India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 276 of 299 · 7,167 total
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an application for the trade mark 'DOPAMINE'. Reddy'S Laboratories Limited opposed this registration, arguing that 'DOPAMINE' was descriptively similar to their existing mark 'DOPAMET' and was a non-proprietary generic name for a chemical compound. The IPAB ultimately dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the opposition that the mark failed to meet the requirements of Section 9.
Hindustan Lever Limited v.Madhusudhan Industries Limited
Hindustan Lever Limited opposed the registration of the trade mark 'UJALA KING' by Madhusudhan Industries Limited, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their well-known marks 'SUNLIGHT' and 'SUN'. The IPAB ultimately ruled in favor of Hindustan Lever, finding that the impugned mark did not qualify under relevant sections due to confusing similarity.
Siemens Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Customs
Siemens Ltd. challenged the Customs Department's order which held that lump-sum payments related to technical know-how and royalty for manufacturing products in India were includible in the assessable value. The Tribunal ruled that such payments, when tied to indigenous manufacture using technical assistance, should not be included in the import valuation.
Time Incorporated v.Lokesh Srivastava And Anr.
Time Incorporated, proprietor of the globally recognized magazine 'TIME', sued Lokesh Srivastava and others for infringing its trademark 'TIME' and slavishly imitating its distinctive red border cover design through their publication 'TIME ASIA SANSKARAN'. The court found that the defendants were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and goodwill. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction, ordered rendition of accounts, and awarded damages.
Novartis Ag And Anr. v.Mehar Pharma And Anr.
Novartis sought an interim injunction restraining Mehar Pharma from manufacturing, selling, or exporting its anti-cancer drug 'VEENAT', which was alleged to infringe Novartis's Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for 'B-crystalline form of imatinib Mesyiate salt'. The court ultimately denied the temporary injunction, citing concerns about disrupting the supply of this life-saving drug in India.
Intas Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v.Novaritis A.G., Schwarzwaldallee,
The dispute concerned the validity of an Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) granted to Novaritis for the anti-cancer drug, Beta-Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate. Intas Laboratories challenged this EMR, arguing it created a monopoly and harmed public interest due to high pricing. The Madras High Court confirmed the interim injunction but mandated that the plaintiffs supply the drug freely to eligible patients.
Vidarbha Distillers v.Vidarbha Bottlers Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vidarbha Distillers challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction application in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the respondent was deceptively imitating their 'Santri 5000' label, but the appellate court found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Instead, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the main trade mark suit on its merits.
Rajapalayam Industrial And Commercial v.P. Iya Nadar Charitable Trust
The petitioner sought expunction (rectification) of the registered trade marks 'CAMEL' (Nos. 109120 and 439372), arguing that their registration in favour of the respondent charitable trust violated Section 6(2) of the Act, and that the mark had suffered dilution due to widespread use by family members. The respondent defended its right to maintain the mark.
United Brothers v.Aziz Ulchani And Anr.
The petitioner sought the removal (rectification) of the respondent's trade mark 'UNITED' from the Register, claiming that it infringed upon their common law rights and registered trademarks for household utensils. The respondent argued that the marks were used for different classes of goods and that the word 'UNITED' was descriptive and common usage. The Board ultimately dismissed the petition.
V And S Vin Spirit Ab v.Kullu Valley Mineral Water Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of V And S Vin Spirit Ab against Kullu Valley Mineral Water Co. The court found that despite the defendant's argument regarding class differences (alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic beverages), the prominent use of 'ABSOLUT' on the defendant's mineral water packaging created a likelihood of consumer confusion and appropriation of goodwill. Citing principles of transborder reputation, the court ruled that the plaintiff's mark had acquired sufficient recognition to warrant protection against deceptive use in cognate goods.
Microsoft Corporation v.Ashok Azad And Ors.
This case involved Microsoft Corporation, the owner of copyrighted computer software and registered trademarks, suing various computer training institutes for using pirated software. After initial injunctions were granted, the parties reached an amicable settlement which included undertakings by the respondents to cease infringement and legalize their software use. The subsequent petitions filed before the court sought contempt action based on alleged breaches of these undertakings. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that since the undertaking was given only to the plaintiffs (the opposing party) and not directly to the court, it did not constitute a breach actionable under contempt jurisdiction.
Bucyrus Europe Limited And Anr. v.Vulcan Industries Engineering Company
The appeal was filed by Bucyrus Europe Limited against an order refusing to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction. The court found that the appellant had deliberately suppressed vital information, specifically filing three applications for cancellation of their registered designs before the Controller of Designs. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and the application for injunction.
Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd. v.Bata India Ltd.
Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking cancellation of Bata India Ltd.'s registered design (No. 177386) on the ground that it was published prior to registration. Khadim presented evidence, including print advertisements and television footage shown in slow motion, arguing that the public had been made aware of the design before its official registration.
Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v.Saw Pipes Ltd. And Ors.
The appellant, Electrosteel Castings Ltd., appealed an interlocutory order against six former employees who joined a rival manufacturer, Saw Pipes Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the employees breached contractual clauses prohibiting them from working for competitors and disclosing trade secrets related to ductile iron pipe manufacturing. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that while know-how exists, enforcing restrictive covenants is difficult, but upheld the existing injunction against divulging secrets.
Majid A. Oomerbhoy v.Rashi S. Oomerbhoy And Ors.
This contempt petition was filed by Majid A. Oomerbhoy against Rashi S. Oomerbhoy and others, alleging that they violated a prior court order dated July 30, 2001, which prohibited partners of M/s Ahmed Omerbhoy from using the firm's trade marks (MASTAAN and POSTMAN). The petitioner claimed the respondents continued manufacturing and distributing products under similar names. However, the Court ultimately found that there was insufficient certainty to prove willful contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the infringement suit itself was still pending.
Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate v.Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant challenged a trial court judgment that granted permanent injunctions in favor of the respondents regarding the alleged infringement of their copyrighted artistic label, 'PRINCE SANTRA', by using similar labels like 'No. 1 TANGO SANTRA'. The Bombay High Court heard an application for interim stay of the decree.
Ambadas Vittal Gajul v.S.R. Bootla
Both textile manufacturers, Ambadas Vittal Gajul and S.R. Bootla, were involved in disputes over the use of a similar trademark on dyed casement cloth. The appeals sought temporary injunctions against each other based on claims of passing off. The court found that both parties had rights but ruled to protect their interests by mandating specific modifications to the marks.
Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Pigeon Appliances Private Limited
Maya Appliances Private Limited filed a suit against Pigeon Appliances Private Limited seeking declarations of ownership for its trademarks (CHEFPRO, CHEFPRO PLUS) and copyright over the unique design and layout of its mixer grinders. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was passing off goods using deceptively similar marks and designs (CHEFMATE/CHEFMATEPLUS). However, the court ultimately vacated the interim injunctions due to procedural lapses by the plaintiff, such as failure to obtain leave to sue.
Frito-Lay India And Ors. v.Guru Prasad Enterprises
Frito-Lay India filed a suit against Guru Prasad Enterprises alleging that the defendant was copying its distinctive snack food packaging. The plaintiff claimed their original artistic work, used on products like 'Lehar' Namkeens, had been substantially reproduced by the defendant's 'Mannka' brand. The court examined the similarities in color scheme, design motifs, and overall arrangement of the packaging. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction, finding that the defendant's actions constituted copyright infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.
Tata Sons Limited v.Ghassan Yacoub And Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Limited, finding that the defendants' registration and use of the domain name 'tatagroup.com' infringed upon its well-known trademark 'TATA'. The court affirmed that 'TATA' is a famous mark exclusively associated with the conglomerate. Consequently, the suit was decreed, resulting in an injunction against the defendants and the transfer of the disputed domain name to Tata Sons Limited.
Super Cassette Industries Ltd. v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
Super Cassette Industries Ltd. challenged an order by the Copyright Board that directed the granting of a compulsory license to Entertainment Network (India) Ltd., which operates 'Radio Mirchi'. The appellant argued that its revenue, derived from sales of audio cassettes and CDs containing its copyrighted music, was being severely impacted by the widespread FM radio broadcasts. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order for compulsory licensing and directing the Copyright Board to reconsider the application after giving adequate opportunity for evidence.
Iag Company Ltd. v.Triveni Glass Ltd.
Iag Company Ltd. appealed the refusal of an interim injunction application alleging infringement of its registered figured glass design 'Karatchi' (No. 183322). The respondent argued that the design was neither new nor original and was in public knowledge, being manufactured using widely available embossing rollers internationally. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's finding against granting the injunction.
Medivision Scan And Diagnostic ... v.Medivision-Ind Diagnostic Centre
The Kerala High Court overturned a trial court order that had denied an interim injunction in a passing off suit. The plaintiff, Medivision Scan And Diagnostic..., successfully argued that despite the common use of the name 'Medivision,' their established reputation and prior use in the specific locality (Mavelikara) warranted protection against the defendant's deceptively similar trade name, 'MEDIVISION IND.' The court emphasized that passing off rights are distinct from trademark registration rights, allowing it to grant immediate relief based on the likelihood of public confusion.
Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors. v.Allergan Inc.
The Supreme Court addressed a passing off dispute concerning the pharmaceutical mark 'OCUFLOX' between an Indian company and a multinational corporation. While acknowledging the global nature of medicine and the potential harm from confusion, the court emphasized that the ultimate test remains who was first in the market. The judgment directed the trial court to continue the injunction while expediting the suit for final determination based on evidence regarding prior use.