India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 255 of 311 · 7,456 total
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB granting a plea of revocation made by private respondents. The dispute involved multiple patent infringement suits and corresponding revocation petitions/counter claims. The High Court addressed whether the Supreme Court's ruling on electing one remedy was affected by ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court.
M/S Reino Industrial Organics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Refnol Resins & Chemicals Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered trade marks (REINOL/RIO-REINOL) and passing off goods under the deceptive mark 'Refnol' or company name REFNOL RESINS & CHEMICALS LTD. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks amounted to infringement and passed off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer CropScience AG v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bayer CropScience AG appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for long-chain inulin. The rejection was based on a lack of novelty and inventive step, arguing that the compound was merely isolated from artichoke roots. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the specific chain length and higher degree of polymerization achieved by fractionalizing the inulin constituted a novel invention with beneficial results.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd.
The petitioners, registered proprietors of trade marks containing 'UltraTech' or 'Ultra', sought leave to combine their cause of action for infringement with a cause of action for passing off against the defendant. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that it possessed original jurisdiction and allowed the combination of both causes of action.
Times Internet Ltd. v.Time Broadband Services Pvt.Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Times Internet Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'timebroadbandindia.com' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's established brand, 'indiatimes'. The court emphasized the priority of adoption and the extensive reputation built by the plaintiff over its digital assets. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted, along with punitive damages.
Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v.RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Blue Cross Laboratories, granting an interim injunction against RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the marks 'CEDON' and 'CEFDON' were deceptively similar, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to combine both causes of action into the suit, dismissing the defendant's attempt to reject the plaint.
M/s. Innovativ Dezines v.M/s. Wooltop Design Private Limited
M/s. Innovativ Dezines appealed a previous order and decree regarding a suit against M/s. Wooltop Design Private Limited. The appellant sought to set aside the earlier judgment. Ultimately, the senior counsel for the appellant agreed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to raise all pleas on merits in the written statement.
Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Pradhan Herbal Company
This case involved a dispute between Babu Ram Om Prakash and Pradhan Herbal Company concerning the use of the trademark 'Diamond/Black Diamond' in relation to Henna Power (Mehandi). Following mandatory mediation, the parties reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. The court accepted this agreement, decreeing the suit based on its terms, which prohibited the defendant from using the plaintiff's mark or similar labels.
Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.
Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. v.Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for amendment of the cause title, recognizing that the rights in the trademark 'ZOLAM' had been transferred from Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited via a sanctioned scheme of arrangement. The court found the plaintiff's case unimpeachable and ruled that the successor company was entitled to continue the legal proceedings without delay.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar of PPVFR Authority which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether the development and sale of hybrid seeds from these parent lines invalidated the novelty claim for the original parental lines.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Sushma Berlia & Ors. v.Kamal Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who owned the registered trademark 'APEEJAY' used by an educational society. The suit was filed against a parents' association that had adopted the same name. The court held that even though the defendants were non-trading and non-profit, their use of the mark created a likelihood of public confusion, suggesting patronage or affiliation with the plaintiffs' school. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction preventing the unauthorized use of 'APEEJAY' by the association.
M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd, which sought to overturn an order directing it to change its company name. The court upheld the decision that the petitioner could not use 'Vardhaman' as part of its name because Respondent No. 4 held a registered trademark for the word. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and acquiescence during a marketing agreement, the High Court concluded that using the similar name amounted to an attempt to usurp the established business of the trademark holder.
sandisk corporation v.ms shivji electronics
Sandisk Corporation sued M/S Shivji Electronics for trademark infringement of its 'SanDisk' mark and logo, alleging the defendants were selling counterfeit SanDisk memory cards at significantly lower prices than authorized retailers. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction and damages against the defendants’ counterfeiting activities in Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi.
Vinod Verma v.State Of Punjab And Ors
The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding alleged patent infringement. The court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such claims, as the matter required detailed evidence and consideration of facts governed by the Patent Act.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder, filed a derivative action alleging that Defendant No.2 (Chairman/MD) obtained and applied for several patents in his individual name instead of in the name of Defendant No.1 (the company). The court examined whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the company.
K.R.Ravi Rathinam v.The Director General of Police, and others (listed as R.1 to R.11)
The appellant claimed his story 'Mullai Vanam 999', which he uploaded to YouTube in 2013, was illegally used and infringed upon in the film 'Lingaa' by respondents 7, 8, 10, and 11. The court initially held that a writ petition was not the proper remedy for such private disputes. However, considering the circumstances, the court directed the seventh respondent to deposit Rs. 10 Crores and allowed the release of the film 'LINGAA' upon initial deposit.
Amultek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed a challenge to an interim order preventing Amultek Software Solutions from using the name 'Amultek' due to trademark concerns raised by Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. The court allowed the application filed by Amultek, permitting them to temporarily change their name to Atek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd while reserving their right to contest the underlying infringement claims in the main appeal. This decision allows the litigation to proceed toward a final determination of trademark rights.