spend, and market presence, the court granted a permanent injunction, affirming the protection of distinctive trade dress under common law.
Mr Pramod Hegde (M/S Meditek India) v.M/S Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to deny trademark registration. The dispute centered on whether 'Z-CAL' (Petitioner) was deceptively similar to 'ZECAL' (Respondent). Applying established tests for deceptive similarity, the court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were phonetically and visually similar, especially within the pharmaceutical industry where buyers rely heavily on pronunciation. Consequently, the court upheld the prior user's rights, preventing the registration of the petitioner's mark.
Prem Ratan Rathi & Ors. v.Ashish Iron Trading Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (trusts representing the Rathi family) who sought to protect their registered trademark 'RATHI'. The court found that the defendants, by using the mark 'GOLDEN RATHI' and incorporating it into their corporate name for steel bars, were committing trademark infringement and passing off. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted against both defendants, prohibiting them from using the infringing mark, alongside an order compelling them to render accounts of profits.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging that Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd was infringing its patented improved screen panel and fixing arrangement. The court, finding the patent valid and subsisting, granted an interim order restraining the respondent from further infringement.
Union Of India v.Dr Ravindranath Pradhan
The Union of India appealed a single judge's order holding that the period of the petitioner's patent should be reckoned from 23.02.2001, not the original filing date of 19.06.1992. The dispute centered on whether procedural delays led to abandonment and how the commencement date should be determined under the Patents Act, 1970.
Kuber Khaini Private Limited v.Sopariwala Exports And Another
The Bombay High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Kuber Khaini Private Limited had adopted a deceptively similar trade-dress and label design to that of Sopariwala Exports. Although the Appellant used a different word mark ('Kuber' vs 'Afzal'), the court ruled that the adoption of the entire color scheme, get up, and descriptive elements constituted an attempt to trade on the Respondent's reputation. The judgment clarified that while a trademark disclaimer limits statutory infringement claims, it does not prevent a claim for passing off based on deceptive similarity.
M/S. Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.M/S. Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. filed a suit against Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks OMIDON and EMEDOM in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'OMEDO' to confuse consumers and erode goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting an injunction and damages.
M/S Coral Seal & Ceramics v.Sunil Sagar
The Delhi High Court upheld an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Coral Seal & Ceramics against Sunil Sagar. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting the high degree of deceptive resemblance between the products' marks, designs, and trade dress. Despite the defendant claiming prior use, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated early commercial activity through invoices, leading the court to make the interim injunction absolute pending the final trial.
Eatman Foods India Private Limited v.M/s Savorit Ltd.
Eatman Foods India Private Limited appealed the dismissal of its injunction application against M/s Savorit Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off due to the phonetic and visual similarity between their trade marks ('Tastee Masala' vs 'TASTII'). The respondent argued that the products were different, and since only the label was registered, no exclusive right could be claimed over individual words. The High Court upheld the single judge's decision.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v.Mukesh Kumar P. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (SPIL) against the defendants, finding that their use of the mark AMLOVATE constituted both trademark infringement and passing off against SPIL's registered mark, AMLOBET. The court affirmed SPIL's territorial jurisdiction despite the defendants' objections. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction and an order requiring the defendants to render accounts of profits.
Raj Kumar Saraf, Proprietor M/S. Bindal Food Products v.M/S. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria
This appeal challenged the order by the Copyright Board that expunged a copyright registration (No. A-66496/04) held by Raj Kumar Saraf for an artistic label used on 'Vijay Hingoli' products. The Respondent, M/S. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria, sought rectification based on prior use and ownership of the art work. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to establish valid authorship or continuous rights, particularly concerning alleged assignments and dates of publication.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & 3
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & others alleging patent infringement. The court framed multiple issues, including those related to the validity (novelty, inventive step) and infringement of the suit patents. Both parties agreed to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence.
Dgt Holding B.V. v.Ravi Scientific Industries
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Dgt Holding B.V., finding no grounds to vacate the order restraining Ravi Scientific Industries from selling deceptively similar chess clocks. The court clarified that even if a design is registered under the Designs Act, a plaintiff can still pursue remedies for passing off and copyright infringement against competitors who are misusing their goodwill and trade dress. This ruling reinforces the availability of common law protections alongside statutory IP rights.
Reliability Engineering Industries v.Aesseal India Private Limited
The appeal arose from interlocutory applications filed regarding the alleged theft and misuse of proprietary rights, technical know-how, and confidential information related to mechanical seals. The plaintiffs sought various injunctions against defendants who were allegedly using their designs and trade secrets.
Asha Audio Company And Anr. v.Om Prakash Sonik & Ors.
Asha Audio Company filed a suit seeking royalties from a copyright society (Respondent No. 4), arguing that Section 19(9) and 19(10) entitle authors to equal shares of royalties, even outside cinematographic films. The dispute centered on the re-registration process of the society, where a show cause notice was issued regarding non-payment of royalties, leading the petitioner to seek an interim injunction against disbursement.
M/S Sos Oil Seals Private Limited v.M/S Super Seals India Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking amendments to the pleadings in a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'SS' logo. The court adopted a liberal approach, allowing the defendant to introduce evidence of their registered trademark 'SSIL' and permitting the plaintiff to clarify facts related to a family settlement that allegedly bars the defendant from operating in the seals business. This decision emphasizes judicial discretion in ensuring substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Union Of India
Shogun Organics Ltd. challenged the authority's power to grant registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for manufacturing insecticides (D-trans allethrin and Transfluthrin) using a patented process held by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that CIBRC should not allow 'me too' registrations without consent from the patent holder. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the authority is not obligated to consider patent rights when granting registration under Section 9(3) or 9(4).
M/s.Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt., Ltd. v.Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga
The Karnataka High Court addressed multiple writ petitions filed by M/s Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga regarding the use of the 'Adigas' trademark. The petitioners sought an ad-interim injunction to prevent infringement, challenging a lower court order that allowed the respondent time to file objections. While the High Court did not grant the immediate injunction requested, it directed the trial court to expeditiously consider and dispose of the temporary injunction applications filed by the plaintiffs.
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran v.Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran filed appeals against APEDA for not providing satisfactory information regarding the file pertaining to the Geographical Indication (GI) registration of Basmati rice, including global protection efforts. The Commission ultimately ruled that APEDA had no disclosure obligation because the requested information involved commercially sensitive and subjudice matters.
Ravi Visvesvaraya Prasad v.Rajneesh Kapur
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging plagiarism and violation of his copyright after publishing an original article on computer software. The defendants argued that since the cause of action accrued in November 1992, the subsequent legal proceedings were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.