India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 266 of 311 · 7,456 total
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers v.Registrar Of Copyrights & Anr.
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers appealed an order by the Copyright Board that sought the expunction of its copyright registration for a side trim device used on 'GOLD STAR' sports shoes. The core dispute revolved around whether this artistic work, which was also registered as a design under the Designs Act, fell within the scope of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Delhi High Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that since the device was capable of being registered under the Designs Act and had been used extensively, its copyright protection ceased.
Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v.Union Of India
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Rhizome Distilleries, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark. The court held that the IPAB erred by applying grounds for refusal—which should have been raised at the time of initial registration—to a rectification application filed much later. Given that the petitioner had used the mark and faced prior objections which were withdrawn, the High Court found the subsequent attempt to cancel the mark was legally unsustainable.
R.G. Oswal Hosiery Industries v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by R.G. Oswal Hosiery Industries against an IPAB order that allowed rectification of its trademarks, DOLLOR (Nos. 249986 and 291763). The court held that the subsequent renewals were vitiated because they were filed by M/s. Kedia Knitwear, a mere licensee, who falsely represented themselves as the registered proprietor. This established a strict requirement under the Trade Marks Rules that only the registered owner can apply for renewal.
Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation v.Deputy Director of IT, C/o S.R. Batliboi & Co
The petitioner, Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding its revenue receipts from licensing Microsoft products. The core issue was whether these payments constituted taxable royalty income in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT decision and held that although the amount constitutes royalty, it is not assessable in the petitioner's hands.
Shree Siayaram Fab Private Limited v.Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd.
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's orders regarding a suit for infringement and passing off. The core issue was whether the plaintiff could file an infringement suit despite the defendant having a registered trademark, which the appellant argued barred the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
John Distilleries Limited v.Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd
John Distilleries Limited filed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter was manufacturing and selling liquor in bottles deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered bottle design (Design No. 214542). The High Court examined the matter and found that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Trans Tyres India Pvt. Ltd. v.Double Coin Holdings Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the trademark 'Double Coin' used for tyres. The court examined whether Trans Tyres India Pvt. Ltd., which had established significant market presence and registered the mark, was entitled to protection against Double Coin Holdings Ltd. The judgment focused heavily on the principles governing interim injunctions, ultimately finding that a prima facie case existed in favor of Double Coin Holdings Ltd. based on the goodwill associated with the brand.
Ms. Sakshi Mathur v.Dr. Nand Kumar & Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare (AIIMS)
Ms. Sakshi Mathur filed an appeal seeking certified copies of question booklets, OMR answer sheets, answer keys, and marks/rank from the AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination, 2011. The respondents claimed these materials were intellectual property exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and that a fiduciary relationship existed under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected these claims, ruling that the information was not exempted and directing the PIO to provide the requested copies.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra & Ors.
Dr. Aloys Wobben appealed a judgment regarding whether the respondents, who were defendants in infringement suits, could pursue their own counter claims for revocation of Dr. Wobben's patents before the IPAB while those infringement suits were ongoing. The court examined the distinction between the current situation and previous legal precedents involving simultaneous remedies.
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises v.Sandeep Gullah
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises filed suit against Sandeep Gullah alleging that after his retirement from their partnership, he began using an identical and deceptively similar trademark, 'CITY BANQUETS,' in a nearby location. The plaintiff claimed this constituted passing off and infringement of their established trade mark, 'CITY BANQUET.' The court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a strong case for proprietary rights and that allowing the defendant to continue using the name would cause irreparable loss.
M/s.Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.M/s.Shree Siyaram Fab Private Limited
The defendants filed a notice of motion seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint, arguing that since their mark was also registered, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court rejected this contention, holding that while sections like 29 and 30(2)(e) provide defenses to an infringement action, they do not bar the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Sun Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTEN') and Emcure Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTINEX'). Although the plaintiff was the prior user, the court ultimately found that 'SUSTINEX' was not deceptively similar to 'SUSTEN'. The judgment emphasized phonetic distinctiveness, noting a clear audible divide in 'SUSTINEX', leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's notice of motion.
