India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 281 of 311 · 7,456 total
Michigan State University v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...
Michigan State University appealed the decision of the Patent Office to abandon its divisional patent application (No. 1699/DEL/1996). The Patent Office had maintained objections that the claimed expression cassette did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) and was non-patentable. The IPAB found the abandonment order unsustainable due to a violation of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided.
M/S. Shand Pipe Industries Ltd v.M/S. Hind Mosaic & Cement Works & Ors
The petitioner appealed against an interim relief granted by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench failed to analyze the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, specifically Sec. 13(4) read with Secs. 47 and 48, concerning the effect of a counter claim and patent registration. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Lahari Recording Company Limited v.Music Master Audio Video Manufacturing Co.(P) Ltd.
Lahari Recording Company Limited filed a suit seeking declaration of its ownership over audio rights and permanent injunction against infringement. The appellant/5th defendant challenged the grant of permanent injunction, arguing that it had stopped manufacturing cassettes after the assignment period expired. The High Court set aside the injunction granted by the single judge, finding no conclusive evidence of post-expiry exploitation.
Wipro Limited v.Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited
Wipro Limited appealed against a single judge's decision to reject suits filed for trademark infringement ("Chandrika") and copyright infringement. The core issue was whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction, as the respondents were located outside its territorial limits. The court held that when challenging jurisdiction via demurrer, the allegations in the plaint must be accepted as true.
Wipro Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial ... v.Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) ...
The plaintiffs (Wipro Limited) filed suits alleging infringement of their registered trade mark 'Chandrika' and associated copyright by the defendants. The lower court rejected these suits on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that no essential part of the cause of action arose within its territory. The High Court appellate bench overturned this decision, holding that when jurisdiction is challenged via demurrer, the allegations in the plaint must be taken as true.
Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Ms. Alka Gupta Trading As Guide Men Tape
The appeal challenged an order that allowed a trade mark application for 'CANON' label in Class 9, despite opposition from Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha. The appellant argued its prior use and ownership of the famous mark 'CANON'.
Shri Kanishk Gupta v.Liberty Footwear Company
Shri Kanishk Gupta filed an application before the IPAB seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Liberty Footwear Company. The core dispute involved discrepancies in the registered mark's representation, specifically concerning its association with another trademark (323656) and the spelling/display of 'RICARDO'.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Kesar Medicaments And Anr.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Kesar Medicaments and others, alleging that their product, SIGNAL HCV, infringed on the plaintiff's Patent No. 194638. The patent covers a 'fourth generation' diagnostic device for detecting Hepatitis C Virus antibodies in human serum. The court examined the technical specifications of both devices, noting similarities in core components and identical sensitivity/specificity reports. Finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the Delhi High Court granted the temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's patent rights.
Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a suit against Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., alleging that Ranbaxy was using negative advertisement and TV commercials for its pain reliever VOLINI to disparage Paras's popular product, MOOV. The court found that Ranbaxy's commercial depicted a box identical in artistic work and color scheme to MOOV, subtly suggesting that MOOV was inferior. Consequently, the Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal and directed Ranbaxy to change its packaging colors and cease using the appellant's artwork.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v.Tvs Motor Company Ltd.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. sought an interim injunction against TVS Motor Company Ltd., alleging that its 125-CC 'FLAME' motorcycle infringed upon Bajaj's Patent No. 195904, which covers an improved four-stroke internal combustion engine using twin spark plugs. The court examined the prima facie case, finding that novelty and enablement had been established by the applicant through market presence. Consequently, the interim injunction was granted in favor of Bajaj Auto Ltd., restraining further infringement.
Ravi Kamal Bali v.Kala Tech And Ors.
The Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendants for manufacturing and selling tamper-proof locks/seals that allegedly infringed his patents. The court examined the infringement claims, noting the similarity between the parties' products. However, the court ultimately denied the injunction due to the Plaintiff's significant delay in bringing the matter before the court.
Eureka Forbes Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Single Judge's decision to allow a suit for patent infringement. The court examined whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, particularly when the suit was filed against another patentee. The High Court held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and dismissed the appeal.
Larsen And Toubro Ltd. v.Lachmi Narain Trades And Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Larsen And Toubro Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off. The court found that L&T's name and abbreviation, having acquired distinctiveness over decades, were being used by the defendants (using marks like 'LNT'/'ELENTE') to sell electrical goods, thereby causing confusion among the public. This judgment reinforces the principle of protecting established goodwill and reputation against deceptive trade practices.
