India IP Litigation
7,302 annotated decisions
Page 26 of 305 · 7,302 total
M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute, which sought to cancel the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30, was resolved amicably between the parties. Both sides entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, leading the petitioner to withdraw the original petition.
Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd against S.Sudhakar and others. The dismissal was not a ruling on the merits but rather an acceptance of a Memorandum of Compromise signed between the parties. This settlement effectively resolved the dispute regarding the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Giriedharan and others (Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
The Madras High Court dismissed OP(TM) No. 50 of 2025 after the parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. The petitioner, M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd., had sought the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam' registered by the respondents in Class 30. Given the mutual agreement reached between the parties, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
Rep. By Its Managing Director v.Sri Narasus Coffee Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit (C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 203 OF 2024) and an opposition petition (OP(TM) No. 62 of 2024) concerning the mark 'UDHAIYAM' versus 'UDHAYAM'. Both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions as withdrawn, concluding the litigation without a final judgment on the merits.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359360 in Class 30. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the dispute to be resolved amicably between the involved parties.
M/S.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by M/S.Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies. The petitioner had sought to cancel the trademark registration 'Udhaiyam' in Class 30, citing grounds for invalidity. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise and filed an additional joint memo requesting withdrawal. Consequently, the court accepted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. had filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359359 in Class 29. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, resolving the dispute amicably.
Panoptis Patent Management Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panoptis Patent Management LLC filed a suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., asserting infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking leave to amend claims and file documents, while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings and listing for injunction hearing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited
Atomberg Technologies filed a suit in Bombay against Eureka Forbes regarding groundless threats of patent infringement. Eureka Forbes subsequently filed an infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg's 'Atomberg Intellon' water purifier infringed their patented technologies. The Supreme Court addressed the competing transfer petitions to consolidate the proceedings.
Celligence International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Celligence International Llc filed an appeal against an order dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Indian patent application no. 202117058456. The court issued notice to the respondent, directing them to file a reply within four weeks.
Krbl Limited v.Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in Krbl Limited vs Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr., resolving a dispute over the scope of the trademark 'DOON MEMORIES'. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to amend the registration (TM No. 421683) to restrict the goods exclusively to bakery products, based on an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1. This decision effectively narrowed the scope of the mark's use, provided the respondent adheres strictly to the agreed-upon limitations.
Abbott Laboratories v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Abbott Laboratories to appeal the rejection of its 'ENSURE' trademark application. The original rejection was based on insufficient evidence supporting a very early claimed date of use (31.12.1999). The court granted liberty for the Appellant to amend its user claim, restricting it to 23.04.2012, and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh. This decision effectively restored the trademark application to its original status.
Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Suraj Collection And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd against Suraj Collection And Anr, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was calculated to deceive consumers and erode the plaintiff's established goodwill associated with its cosmetic products. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Kbm Foods Private Limited v.Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kbm Foods Private Limited against Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed the appointment and execution of a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing allegedly infringing marks, thereby providing immediate interim relief to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.
Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Wazahat Choudhary
In a trademark infringement suit concerning skincare products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiff, Pureplay Skin Sciences. The court granted leave to file additional documents and exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court also allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises for potential counterfeit goods, while simultaneously granting exemptions regarding advance service and discovery procedures.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Vivanta Stays & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against Vivanta Stays & Ors. The court recognized 'VIVANTA' as a well-known trademark and immediately restrained the defendants from using similar marks, such as VIVANTA STAYS/VIVANTA REALTY, both online and offline. Furthermore, the order mandated the immediate takedown of infringing websites and domain names, providing swift protection to the plaintiff's brand reputation.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Dilipkumar Narandas Sheth Trading As M/s. Arihant Enterprise
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications. The court allowed the defendant to file vernacular and dim documents while simultaneously directing both parties to engage in an amicable resolution. Crucially, the court acknowledged evidence presented by the defendant regarding the historical use of a specific logo as a watermark on invoices dating back to 1993, allowing the plaintiff to inspect these original documents. The judgment emphasizes the possibility of settlement before further litigation proceeds.
Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v.Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co.
Grasim Industries Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co. The parties reached an amicable agreement where the defendant formally recognized the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in trademarks like BIRLA and BIRLA WHITE, trade dress, and packaging. Crucially, the settlement mandates that the defendant cease using any confusingly similar marks or trade names, change her business name, and refrain from online misuse of the protected brands. The court decreed the suit based on these comprehensive settlement terms.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent Application No. 201917024125. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Shashikant Sharma & Anr.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' systems.
Darzi India Llp v.Kafil Ahmed
This Delhi High Court order addresses a contempt petition filed by Darzi India Llp against Kafil Ahmed for alleged violation of a prior court decree. The core dispute revolves around the permissible use of the trade mark 'KAFIL DARZI'. While the petitioner sought strict enforcement and removal of infringing marks, the respondent argued that the previous judgment permitted the usage. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent liberty to seek clarification from the Single Judge regarding the scope of the prior order.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr., addressing claims of trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'YATRI' brand used for electric vehicles. The court recognized the Plaintiff's status as a prior user and owner, issuing a broad restraint order preventing Defendants from using deceptively similar marks online or offline. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the market reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's established e-vehicle brand.
Bima Sugam India Federation v.A Range Gowda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Bima Sugam India Federation against A Range Gowda & Ors., addressing a dispute over trademark infringement and domain name ownership. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the 'BIMA SUGAM' mark in bad faith, leading to deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff's established marketplace brand. Consequently, the Court directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the key domain names, www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in, to the Plaintiff, subject to the final outcome of the suit.