India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 28 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/S. Sudhakar Pvc Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahendra Pratap Singh
The Madras High Court closed Original Petition (Trade Marks) No. 58 of 2025 after both parties reached a settlement. The petitioner, M/S. Sudhakar PVC Products Pvt. Ltd., sought to remove or rectify the registration of trademark no. 6322916 in Class 17. The first respondent, Mahendra Pratap Singh, agreed to the removal via an undertaking submitted to the court. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to make the necessary corrections within four weeks.
Classic Legends Private Limited / Mr. Boman R. Irani v.The Official Liquidator of M/S Ideal Jawa Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court allowed appeals filed by Classic Legends Private Limited (and Mr. Boman R. Irani) against an earlier ruling concerning the trade marks of Ideal Jawa. The court ruled that since the company had not used or renewed its registered trade marks for decades, no goodwill would subsist, and the rights had dissipated due to non-use. This decision significantly impacts the value and enforceability of the brand in liquidation proceedings.
Kluster Llc & Anr. v.Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit between Kluster Llc & Anr. and Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors., formalizing an amicable settlement reached by the parties. The defendants acknowledged Kluster's proprietary rights over the 'KLUSTER' mark, trade dress, and copyrighted material. In exchange for a decree, the defendants agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks/designs, refrain from copying original works, and pay Rs. 3,00,000/- in litigation costs.
Provogue India Private Limited v.Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Provogue India Private Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors., granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court recognized the urgency of the matter, noting the risk that defendants might conceal or suppress their infringing operations. Furthermore, the court directed a local commission inspection to gather evidence regarding the alleged deceptive trade mark use in the manufacturing and sale of leather goods.
Jyoti Sharma (Trading As Akhand Bharat Enterprises) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Jyoti Sharma's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register a device mark. The court found that the original refusal order contained significant factual errors, incorrectly characterizing the application as a word mark for services when it was actually a device mark for goods in Class-9. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration, without prejudging the merits of the registration claim.
Easy Trip Planners Limited v.Inditab E Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the suit filed by Easy Trip Planners Limited against Inditab E Solutions Private Limited, which seeks permanent injunction against infringement of trademark, copyright, and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set timelines for the filing of written statements and replication, scheduling the next hearing for the injunction application.
Rajani Products v.Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S Naturalindia Oils And Proteins & Anr.
Rajani Products filed a petition seeking the removal of a specific Copyright registration (A-128046/2019) held by Madhukar Varandani. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing edible oils, claimed that their own artistic works and labels, featuring the SWASTIK device, were prior and original. They argued that the impugned work was a substantial reproduction of their protected designs. After comparing the two artistic works, the court found that the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and substantially imitated the Petitioner's registered works.
Trident Limited v.Controller Of Patents
Trident Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing'. The Appellant argued that the refusal, based on lack of inventive step, was flawed because the cited prior art did not disclose the critical feature: uniformly distributed pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn. The Delhi High Court found infirmities in the Impugned Order, particularly regarding the interpretation of novelty and obviousness against the specific claims. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application for a prophylactic drug composition intended for neurodegenerative diseases. The core dispute centered on whether the claims, which described a chemical composition, could be rejected under Section 3(i) (lack of inventive step/patentability criteria) because they were used for treatment. The High Court found that the Controller failed to address all objections and misinterpreted the scope of the product claim versus its therapeutic application. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the refusal order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Llc And Anr v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Amylin Pharmaceuticals appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS'. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d).
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs sought exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation. The Court disposed of this application as infructuous and noted that the current suit involves the same Suit Patent as another pending infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). Consequently, both suits were listed together for further proceedings.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Aberdare Technologies Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of two patents related to optical fiber production. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of these same patents. Both parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.
Lmw Limited v.Marzoli Machines Textile S. R. L & Anr.
Lmw Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent number IN 496349. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file necessary pleadings, setting future dates for listing.
M/S Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v.Mohini Chaddha Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute, notably vacating an earlier ad-interim ex-parte injunction order against Defendant No. 2. The court found that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction by presenting inaccurate facts regarding the termination of a franchise agreement. Furthermore, the disputes between the original parties (Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2) were referred to arbitration. Separately, the Court allowed additional documents for evidence while permitting Defendants No. 3 and 4 to join proceedings after recalling an ex-parte order.
Ashim Kumar Ghosh v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Ashim Kumar Ghosh against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'SoEasy'. The core issue was whether the mark, used for instructional and teaching material, possessed sufficient distinctiveness. The court ruled that 'SoEasy' is a suggestive mark—requiring consumers to use imagination and thought to connect it to educational products—and therefore qualifies for protection under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Fdc Limited v.Healing Pharma India Private Limited
Fdc Limited filed a suit against Healing Pharma India Private Limited alleging multiple infringements related to its pharmaceutical products. The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural aspects, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of additional documents. Crucially, the court also addressed interim relief, restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing products confusingly similar to Fdc's registered trademarks (ZIFI) and copyrighted trade dress (ELECTRAL).
Dharma Production Private Limited v.Bhallaram Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dharma Production Private Limited seeking a stay on an injunction preventing the release of their movie, 'Jigra,' due to alleged trademark violation. The court initially found that prima facie, naming a movie does not constitute trademark infringement when the appellant is not trading in goods or services under that name. However, given that the film had already been released, the High Court ultimately disposed of the appeal while directing the Trial Court to proceed with the temporary injunction application and the main suit strictly according to law.
Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed settlement discussions between Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The defendant proposed settling the suit by conceding the plaintiff's proprietorship in the 'BABAJI' trademark, aligning with a previous court arrangement. The court noted that this proposal was made without prejudice to other pending litigations, requiring the plaintiff to take instructions before deciding whether to accept the offer.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Nalathoti Ramu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC and its affiliates against Nalathoti Ramu. The court found that Verizon holds a well-known registered trademark for 'VERIZON' and that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs. This interim order restrains the defendant from using, marketing, or advertising any marks identical or similar to VERIZON across various platforms, including domain names and social media handles.
X & Anr. v.Y & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction against a trademark infringer, ANCHOR/, to seven newly identified entities. This extension was granted after the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that these new parties were involved in dealing/selling counterfeit products during a local commission investigation. Furthermore, the court allowed the immediate execution of the local commission without prior notice to prevent disruption of evidence gathering.
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
Sudeep Gupta v.Registrar Of Trademarks Trademarks Registry New Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the cancellation of Sudeep Gupta's trademark registration (No. 4684988) during the pendency of his appeal. The Appellant challenged the cancellation, which was based on Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that his mark is a composite mark and therefore exempt from the 'exclusivity' requirement. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Appellant, citing precedent that limits the application of Section 9(1)(b) to non-composite marks.
Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited v.P.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.
Surya Nataraj Sharma v.Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an order that allowed the trademark suit to proceed. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who was a booking agent, could maintain a trademark infringement and declaration suit despite alleged non-compliance with Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the question of trademark misuse is a matter for trial, and the plaintiff's right as a registered owner would not be negated by his status as an unregistered booking agent.