India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 25 of 311 · 7,456 total
Hero Investcorp Private Limited Anr. v.Venuse Automobile
Hero Investcorp Private Limited filed a suit against Venuse Automobile alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'HERO' brand. The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of the Plaintiffs, including an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with powers to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize infringing auto parts bearing the HERO marks, and ascertain the stock value, signaling strong initial support for the Plaintiff's claims.
Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd challenging an ongoing complaint lodged against it by a third party regarding trademark ownership. The petitioner sought interim relief to prevent adverse orders from the Regional Director, Northern Division. While dismissing the apprehension of arbitrary action, the court issued a crucial direction, mandating that the Regional Director must dispose of the Section 16(1)(b) complaint after thoroughly considering all submissions and granting a proper hearing to all concerned parties.
Prabin Kumar Shah v.Manoj Kumar Jagnani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court heard an application for rectification filed by Prabin Kumar Shah seeking cancellation of Trademark No. 1553036 in Class 30. The court noted that the respondent's mark appeared to be slavishly imitating the petitioner's mark. Given the respondent's proposal to change the impugned mark (in color and font), the Court granted them an opportunity to revise it, while also directing them to adhere to a prior binding decree from the District Court at Bokaro.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M/S Electrical Master
Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.
Super Milk Products Private Limited v.Pyare Lal Laxmi Narayan And Sons
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for trademark infringement after the Franchise Agreement terminated. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was clandestinely using a deceptively similar brand name, 'Cuppa Kevanter', which led to passing off of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'Keventers'.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging a previous order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Application No.10810/CHENP/2012. The High Court examined whether the Original Side Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, considering the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the original matter involved a rejection of patent grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since an appeal mechanism already existed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application (No. 1250/KOL/2009) based on alleged lack of inventive steps. The appeal argued that the Controller reintroduced this objection suo moto, violating natural justice principles and contradicting earlier notices where the objection had been waived.
Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (1250/KOL/2009) primarily on grounds of lacking inventive steps. The appellant argued that the reintroduction of this objection after amendments and previous hearings violated natural justice principles. The High Court found that the procedure was against the scheme of the Act, setting aside the rejection order.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk A/S appealed an order where a Single Judge found infringement and granted limited relief to Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited. The appeal centers on whether the suit patent (IN 2626971) is vulnerable to invalidity under Section 64 of the Patents Act, given that the learned judge found the claim obvious from prior art.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Docbel Industries & Anr. v.Braun Aktiengesellschaft
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Docbel Industries and Braun Aktiengesellschaft based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court accepted the compromise, which involved the formal assignment of Trademark registration no. 405367 (the mark BRAUN) from Appellant No. 2 to the Respondent. Furthermore, the parties agreed to the handover of all related documents and financial considerations, effectively resolving the underlying litigation.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Ultratech Cement against Dalmia Cement Bharat. The court formally framed seven key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DALMIA ULTRA' infringes upon Ultratech's registered trademarks and whether there is an act of passing off. This judgment sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation, directing the plaintiff to file affidavits within four weeks.
Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. v.Smotect Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. against Smotect Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Defendants were using the Plaintiff's copyrighted label in promotional content, specifically an Instagram video, to portray the Plaintiff's product as harmful while promoting their own alternative. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from further use of the label and directed to take down the infringing videos within 72 hours.
Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam Marketing v.Mohan Singh Panwar
This petition challenged the rejection of a request to transfer a trademark infringement suit to the Commercial Court. The petitioner argued that since the dispute involved intellectual property, it should automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regardless of the low valuation. However, the High Court ruled that while IP rights are covered by the Act, the requirement for a 'commercial dispute' to have a specified value of at least Rs. 3 lakhs must be met. Since the suit was valued below this threshold, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Titan Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Titan Company Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Jewellery Assembly' by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The Controller rejected the application, stating that the claims fell under Section 3(l) and were suitable for design registration rather than a patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the appellant's technical submissions.
P.G.Purushan (A) P.G Purushan v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by P.G. Purushan against the Trademark Registry's decision to reject their trademark application, 'STIMULAID.' The core issue was whether the applicant had abandoned the mark after failing to comply with initial examination report directions. The Court found that since the appellant had submitted Form TM-M and attended subsequent hearings, there was no evidence of abandonment. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, compelling the Registrar to proceed with considering and potentially accepting the application.
Stove Kraft Limited v.The Registry of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Stove Kraft Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register the mark 'Pigeon'. The court found that the appellant had presented prima facie evidence of prior consent terms with Pigeon Corporation, which warranted further consideration rather than outright rejection. Consequently, the registry was directed to accept and advertise the trademark application, allowing any objections from third parties to be addressed later on their merits.
Salman Khan v.Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by actor Salman Khan against various defendants for alleged misappropriation of personality rights, trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The court granted several procedural reliefs to the Plaintiff, including exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the court issued directions for service on identified infringing parties and set a timeline for filing written statements and replication, while also considering an application for ad-interim injunction.
J S F Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Assistant Registar Of Trade Marks And Gi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court successfully mediated and settled disputes concerning trademark opposition appeals. Following a successful settlement agreement, the court disposed of the appeals and decreed the underlying suit based on the mutually agreed-upon terms. This judgment highlights the effectiveness of judicial mediation in resolving complex IP conflicts efficiently, allowing parties to achieve tailored resolutions rather than proceeding through lengthy litigation.
Krbl Limited v.Vikram Roller Flour Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the denial of interim injunction regarding the trademark 'INDIA GATE'. The court analyzed a prior consent order between the parties, which restricted usage based on product type and packaging size. While acknowledging the Appellant's claim as a well-known mark, the court ruled that if the Respondent's right to use 'dalia' flows from its existing rights for wheat products (atta, suji, etc.), it must adhere to the B2B/bulk sales restriction of 20 kgs and above. This interim order maintains the status quo while the core dispute over prior user rights remains sub-judice.
Ms Sapco Laboratories Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court heard an appeal challenging the refusal by the Trademark Registry to grant registration for 'BREMONT-L' due to opposition from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ('GLEMONT'). The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding common industry usage (e.g., the suffix 'MONT') but refrained from making a final decision on the merits of similarity. Instead, the High Court set aside the Registry's order and remitted the matter back for fresh examination, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence while ensuring the opponent gets a chance to respond.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. During the proceedings, the defendant stated that they have not commercialized any infringing product and their activities are covered under Section 107-A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Parveen Kumar Gulati Trading As Apexseals v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed a Writ Petition filed by Apexseals challenging the removal of its trademark application (No. 746049) without issuing the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse violated established rules. Following arguments from both sides, the Court issued a notice to the Registrar of Trademarks and granted time for filing a Counter Affidavit, indicating the matter will proceed through formal litigation.