India IP Litigation

7,068 annotated decisions

7,068
Decisions
4
IP Types
10
Courts

Page 29 of 295 · 7,068 total

patent defendant favorable · Jul 23, 2025

F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 159/2024

The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of two Indian patents related to Pertuzumab (Perjeta). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a competing version. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to conduct necessary analytical characterization or reverse engineering of the defendant's product as required under Section 104A.

trademark settled · Jul 23, 2025

Astral Ltd v.Grasim Industries Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 316/2025

Astral Ltd successfully reached an amicable settlement with Grasim Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to building materials. The court accepted the joint application, leading to a decree that incorporates all the detailed settlement terms. Under these terms, Grasim recognized Astral's exclusive rights while agreeing to adopt a new label and cease using the impugned mark in specific ways, effectively resolving the dispute.

patent pending · Jul 22, 2025

Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v.Ajanta Pharma Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 154/2020 & CC 13/2020

This is an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in a suit concerning alleged infringement of patents. The court settled several issues, including whether the defendants' activities infringe specific patents and the validity/restoration status of one of the patents.

trademark mixed · Jul 22, 2025

Lucas TVS Limited v.FFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · CMA(TM)No.6 of 2025

The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.

patent withdrawn · Jul 21, 2025

Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 28/2025 & I.A. 17027/2025

Corning Incorporated filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 202117018914. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal due to an inadvertent error in filing.

trademark mixed · Jul 21, 2025

Haveli Restaurants And Resorts Ltd. v.Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 35/2025

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Haveli Restaurants and Resorts Ltd. challenging the rejection of its opposition against a trademark application for 'AMRITSARI HAVELI.' The core issue was whether the Appellant was properly served with the Counter Statement, leading to the Opposition being deemed abandoned. While the court allowed applications related to delay and record summoning, it proceeded to issue notice for written submissions on the main appeal, indicating that the matter is moving toward a substantive hearing.

trademark mixed · Jul 21, 2025

Asif Ahmad Najar v.Yasir Farooq Shirgugurie & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 165/2025

Asif Ahmad Najar filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of an existing trademark registration held by Respondent No. 1, which bears the name 'Baker's Hub'. The petitioner also sought a declaration establishing his prior and rightful use of the mark. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their replies within four weeks, setting the matter for further hearing in November 2025.

trademark mixed · Jul 21, 2025

M/S Nature Magic World v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 41/2025

M/S Nature Magic World challenged the Registrar of Trademarks' failure to recognize a Deed of Assignment that transferred two trademarks, 'COLORESSENCE' and 'COLORESSENCE eyes spy', to them. The Petitioner argued that despite the assignment, the records incorrectly showed the predecessor company as the owner. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar to consider the Petitioner's representations for correcting the ownership status within four weeks, taking into account a no-objection from the original proprietor.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 19, 2025

Lacoste S.A. v.Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited

Delhi District Court · TM No. 33/2021

Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited and others for infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to its trademark LACOSTE and associated labels. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using identical or deceptively similar marks on goods like tags, buttons, and packaging materials. The court decreed the suit in favor of Lacoste.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 18, 2025

E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 376/2024 & I.A. 10533/2024

E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.

trademark mixed · Jul 18, 2025

Brawn Biotech Ltd. v.Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 499/2025

The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Brawn Biotech Ltd. against Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd., following the failure of mediation proceedings to settle the dispute. The court has set out procedural timelines, including filing written statements and replication. Crucially, the court also granted notice for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application, allowing the plaintiffs to seek immediate protection against alleged infringement of the 'BRAWN' trademark.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 18, 2025

Chemo Healthcare Private Limited v.Examiner Of Trademarks & Anr.

Gujarat High Court · R/CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 of 2023

The Gujarat High Court allowed Chemo Healthcare Private Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'VILDAZE'. The court held that despite objections raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, the appellant was entitled to have the mark advertised. This decision allows the applicant to establish prior use and address any third-party opposition on its merits.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 18, 2025

Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 207/2024

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 18, 2025

Astha Jain & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 502/2025

The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs against various traders accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the marks 'AYUVYA', 'i-GAIN+', 'IMFRESH', and 'BOOBEAUTIFUL'. Consequently, all defendants were restrained from using these impugned marks until further hearing, and specific directions were issued to take down product listings from major e-commerce platforms.

trademark mixed · Jul 18, 2025

Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the trademark dispute involving Abbott Products Operations Ag and Alrom Pharmaceuticals. The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking leave to file additional documents, while simultaneously initiating proceedings for a rectification petition concerning the 'KREOFLAT' trademark. This order sets out timelines for both parties to file replies and written synopses, moving the core dispute forward.

patent pending · Jul 17, 2025

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 25/2025

Nokia Technologies Oy filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of its patent application no. 201917042060 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant also sought condonation for a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.

patent pending · Jul 17, 2025

E3D A.C. A. L. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 26/2025

The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent on January 27, 2025, which refused the Indian patent application titled 'MULTIPLE USE COMPUTERIZED INJECTOR'. The court first allowed the application seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing the appeal and granted exemptions for documentation.

trademark mixed · Jul 17, 2025

Vikas Abhimanyu Gupta v.Dive Marketing Private Limited

Bombay High Court · IA(L).7973.2025 (in Commercial IP Suit (L) No.7520 of 2025)

In this interim application concerning a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court addressed the respondent's willingness to withdraw certain trademarks. The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit from its responsible officer within one week, indicating that the matter is proceeding through procedural steps rather than a final judgment on infringement or validity.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 17, 2025

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Anr. v.Janricsan Pharma P Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 310/2025

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Janricsan Pharma P Ltd. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the potential for dangerous public confusion due to the similarity between the parties' pharmaceutical product names. This protective order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under marks deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks until the final hearing.

patent settled · Jul 17, 2025

M/s. Ttk Prestige Limited v.Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.289 of 2023 & O.P.(TM)Nos.8, 10 to 12 of 2023 & OP(CR)No.2 of 2023

In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 17, 2025

Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies

Madras High Court · OP(TM) No. 74 of 2024

The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 17, 2025

Lotus Herbals Private Limited v.Nishtu Enterprises & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 917/2024

The Delhi High Court allowed Lotus Herbals Private Limited to implead a new entity, Jhalak Cosmetics Store, as a defendant in its trademark infringement suit. This decision was based on the plaintiff's discovery that the new store was selling counterfeit products using the infringing 'LOTUS' mark and trade dress. Furthermore, the court extended the existing interim injunction to this newly added defendant and granted extensive powers to a Local Commissioner to conduct search, seizure, and document examination at the premises of the infringer.

trademark mixed · Jul 16, 2025

Piyush Agrawal v.Velbiom Probiotics Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 599/2025

The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Piyush Agrawal against Velbiom Probiotics. The court granted an initial restraint, requiring the defendants to confine their use of the mark 'Happy Cultures' solely to Prebiotic and Probiotic products until further hearing. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to file additional documents, while the court also exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to its urgent nature.

trademark mixed · Jul 16, 2025

Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade

Calcutta High Court · TMA/6/2022 IA NO: GA/1/2022

The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.

1 •••282930•••295