India IP Litigation
7,302 annotated decisions
Page 304 of 305 · 7,302 total
Symed Labs Limited v.Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited
Symed Labs Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited for manufacturing and selling Linezolid, allegedly infringing their patents IN 213062 and IN 213063. However, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, and the court dismissed it as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The case highlights the importance of patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiff's decision to withdraw the suit may indicate a settlement or a strategic decision to focus on other legal battles.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the defendants to deposit a sum or submit an unconditional bank guarantee as pro-tem security payment in a patent infringement case related to wireless communication technology. The plaintiffs, Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc, claimed that their technological innovations were protected by over 31,500 patents and applications worldwide. The defendants, Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd, were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling smartphones under various brands.
Deepak Nitrite Limited v.The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
The Bombay High Court set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing a patent application for a free-flowing food-grade sodium nitrite and its production method. The court held that the impugned order lacked adequate reasoning and analysis of the rival submissions. The patent application is to be decided afresh within 12 weeks. The court emphasized the importance of passing well-reasoned and speaking orders in patent cases.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject the patent application of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and non-patentability. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the novelty of the invention and that the invention did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court also observed that the applicant had not provided sufficient data to support its claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Anr.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to the pharmaceutical industry and involves a dispute over the validity of a trademark. The court's decision is an interim order and does not provide a final judgment on the matter.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to a pharmaceutical product and involves a dispute over trademark validity.
Procter and Gamble Health Limited v.Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court disposed of a commercial appeal and interim application related to trademark infringement and passing off. The court accepted the defendant's statement that they are not using the offending mark and have no intention to do so. The court clarified that the observations made in the earlier order shall not act as a precedent. The case involved the trademarks LIVOGEN and LIVOGEN-Z, and the defendant's mark LIVOGEM. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing misrepresentation and damage to goodwill in passing off cases.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited, allowing the appointment of an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trade mark/label. The court also directed the concerned police authorities to assist the Additional Special Receiver in the execution of the order. The plaintiff had filed a suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement, alleging that the defendant was using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'LAVIE' without permission.
Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v.Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an order refusing the registration of the trademark 'ANAAR' for footwear, directing the publication of an advertisement to consider any objections. The court held that it was expedient to use discretion to advertise the application, given the peculiar facts of the case. The petitioner had initiated rectification proceedings against the existing mark, and the registrant had not filed a counterstatement.
Astral Ltd v.M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors
Astral Ltd filed a suit against M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors for trademark infringement, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The defendants agreed to give up the use of the impugned marks and not to use any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ASTRAL. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with the defendants permitted to sell existing stock within five months.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors
The Delhi High Court awarded costs in favor of the defendant, M/S Bata India Ltd, in a design infringement suit filed by Crocs Inc Usa. The court directed the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 24,63,400/- to the defendant within three months. The suit was initially filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Design Registration no. 197685, but the court had earlier dismissed the interim injunction applications and allowed the defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of John Cockerill Hamon SA, restraining Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited from using the HAMON mark. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark was likely to cause confusion and deceive the public. The plaintiff had registered the HAMON mark in India and had been using it since 1963. The defendant's use of the mark was held to be an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights.
Geetanjali Salon Private Limited v.Ms. Amita Dubey & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Geetanjali Salon Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's trademarks 'GEETANJALI' and 'GEETANJALI STUDIO'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants were also restrained from passing off their services as those of the plaintiff.
Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld an order allowing an extension of time for filing an evidence affidavit in a trademark rectification proceeding, despite a delay of over three years. The court held that the deadline under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is directory, not mandatory. The case involved a dispute between two factions of the same family over the use of the 'Black Diamond' name in their respective businesses.
M/S. Psychotropic India Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Psychotropic India Limited, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to correct the class of goods in respect of Trademark Application No. 2038075 from Class 11 to Class 05. The petitioner had filed the application for the mark 'THIOPIL' in 2010, but due to an error, the application was processed under the wrong class. The court ordered the correction to be made within three weeks and the application to be processed expeditiously thereafter.
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.