Shrinivas Suggandhalaya v.P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi And Anr
Shrinivas Suggandhalaya filed a suit against P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi and others alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights related to scented agarbatti. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the distinctive packaging design, which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as the trademark 'NAGCHAMPA'. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spurious goods by copying both the unique label/packaging and using the identical trademark. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of Shrinivas Suggandhalaya.
Gilead Sciences Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Gilead Sciences Inc challenged the IPAB's order rejecting its application for condonation of delay in appealing a patent rejection. The core dispute revolved around whether an appeal against a pre-grant opposition was maintainable under Section 117A of the Patents Act, and whether the Board had the power to relax the limitation period despite initial reluctance.
Suresh Kumar Jain v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Suresh Kumar Jain challenging the rectification order passed by the IPAB against his trademark 'Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)'. The court upheld the finding that the registration was obtained on a false basis because the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim of using the mark since 1995. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the name is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness, reinforcing the principle that trademark registrations must be based on truthful representations.
M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. v.Abhipray Securities Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. against Abhipray Securities Private Limited and others. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity between 'ABHIPRA' and 'ABHIPRAY'. Despite the defendants arguing lack of jurisdiction or non-similarity, the court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that confusion in business warrants protection even if adopted innocently.
Miss.Kajal Aggarwal v.The Managing Director, M/s.V.V.D. & Sons P.Ltd.
The actress, Miss. Kajal Aggarwal (Appellant), filed an appeal against the refusal to grant interim injunction, alleging that the Respondent used her image and profile for promoting their hair oil and coconut oil products after the one-year endorsement agreement expired. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the right to use the actress's profile is limited by the contract duration, thus granting the injunction.
Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v.Radico Khaitan Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute between Carlsberg and Radico Khaitan regarding the use of the numeral '8' in their respective alcoholic beverage trademarks. Radico claimed infringement and passing off, arguing that Carlsberg's use of 'PALONE 8' was confusingly similar to its registered mark '8 PM'. However, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Carlsberg, finding no prima facie evidence of consumer confusion or actionable similarity between the two labels. The court emphasized that mere use of a common numeral or color combination is insufficient for an injunction.
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged a tender requirement stipulating that all participants must obtain Transfer of Technology (TOT) from DRDO to supply DEPA 20% Spray and DEPA 50% lotion. The Division Bench upheld this condition, finding that the petitioner's formulation was distinct from the DRDO technology. The review petition sought to overturn this decision.
M/S Metal Impacts Pvt Ltd v.M/S Impact Metals Pvt Ltd
The dispute involved a registered design for easy open end lids used in aluminum containers. The defendant challenged the registration, arguing that the design was not new or original, had been publicly disclosed globally long before the filing date, and was based on an invention by Mr. Ermal Fraze. The court found that the plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding the global prior art and lack of novelty/originality.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that revoked a patent granted to him. The sixth respondent sought revocation under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging lack of novelty based on prior art. The High Court admitted the petition but declined to grant any interim stay.
M/S S M K A Enterprises v.M/S Suchita Industries
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of M/S S M K A Enterprises, granting a permanent injunction against M/S Suchita Industries for infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Tiny Care'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks and products was deceptive, causing confusion among consumers. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting established brand goodwill in the competitive FMCG market.
Unknown v.S.K.Maingi
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774, which covers Erlotinib Hydrochloride. The core legal issue before the Madras High Court was whether it had the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try the infringement case, given that the plaintiff was not a resident of Delhi and the alleged sales were isolated.
Natural Remedies Private Limited v.Indian Herbs Research & Supply Co Ltd
The plaintiff, Natural Remedies Pvt Ltd, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling 'Livoliv-250', alleging infringement of their protected Patent No. 186857 for 'A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Antihepatotoxic Composition' (Zigbir). The court found that the defendants did not follow the same patented process, and furthermore, the invention lacked an inventive step, leading to the patent being revoked.