India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 299 of 299 · 7,167 total
SML Limited v.M/s Happy Agro Chemicals
SML Limited filed a patent infringement suit against M/s Happy Agro Chemicals, alleging that the defendant's product 'SELZIC' infringes their patent rights under Indian Patent No.282092. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their patent rights. However, the court dismissed the application due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the alleged wrong was not committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction.
Havells India Limited v.Vijay
Havells India Limited sued Vijay for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction, restraining Vijay from using the HAVELLS trademark. The court also awarded damages and punitive damages to Havells India Limited. The case highlights the importance of protecting well-known trademarks in India.
Modern Snacks Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Ace Foods Private Limited
The Madras High Court condoned the delay of 118 days in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.4015735. The appeal was filed by Modern Snacks Private Limited against the order dated 04.07.2025. The court allowed the petition on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Chief Justice Relief Fund. This decision highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals in trademark opposition cases. The court's discretion in condoning delays can be crucial in determining the outcome of such cases.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal against a single judge's order denying an absolute interim injunction in a trademark dispute between More Than Water Private Limited and Nesco Limited. The court imposed a territorial restraint, allowing both parties to continue manufacturing and selling their products within their respective states. The court also directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take note of the restraint and make an appropriate noting in its register.
Ashiana Ispat Limited v.Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Ashiana Ispat Limited against a single judge's order granting an interim injunction in favor of Kamdhenu Limited. The court held that Ashiana Ispat Limited cannot use the mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' as it is deceptively similar to Kamdhenu Limited's registered marks. The court also issued directions to preserve the rights of both parties pending final determination of the suit.
Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Exotic Mile
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd against Exotic Mile, seeking to restrain the defendant from using the trademark BOULT, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks BOAT/boAt. The court found that the defendant had discontinued the use of the impugned marks and had transitioned to a new trademark, rendering the application without merit. The case highlights the importance of establishing undue hardship in seeking interim relief. The court's decision is significant as it demonstrates the application of trademark law principles in determining the similarity between marks and the potential for consumer confusion.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed an appeal against the refusal of interim injunction by the Single Judge in a trademark infringement case against Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent's mark 'PANTOPACID' is deceptively similar to their registered mark 'PANTOCID'. The Court allowed the appeal with directions, granting the Respondents liberty to dispose of their existing stock within a limited period.
M. Manuel v.Malabar Gold Private Ltd.
The Kerala High Court modified an injunction granted by the Trial Court, restraining the appellant from using any mark, label, logo, artistic work, trade dress or commercial presentation deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark and business identity. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired exclusive rights over the registered trade mark and trade name 'Malabar Gold' with the logo, and the defendant's mark 'Malabar Fashion Jewellery' and logo were deceptively similar. The court also found that the term 'Malabar' is a geographical expression and no exclusive proprietary right can be claimed over the said word in isolation.
Dr. G. Srinivasan v.M/s. Voltamp Transformers Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for infringing his patent related to Midget Transformers with built-in State node Circuit Breakers. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the infringement and revoked the patent.
Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Baghyaa Home Appliances, M/s.Maya Appliances Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its registered design for a tripod shaped base unit for mixer grinders by the defendants. The case involves a dispute over the originality and imitation of the design.
M/S. M.V.J Foods (India) Pvt.Ltd v.Devanand Shenoy
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging a trial court's order allowing the reopening of evidence in a trademark infringement suit. The original suit alleged that the defendants were passing off goods using the 'MELAM' brand, which was registered by the plaintiffs. The core dispute centered on whether a licensing agreement from 1994 could be introduced as evidence. The High Court found no prejudice to the defendant and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the case to proceed with the newly admitted evidence.
M.Manuvel v.Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd
The Kerala High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M.Manuvel, which challenged a lower court's order regarding jurisdiction in a trademark and passing off suit. The core issue revolved around the defendant's late application to amend their written statement to raise objections concerning territorial jurisdiction. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held that without demonstrating due diligence before the trial commenced, such an amendment could not be allowed after the proceedings had started.
Sri.R.S.Praveen Raj v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
The Kerala High Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the trademark registration of religious symbols, specifically the picture of the Attukal deity. The petitioner argued that registering such an icon commercializes faith and violates fundamental rights. However, the court upheld the registrations, noting that while certain deities are prohibited from registration under specific government directions, the services registered (temple/social welfare) did not violate Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court cautioned against bypassing statutory remedies in favor of invoking Article 226.
M/S. Bipha Drug Laboratories v.Controller General Of Patent
M/S. Bipha Drug Laboratories filed a writ petition seeking the immediate issuance of its trademark registration certificate for 'SOMNA' in Class 5. Despite an order dismissing opposition in 2008, the petitioner had not received the official certificate. The Kerala High Court intervened and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to issue the certificate within two weeks. This judgment underscores the importance of statutory authorities adhering to their timelines even after favorable decisions are rendered.
Prof.D.Aravindakshan v.Union Of India
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Prof. D. Aravindakshan challenging the refusal of the Registrar of Companies to approve the name 'Agastya Bio-Tech Limited'. The court found that despite the petitioner's claims, the attempt to register a company with an identical name while disputes regarding the original entity ('Agastya Bio-pharm India Limited') were pending made the proposed name undesirable. This ruling underscores the strict application of corporate naming rules designed to prevent public confusion and deception.