Micolube India Ltd. v.Maggon Auto Centre And Anr.
The Delhi High Court vacated an interim injunction previously granted to Micolube India Ltd. against Maggon Auto Centre and others regarding the use of the trademark 'MICO' for lubricants. The court found that while the plaintiff argued passing off, the defendant successfully challenged the injunction by pointing out their own prior registration of the identical mark in the same class. Furthermore, the court determined that prima facie, there was insufficient evidence to establish consumer confusion or injury to goodwill, leading to the vacation of the restraining order.
Safari International And Anr. v.Subhash Gupta And Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to uphold a trademark registration. The core dispute revolved around allegations of fraud and non-use concerning the 'SAFARI' trademark, used for cycles since 1974. The court affirmed that the respondent had continuously used the mark, either through his proprietorship or later via a family-controlled private limited company. Furthermore, the court emphasized that claims of fraud must be specifically pleaded and supported by cogent evidence, which was lacking in this case.
Toyotomi Co. Ltd. v.Alfa Therm Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their copyright in engineering drawings and manuals related to the KSA-120/OMNI 230 Type - E kerosene heater, and for passing off the defendant's goods as theirs. The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding no prima facie case of infringement or passing off.
Hind Mosaic And Cement Works And Anr. v.Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation
The appellants, who held a patent for a PVC pipe joint system, filed a civil suit alleging infringement by the respondents. The appeal challenged the Single Judge's order rejecting an interim injunction. The High Court restored the ad-interim relief, finding that it was a fit case to grant interim relief.
Cable News Network Lp, Lllp (Cnn) v.Cam News Network Limited
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to CNN, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Cam News Network Limited. The court noted that CNN is the prior user and registered proprietor of the 'CNN' mark, which has acquired significant goodwill globally. Given the similarity in the news industry, the use of 'CNN' by the defendant on its magazine cover was deemed likely to cause confusion among the public, tipping the balance of convenience in favor of CNN.
E-Merge Tech Global Services P Ltd. v.Mr. M.R. Vindhyasagar and Datasolve Analytics P ltd.
The plaintiff, a knowledge processing service company, filed a civil suit alleging that the first defendant (a former senior employee) used his knowledge and access to proprietary information after resigning. The plaintiff further alleged that the first defendant incorporated the second defendant company, which operated with an identical business model and targeted the plaintiff's clients.
I.T.C. Limited v.G.T.C. Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court set aside a previous decision that allowed the registration of the trademark 'MAGNUM' for tobacco products. The court ruled that 'MAGNUM,' being a laudatory and descriptive term meaning 'great,' served as an indication of the quality or value of the goods. Given that the primary purchasers are common people, the court held that such descriptive marks cannot be registered under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
New Hope Food Industries (P) Limited v.Pioneer Bakeries (P) Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the appeals filed by New Hope Food Industries, granting an interlocutory injunction against Pioneer Bakeries. The court found that New Hope had established strong prima facie evidence regarding trademark infringement ('MILKA') and copyright violation concerning its 'MILKA WONDER CAKE' brand and packaging. This decision allows New Hope to protect its market reputation while mandating the company to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs annually into the suit for the duration of the litigation.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.A.I. Chopra And Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to manufacture or sell products patented by the plaintiff (GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems), along with a perpetual injunction. The dispute centered on whether the defendant's actions constituted patent infringement despite contractual stipulations regarding royalty and indemnity.
Eastern Book Company & Ors. v.D.B. Modak & Anr.
Eastern Book Company, publisher of the 'Supreme Court Cases' (SCC), sued defendants for infringing its copyright. The appellants argued that their copy-edited version of Supreme Court judgments constituted an original literary work. The High Court initially ruled against them, but the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, granting additional relief to protect the unique editorial inputs and headnotes of SCC.
The Academy Of General Education v.Smt. B. Malini Mallya D/O Late Sri B.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff, who inherited copyrights from Dr. Karanth via a will, sued for infringement after the Yakshagana Ballet was staged without permission. The core issue was whether Dr. Karanth had created copyright in his modified form of Yakshagana ('Yaksha Ranga') and its seven associated prasangas. The court ultimately sustained the declaration of exclusive copyright in the seven prasangas vesting with the plaintiff.