India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 3 of 299 · 7,167 total
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota's appeal, directing the removal of Tech Square Engineering's registration for the mark ALPHARD. The court found that Toyota had established prior adoption and spill-over reputation of the mark in India. The respondent's adoption of the mark was found to lack bona fides. The court ordered the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to reflect the removal of the impugned mark.
Spalon India Private Limited v.Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon
The plaintiff, Spalon India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon, for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'BOUNCE'. The parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise, which was accepted by the court. The defendant agreed to a decree in terms of the remedies claimed by the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach.
S.S. White Burs Inc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, & S.S. White Dental Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted rectification of the respondent's trademark registration for 'S.S. WHITE' in Class 5 and Class 10, as the petitioner, S.S. White Burs Inc, had prior use and registration of the mark 'S.S. WHITE BURS INC' in Class 10. The court held that the respondent's use of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The respondent was directed to file an affidavit indicating the quantity and batch number of the existing stock of products bearing the impugned mark and was allowed to dispose of the existing stock within a specified time frame.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Johnson Paints Co v.Johnson Paints Private Limited
The Patna High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Johnson Paints Co, restraining Johnson Paints Private Limited from using the trademark 'JOHNSON' with prefixes and suffixes or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a better common law right and that the defendant's use of the trademark would lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity and cause deception of the public. The court also directed the learned Commercial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd v.Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for trademark infringement and passing off by Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The court held that the trademarks 'Arogya' and 'Patanjali Aarogya' are not similar and that the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that the goods marketed by the appellant and the respondents are different and that the respondents' trademark is prefixed with the word 'Patanjali'.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order granting an interlocutory injunction to Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited, allowing Ms Anuradha Sharma to continue using the mark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks and no misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed, and the observations made were prima facie in nature. The court's decision will not influence the consideration of the merits of the suit pending before the Commercial Court.
Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India v.Le Shark Apparel Limited
The Bombay High Court overruled a preliminary objection and allowed an appeal against an order directing the removal of a trademark from the register. The appellant, Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India, had challenged the order passed by a single judge in a commercial miscellaneous petition filed by Le Shark Apparel Limited. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd v.Assistant Registrar Of Trademarks And, K.R. Nagendra, K.N. Shobha
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd appealed against the registration of a trademark by Shankar Industries. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shankar Industries was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that Shankar Industries had established use of the mark since 1995-1996 and that the appellant's use did not pre-date theirs. The court also noted that many of the appellant's registrations were limited to the state of West Bengal, while the respondents' registrations were limited to Karnataka.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court denied an ad-interim injunction to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco Limited, but directed both parties to sell their packaged drinking water products within their respective states. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction. The plaintiff had claimed that the defendant's mark 'MY WATER BOX' was similar to its own mark 'WATER BOX' and would cause confusion among consumers.
Crocs Inc. & Anr v.Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited
Crocs Inc. filed a lawsuit against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling footwear that infringes Crocs' trademark. The court also directed the defendant to maintain and preserve accounts and documents related to the manufacture and sale of the impugned products.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd v.Jai Shiv Oil Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of Jai Shiv Oil Industries' trademark 'GOLDI' due to its similarity with the petitioner's trademark 'GOLDIEE'. The court found that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical, and that the respondent's adoption of the mark 'GOLDI' was without bonafide intention. The court also noted that the two parties were in the same business and had common trade circles, distribution networks, and retail outlets, which increased the likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Meghmani Lifesciences Limited
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a commercial suit against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited for infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT'. The court found that the defendant's mark 'ESIRAFT' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and granted an injunction. The court applied the test of phonetic similarity and first impression to determine the likelihood of confusion. The decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a single judge's order that vacated an interim injunction and revoked leave granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant claimed infringement and passing off based on the defendant using 'Really' while the appellant used 'RALLI'. The court found evidence (participation in a 2018 fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges) establishing that the appellant was aware of the respondent's product use since at least 2018, dismissing the appeal.
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a judgment that revoked an interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's urgent relief application. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off between the appellant (using 'RALLI') and the respondent (using 'Really'). The court found that the appellant was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2018, based on participation in a fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges.
Laser Shaving India Private Limited v.Rkrm International Products Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Commercial Appeal filed by Laser Shaving India Private Limited against Rkrm International Products Private Limited, upholding the lower court's order refusing a temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed relevant material and was estopped from seeking relief due to its previous stand before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The defendant had commenced selling impugned products after the plaintiff's representation to Galactic, and the court concluded that the elements of estoppel were satisfied.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is an appeal filed by Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding additional documents, exemptions, and condonation of delay.
Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc v.Brewholik Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited to sell existing stock of whiskey bearing the trademark 'OLD FORESTER', which is registered by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. The court held that the sale of the seized goods would be violative of the provisions of the Excise Act, 2009 and the Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff had vehemently disputed the quality of the seized goods, alleging them to be counterfeit.
Mechmaark Filtechindia Private Limited v.Asawa Insulation Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent no. 532136, which was granted to respondent no. 1 (Asawa Insulation Pvt. Ltd.). The court issued notices and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders.
AFR M/s Ele Animations (P) Ltd. v.Satya Swagat Mohanty
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its application to reject a plaint filed by the respondent. The suit involved allegations of copyright infringement concerning artistic works depicting 'Lord Jagannath' and 'Jagan.' The core legal issue was whether the case qualified for exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, based on the claim of urgent interim relief.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Jntl Consumer Health I (Switzerland) Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed this application. Subsequently, the main appeal was listed to challenge the Controller's decision refusing the appellant's patent application.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. KG
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antena Inc., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency'. The dispute involved multiple entities within the Rosenberger Group accused of manufacturing and selling infringing antennas.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.