India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 288 of 311 · 7,456 total
Jvc Industrial Corporation v.Victor Company Of Japan Limited And Shri ...
The dispute concerned the opposition by Victor Company of Japan Limited against the registration of the trade mark 'JVC' applied for by Jvc Industrial Corporation. The IPAB examined whether the goods—battery chargers/inverters versus audio/video equipment—were sufficiently distinct to prevent confusion.
In House Productions Pvt. Ltd. v.Meediya Plus
In House Productions Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a single judge's order rejecting applications for interim injunction. The petitioner sought to prevent the respondent, Meediya Plus, from continuing production or telecasting the serial 'Vikramadityan' due to alleged breach of an MOU. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower court's finding that irreparable loss was not established and the balance of convenience did not favor the appellant.
Amar Nath Sehgal v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
Amar Nath Sehgal filed a suit against the Union of India after his bronze mural sculpture, commissioned for Vigyan Bhawan, was pulled down and stored without his permission. The plaintiff argued that this act violated his moral rights as an artist. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting him full ownership rights to recreate and sell the work, along with damages.
Buffalo Networks Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Jain
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Buffalo Networks Pvt. Ltd., establishing that internet domain names can function as trademarks subject to IP law principles. The court found that the defendant's use of 'tahelka.com' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, 'tehelka.com'. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing name, and the domain name 'tahelka.com' was cancelled and transferred to the plaintiff.
Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works Through Its ... v.District Judge, Munsif City And Shri ...
This Allahabad High Court judgment addressed a dispute where a bidi manufacturer was restrained from using its registered trademark featuring 'Lord Ganesh' due to religious objections raised in a civil suit. The petitioner successfully challenged this restraint, arguing that their statutory rights under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act were being infringed upon by subjective religious claims. The court ultimately quashed the restraining order, affirming that the use of the registered mark was lawful and not prohibited by law or religion.
Tata Sons Limited And Anr. v.Fashion Id Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Limited and Tata Infotech Limited, holding that principles of passing off fully apply to internet domain names. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain 'tatainfotecheducation.com' constituted an infringement and dilution of the plaintiffs' distinctive TATA trademarks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using the name and ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name back to Tata Infotech Limited.
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.