India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 300 of 311 · 7,456 total
Tata Press Limited v.Mahanagar Telephone-Nigam Limited & Ors.
The dispute concerned whether Tata Press Limited had the right to publish its 'Tata Press Yellow Pages' (a buyer's guide/advertisement compilation), which included details of traders and professionals, or if this publication violated the exclusive rights of Mahanagar Telephone-Nigam Limited under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Supreme Court held that a general advertisement compilation is distinct from a 'list of telephone subscribers,' allowing Tatas to continue publishing their guide.
Mohan Kumar v.M/S. Narendra Products
The Delhi High Court addressed a preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit filed by Mohan Kumar against M/S. Narendra Products. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the use of the similar mark 'SHANKER' for Pan Masala (Gutka). The court ruled that it possessed jurisdiction, noting that the defendant had applied for registration and advertised the mark in Delhi, thereby establishing a sufficient connection to the territorial limits.
Giridhari Balaram Radhakrishnani And ... v.M/S Mahisa Electronics And Others
The appellants, claiming rights as inventors/licensees of a UMHT patent, filed suits against respondents for infringement. The trial court granted an ex parte temporary injunction. On appeal, this injunction was vacated by the single Judge. The High Court set aside the order vacating the injunction, restoring the status quo ante, and directing parties to proceed with expeditious trial.
Nut Limited v.Nut
The case involved a dispute concerning infringement of registered trademarks, copyright, and passing off. The core legal issue addressed was the proper method of valuing the relief sought for rendition of accounts for both court fees and jurisdiction under the Suits Valuation Act.
Haryana Breweries Ltd. v.Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi, Lt. Governor
Haryana Breweries Ltd. petitioned the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel authorities to grant an L-1 license for wholesale beer vending for four brands, including Haywards Lager Beer and Haywards-2000 Extra Strong Beer. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not own the trade mark rights for these specific brands, which were registered in the name of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd.
Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v.Jai Mala Roller Glass Ltd.
The plaintiff, Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., sought a temporary injunction against Jai Mala Roller Glass Ltd. for infringing its registered design 'KONOHA'. The court examined the issue of infringement versus the principle that if both parties possess valid registrations, neither can be granted an injunction to enforce priority.
M/S. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.Collector Of Central Excise, Chandigarh
The appeal challenged the classification of pharmacopoeial Dextrose injections as patent or proprietary medicines attracting central excise duty under Tariff Item 14E. The department argued that the use of a monogram ('AP ASTRA') established a connection between the manufacturer and the medicine. The Supreme Court ruled that since the mark only identified the manufacturer, it did not establish a proprietary relationship with the specific medicine.
Employees' Federation v.Tvs And Sons Ltd.
This appeal concerned a temporary injunction sought by TVS And Sons Ltd. against the release of a documentary video cassette prepared by the Employees' Federation, which depicted alleged unfair labor practices within the company. The court found that while the film pointed to management misdemeanors, the balance of convenience favored its publication, provided certain modifications were made.
Tvs Employees' Federation And Others v.Tvs And Sons Ltd. And Another
The case revolves around an appeal filed by TVS Employees' Federation against an order of temporary injunction granted to TVS And Sons Ltd. The dispute centers on a video cassette prepared by worker representatives, which the company alleged was intended to malign its reputation through false depictions of workers' struggles.
Gold Star Co. Ltd. v.Gold Star Industries Ltd. And Ors.
The plaintiff, Gold Star Co. Ltd., sought an interlocutory order against the defendant for infringing its globally recognized and registered trade mark 'Gold Star'. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark in respect of products like washing machines was an infringement and amounted to passing off, thereby suffering damage to the plaintiff's reputation.
Ravi Raj Gupta v.Acme Glass Mosaic Industries
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement by the defendant of two patents related to glass tiles (No. 154388 and No. 157991). The court examined the validity of these patents, particularly Patent No. 157991, against prior art (Patent No. 111139). Since the court was not satisfied that the patent sought to be enforced constituted a valid invention, it rejected the application for an ad-interim injunction.
Wwf International v.Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd.
Wwf International successfully sought and retained an interim injunction against Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. for allegedly infringing its 'PANDA' trademark and artistic device. The court recognized Wwf's worldwide reputation associated with its conservation efforts, noting that the defendant was attempting to capitalize on this goodwill by using a similar mark for threads. Given the likelihood of customer confusion, the court ruled in favor of Wwf International, confirming the injunction until the final disposal of the suit.
