India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 250 of 311 · 7,456 total
Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v.Lavera Gmbh And Co.Kg
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction in favor of Lavera Gmbh, affirming that Mac Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. was a dishonest adopter of the trademark 'LAVERA'. Despite initial contradictions regarding trans-border reputation, the court found that Lavera's international registration and intent to market in India entitled it to protection. The judgment emphasizes that dishonesty at the inception of mark adoption is fatal, even if subsequent use by the alleged infringer continues.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt., Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed appeals against an order concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark rights. The dispute centered around Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.'s use of labels incorporating 'GLUCON-D VOLT' for their tangy orange flavoured glucose-based energy bites. The parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading to the disposal of the Original Side Appeals.
Cipla Limited v.F. Hoffman La Roche Limited
Cipla Limited appealed against a final judgment passed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court heard the matter and directed that the case be fixed for final disposal on March 16, 2016. The court also clarified that while existing interim proceedings would continue, no final orders could be passed without its leave.
Jagatjit Industries Limited v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.
The dispute involved a conflict over the trademark 'BLENDERS PRIDE'. The appellant (Jagatjit Industries Limited) sought to register an identical mark, leading to opposition by respondent No. 4 (a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A.). The case progressed through various legal challenges regarding the validity and rectification of the registration certificate.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Guruji Enterprises' challenge against the removal of its trademark 'GURUJI'. The petitioner argued that the Registrar failed to issue a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) before cancellation. However, the court found that since the Respondent stated the Form O-3 was sent by post in 2008, the law presumes service upon delivery, making the writ petition inappropriate for resolving factual disputes regarding receipt.
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises v.Sh. Subhash Arora
M/S. Bhatia Enterprises filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a water jug (No. 235010). The court considered an application for a preliminary injunction, noting that the defendant had previously failed in its attempt to cancel the registration based on prior publication. Given that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without protection, the court granted the interim injunction.
Sanofi Aventis v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Sanofi Aventis filed a suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to blood thinning medicines. The plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint to reflect significantly increased damages, as the losses mounted over the seven years the suit was pending. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that procedural rules should not obstruct the cause of justice, especially when correcting valuation based on evolving market realities.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr v.Bull Machines Pvt Ltd
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a suit against Bull Machines Pvt Ltd, aiming to enhance the suit's valuation and the quantum of damages claimed due to ongoing copyright and design infringement. The plaintiffs argued that despite previous arrangements, the defendant continued manufacturing and selling infringing backhoe loaders. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial disputes require a flexible approach to ensure justice.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (Plaintiffs) seeking to amend their plaint to enhance the suit's pecuniary valuation. The plaintiffs, who had initially valued their passing off suit at a lower amount, sought to reflect the actual high market value of their intellectual property rights. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for correction is made out.
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Deepak Anand & Ors
Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a passing off/disparagement suit against Deepak Anand & Ors. The plaintiff sought to enhance the valuation of the suit from Rs.21,00,800/- to Rs.2,00,00,800/- based on reassessed damages and goodwill attached to its brand 'Snapdeal'. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should examine such applications from a commercial angle, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (the plaintiff) seeking to amend its plaint to enhance the valuation of a commercial dispute. The suit, originally concerning passing off, was valued low, but due to re-assessment of potential damages and profits, the plaintiffs sought to increase the value significantly. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning a suit filed under Section 142 of the Trademark Act. While addressing procedural matters, the court granted ad-interim relief in favor of the appellant (Cadila Healthcare Limited). This interim order mandates that the respondent (Micro Labs Limited) must provide at least one week's prior written notice before initiating any legal proceedings related to the dispute against the appellant.
M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. v.Mr.Jonathan Brady & Anr.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed a suit to be settled out of court. M/S Entertainment Network India Ltd. successfully convinced the court to enforce an agreement with Defendant No. 1, Mr. Jonathan Brady. The settlement confirmed that 'ULTA PULTA' is the intellectual property of the plaintiff and resulted in the decreeing of the original suit based on the agreed-upon terms.
Sh. P.C. Roy and Smt. Samita Roy v.The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; M/s S & S Chemical Works
The plaintiffs, who developed a Thermo Reactive Plastic foam Resin based on phenol formaldehyde compositions, sued the Ministry of Defence and M/s S & S Chemical Works for violating their trade secrets. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants leaked this confidential information to defendant no. 3, allowing it to manufacture similar goods. The court found that the plaintiffs successfully proved the leakage of trade secrets but failed to prove the issue regarding rendition of accounts.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed a suit for injunction alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its patent. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that while the Single Judge found infringement, the Division Bench had stayed the order due to pending objections under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing parties to continue being governed by an earlier court order.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Saurabh Katar And Others
Eicher Motors Limited filed an application seeking to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Saurabh Katar and others. The plaintiff sought to significantly enhance the claimed damages from Rs. 21 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, citing fresh listings of counterfeit products found on the defendants' website. The Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, noting that it did not alter the nature of the suit and was supported by cogent material available during the pendency of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent No. 236630, which covers the product D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit due to market evidence showing widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had challenged the validity and filed a revocation counter-claim, the court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the continuation of the litigation.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Bharat Rasayan Ltd & Anr.
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit against Bharat Rasayan Ltd alleging infringement of Patent No. 225306 concerning the product TRANSFLUTHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint, primarily to enhance the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction, citing market evidence of widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had already challenged the patent's validity through a revocation counter-claim, the Delhi High Court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the suit to proceed with enhanced claims.
Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture v.The Indian Hotels Company Limited
This case involves a dispute over the trademark 'JIVA' between Jiva Institute Of Vedic Science & Culture and The Indian Hotels Company Limited. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against infringement and passing off. In the present application, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction for rendition of accounts/damages from Rs. 25 lac to Rs. 1 crore, based on re-assessed damages. The court allowed the amendment, emphasizing that commercial courts should adopt a flexible approach when correcting valuation errors.
Vifor (International) Limited v.The High Court Of Delhi
This writ petition challenged the mandatory transfer of commercial disputes related to five key statutes—Patents, Trademarks, Designs, Copyright, and Geographical Indications—to the Commercial Division of the High Court. The petitioners argued that suits under these specific IP Acts should remain in their original forum, even if the value is below Rs. 1 crore. The court provided an interim order, holding that these cases shall not be transferred, while also directing Single Judges to consider amendment applications as per law.
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. v.Ankit Gupta
The plaintiff, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was operating a business using brand names ('Delhi Haat Mall' and 'New Delhi Haat') deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Dilli Haat'. The court found that the defendant's use constituted unfair competition and infringement, leading to the decree of permanent injunction and damages.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Mr Abhijeet And Anr
The case involves a dispute regarding the commercial launch of the product 'RIVAROXABAN' which is subject to the patent IN 211300 held by the plaintiffs. The defendants stated they are not proposing to launch the product during the patent's lifetime.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex patent dispute between F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. concerning Erlotinib Hydrochloride, a life-saving cancer drug. The court examined challenges to the validity of Roche's Indian Patent IN '774, particularly regarding inventive step over prior art (EP '226). While the court found that Cipla had raised credible doubts about the patent's validity, it ultimately restored Roche's suit for injunction but denied the immediate grant due to the approaching expiry date of the patent. Consequently, Cipla was directed to render accounts of its sales.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the jurisdictional scope of an ongoing patent infringement suit (CS No.3812/2014) between Novartis Ag and Cipla Ltd. The core issue was whether the case, despite its low pecuniary valuation, should be transferred to a subordinate District Court under the Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2015. The court ruled that because the defendant had filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, the matter must remain before the High Court's Commercial Division, irrespective of the suit's value.