India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 28 of 299 · 7,167 total
Levi Strauss And Company v.Ranjan Kumar Yadav Owner Of Anavi Collection
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit against Ranjan Kumar Yadav for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's', in relation to clothing and accessories. The court proceeded ex parte against the defendant due to non-appearance and found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks on inferior quality goods.
S.Giridharan v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 193 of 2025 following a comprehensive settlement reached between the plaintiff, S.Giridharan, and several defendants. The suit, which sought declarations regarding ownership of the registered trademark UDHAIYAM and related injunctions, was resolved through a joint memorandum of settlement dated August 8, 2025. This agreement allowed the plaintiff to withdraw claims against certain parties while acknowledging existing titles held by others, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Taurus Powertronics Private Limited v.M.K Srinivasan
The Karnataka High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Commercial Court order that restrained the use of the trademark 'TAURUS'. The court clarified that the restriction on using the name 'TAURUS' remains in effect as directed by the lower court. However, it also ensured that all other rights and contentions between the parties remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, providing a nuanced resolution to the dispute.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Haresh Patel Trading As Hans Zarda And Registrar of Trademarks Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., ordering the cancellation and removal of the trademark 'HANS ZARDA' (No. 2660422). The court found that 'HANS ZARDA' was visually, structurally, and phonetically deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s established mark, 'HANS CHAAP'. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of credible evidence regarding the Respondent's continuous use of 'HANS ZARDA', leading it to conclude that the mark should be expunged from the register to prevent consumer confusion.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
Ceat Limited v.Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Ceat Limited, filed an interim application alleging infringement of its trade mark 'CEAT' and copyright in its artistic label by the Defendants using similar marks ('CREATA', 'CATE') and artwork. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing these infringing marks/artworks.
Natural Medicine Institute Of Zhejiang v.The Deputy Controller of Patents And The Controller of Patents
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 6275/CHENP/2011) for 'A MORDANT AND HAIR COLORING PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME'. The rejection was based on procedural grounds regarding claim amendments, but the court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Western Digital Technologies Inc. against M/S. Krystaa Infosystems Private Limited. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was selling manipulated and refurbished HDDs bearing the Plaintiff's trademarks, thereby infringing on their brand rights and engaging in passing off. This interim relief prevents the defendant from further tampering with or commercially dealing in the branded products until the final hearing.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company Limited v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff, Bombay Dyeing, to implead two new entities, M/s Ooak Association and M/s Urban Stuff Retail, as defendants in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that these newly identified parties were organizers of an exhibition where counterfeit 'BOMBAY DYEING' bed linens were being sold. Furthermore, the Court granted exemption from advance service to several existing defendants, facilitating the continuation of the injunction proceedings against the infringing products.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter used a similar name ('ARCEEIKA') for electronic goods showrooms. The core dispute centered on territorial jurisdiction, as Defendant No. 2 challenged the court's competence to hear the matter. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action had sufficiently been demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.
Kylin Sanitary Technology (XIAMEN) Company Limited v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application (202034009705) as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to COVID-19 and negligence of the Indian Patent Agent, not intentional inaction. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the mandatory timelines under the Patents Act must be complied with, and the petitioner demonstrated an indolent attitude.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA and Ors.
This Commercial IP Suit was filed by M/s. ARCEE Electronics alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and passing off against Defendants, who were operating a showroom named 'ARCEEIKA'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite the Plaintiff arguing that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the court examined the evidence regarding sales and delivery locations. Ultimately, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action was sufficiently demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
The court passed several orders on various interlocutory applications related to the main patent dispute. Directions were given regarding the filing of additional documents, permission was granted for amending claims under Sections 58 and 59 of the Patents Act, and an application seeking amendment in a Revocation Petition was disposed of while reserving rights.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit against M/s. ARCEEIKA alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off, concerning electronic goods. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite arguments from the Plaintiff that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the Court found that the Plaint failed to adequately plead or demonstrate that either the Plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai or that any part of the cause of action arose within its limits. Consequently, the suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code.
Force Motors Limited v.Houstan Innovations Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed several interim applications in the dispute between Force Motors Limited and Houstan Innovations LLP. While allowing procedural requests like filing additional documents, the court focused heavily on the request for an ad-interim injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. Recognizing the Plaintiff's established goodwill with 'FORCE', the court granted a temporary restraint order, preventing the Defendant from using the similar mark 'GT FORCE' in relation to identical or similar products until the next hearing date.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. against the dismissal of its trademark opposition. The court found that the original rejection was based on a factual error, as the Appellant had actually received the notice for filing evidence via email on September 15, 2024, not the date mentioned in the letter. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to hear and decide the opposition within two months, while also directing the registry to update the status of the trademark application.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.M/S Steris Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the removal and rectification of the trademark 'INCLISIRAN' (Registration No. 5547194) in Class 05. The court issued notice to all parties involved, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. This marks the formal commencement of the legal challenge against the registered mark.
Shoban Salim Thakur v.Chaitanya Arora & Ors.
This interim application before the Bombay High Court concerned a request by the Defendants to vacate an existing ad-interim injunction. The core dispute revolved around allegations of suppression by the Plaintiff regarding a specific condition attached to their trademark registration in Class 25 (footwear), which limited its exclusive use to Maharashtra. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the suppression allegation, it granted the Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Rejoinder before listing the matter for further consideration.
Joy Creators Llp v.Best Medicals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Joy Creators LLP against Best Medicals & Ors., based on a comprehensive settlement reached between the parties. The judgment confirms that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'JOY' trademark and grants permanent injunction relief. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as full and final settlement for damages and costs, leading to the court also directing the refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the multi-sports aggregator platform 'FanCode'. The court recognized that the Plaintiff holds exclusive broadcast reproduction rights for various major sporting events through licensing agreements. Given the immediate and irreparable pecuniary loss caused by unauthorized streaming on rogue websites, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with blocking orders while ensuring compliance procedures were followed.
Western Digital Technologies Inc v.M/S. Everstore Through Its Proprietor Mr. Tarun Sachdeva & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order, the court addressed several interlocutory applications related to a trademark infringement suit filed by Western Digital Technologies Inc against M/S. Everstore. The court disposed of multiple applications as not pressed due to compliance or changed circumstances. Crucially, the existing interim injunction was made absolute until the final disposal of the suit, strengthening the Plaintiff's position in the ongoing litigation.
Ranjani Ramesh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order rejecting Patent Application No. 202141032403, which related to a system for identifying micro-motions for early detection of neuro-degenerative diseases. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability grounds. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it did not follow a robust obviousness analysis and failed to record findings regarding all objections raised in the FER.