M.A. Rahim v.M/S Arvind Laboratories
M.A. Rahim (plaintiff-respondent) claimed that M/S Arvind Laboratories (defendant-appellant) infringed their registered trade mark 'Eyetex' by using the similar mark 'Eyeris' for cosmetic preparations. The court examined the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity between the two marks.
Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. v.Suraj Industries Ltd.
The petitioner (Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd.) sought an ad interim injunction against the respondent (Suraj Industries Ltd.), alleging that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('ANGAN' with a flower device) for Vanaspati oil, causing passing off. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case and that granting the injunction would cause irreparable injury to the defendants.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v.Maschmeijer Aromatics (India) Pvt.
This case addressed whether a payment made by an assessee company for technical know-how and exclusive licenses to patents, trademarks, and designs from a foreign collaborator should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,00,000 in shares/kind consideration for these rights. The Income Tax Department argued it was revenue expenditure, but the court ruled that since the payment acquired valuable IP assets (patents, trademarks) and technical know-how, it constituted a capital asset.
Ved Prakash v.Samir Kumar And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the trade mark 'CMCS' in computer training. The plaintiff, Ved Prakash, sought protection against defendants who were using a similar mark. However, the court noted that the mark was essentially the abbreviation of a pre-existing Government Undertaking operating in the same field. Given this prima facie evidence suggesting piracy by the plaintiff, the application for injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were directed to maintain proper accounts.
Cycle Coporation Of India Ltd. v.T.I. Releigh Industries Pvt. Ltd. And ...
The Calcutta High Court dismissed Cycle Corporation of India Ltd.'s appeal seeking the removal and cancellation of 12 trade marks belonging to T.I. Raleigh Industries Pvt. Ltd., which relate to bicycles. The court found that despite the expiration of earlier collaboration agreements, the appellant's actions—including abandoning applications for permitted use while simultaneously filing for mark removal—demonstrated an attempt to take advantage of its own wrong. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not apply because no royalty was payable under the usership agreement.
M/S. Jindal Industries Ltd. v.M/S. Nirmal Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
This case involved a dispute over deceptively similar trade marks, where the plaintiff had previously obtained an ex parte injunction against the defendant. The court reviewed the matter, noting that Section 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act grants exclusive rights to registered mark owners.
National Trading Co. v.Monica Chawla
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Design No-163216 registered in Monica Chawla's name. The petitioner claimed that the design for 'Baby Bouncer' was already published prior to its registration date. The court found that the respondent admitted using and propounding the design since 1987, which predated the 1991 registration.
Festo Controls (P) Ltd. v.Collector Of Central Excise
The appeal challenged an order denying exemption benefits and imposing differential Central Excise Duty (CED) and penalty on Festo Controls for manufacturing products under the brand name 'FESTO'. The department alleged that 'FESTO' was the trade name of their collaborator, FESTO KG Germany, and its use constituted evasion. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order regarding the branding issue but remanded the case for de novo consideration concerning suppression and duty computation.
Da Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. v.Cruickshank & Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld an ad interim injunction favoring Da Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. (BDA) against Cruickshank & Co. Ltd. (C&C). The dispute centered on a Deed of Assignment where C&C transferred three key trademarks and associated goodwill to BDA for the business of Indian made foreign liquors. The Court found that, prima facie, the Deed of Assignment was duly executed and acted upon by both parties, thus entitling BDA to protection against unauthorized use of the marks.
Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. v.Samabhai Tea Processors (P) Ltd.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing and selling tea under the mark "SARGAM". The plaintiff argued that it was the first user and proprietor of the mark. After considering the equities, the court stayed the impugned order until May 4, 1994, provided the respondent also allowed the plaintiff to sell its product.
Mr.G.Jeyaprakash v.M/S.The Vivekananda Match Company
The Madras High Court dismissed Mr. G. Jeyaprakash's petition seeking the removal (rectification) of Trade Mark No. 1312235, registered in favor of M/S. The Vivekananda Match Company. The petitioner alleged that the registration was obtained through fraud and suppression of material facts related to a forged Release Deed. However, the Court found no evidence of fraud or foul play by the respondent. Furthermore, the court noted the petitioner's delay and laches in challenging the deed, ultimately ruling against his claim to the mark.
Calvin Klein Inc. v.International Apparel Syndicate
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Inc. against International Apparel Syndicate, finding a prima facie case of passing off. The court determined that the respondents were deliberately attempting to deceive consumers by using marks and advertisements virtually identical to those of the petitioner. Despite the petitioner not having local registration or business presence in India, the court held that its international reputation was sufficient grounds for protection, making the interim order absolute.