India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 32 of 311 · 7,456 total
Jsw Mg Motor India Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by JSW MG Motor India Private Limited challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order that treated their application as abandoned due to non-appearance. The Appellant argued that their newly engaged counsel made reasonable attempts to join the virtual hearing but was unable to do so because the VC link was sent to the previous counsel. The Court prima facie agreed with the Appellant, finding that the inability to attend was not attributable to the new counsel. Consequently, notice was issued to the Respondents, and the matter was listed for further consideration.
Usms Saffron Co. Inc. v.Rupesh Rathore Trading As Rm International
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement suit filed by Usms Saffron Co. Inc. against Rupesh Rathore Trading As Rm International. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction to protect the Plaintiff's registered trademarks and unique packaging/trade dress for 'BABY BRAND SAFFRON'. Furthermore, the court set out procedural directions regarding document submission, exempted the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief, and fixed the fee for a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises.
Mohanlal U.Jain Trading As M/s.Master Marketing v.M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Mohanlal U.Jain, setting aside the Trademark Registry's decision to abandon his applications for 'Rallison APPLIANCES.' The core issue was whether the opposition notice served by M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had been properly served on the appellant as required under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court found that despite evidence of communication from the respondent, there was no proof presented by the Registry confirming service upon the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Registry was directed to grant a fresh opportunity for the matter.
Sg Corporate Mobility Pvt .Ltd. v.Marvel Technoplast Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark opposition matter between Sg Corporate Mobility and Marvel Technoplast. The court granted an exemption request regarding the submission of a certified copy of an NCLT order, allowing the petitioner four weeks to comply. Furthermore, recognizing that Respondent No. 1 had filed notice of opposition to Petitioner's trademark application no. 6792577 but failed to appear, the Court directed formal service and issuance of notices to ensure due process continues in the matter.
Novenco Building And Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.
Pas Agro Foods v.Krbl Limited; Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in India; Deputy Registrar of Copyrights
Pas Agro Foods filed a Special Jurisdiction Case seeking the expungement of trademark and copyright registrations granted to Krbl Limited. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the petition and arguments, directed that notice be served upon all respondents via speed post and email. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity or ownership of the registered IP rights.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Pitambari Products Private Limited
In a dispute over trademark infringement, Capital Foods Private Limited and Pitambari Products Private Limited reached an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court formalized this compromise, decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff while allowing the Defendant limited usage rights for specific packaging (PITAMBARI RUCHIYANA SCHEZWAN HOT & SPICY). This resolution allows the parties to move forward without protracted litigation over damages and accounts.
Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Pathkind Diagnostics Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application for 'PATHKIND LABS'. The core issue was the existence of cited marks owned by the petitioner's director. By presenting an Assignment Deed and a No Objection Certificate (NOC), the court found that the ground for rejection had been sufficiently addressed. Consequently, the application was directed to be accepted and advertised in the Trademark Journal.
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a government tender and direct the respondents to conduct technical analysis based on the petitioner's patent grant for single source procurement. However, the petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw the petition.
M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private Limited v.The State of West Bengal
Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.
M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute, which sought to cancel the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30, was resolved amicably between the parties. Both sides entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, leading the petitioner to withdraw the original petition.
Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd against S.Sudhakar and others. The dismissal was not a ruling on the merits but rather an acceptance of a Memorandum of Compromise signed between the parties. This settlement effectively resolved the dispute regarding the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Giriedharan and others (Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
The Madras High Court dismissed OP(TM) No. 50 of 2025 after the parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. The petitioner, M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd., had sought the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam' registered by the respondents in Class 30. Given the mutual agreement reached between the parties, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
Rep. By Its Managing Director v.Sri Narasus Coffee Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit (C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 203 OF 2024) and an opposition petition (OP(TM) No. 62 of 2024) concerning the mark 'UDHAIYAM' versus 'UDHAYAM'. Both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions as withdrawn, concluding the litigation without a final judgment on the merits.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359360 in Class 30. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the dispute to be resolved amicably between the involved parties.
M/S.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by M/S.Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies. The petitioner had sought to cancel the trademark registration 'Udhaiyam' in Class 30, citing grounds for invalidity. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise and filed an additional joint memo requesting withdrawal. Consequently, the court accepted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. had filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359359 in Class 29. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, resolving the dispute amicably.
Panoptis Patent Management Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panoptis Patent Management LLC filed a suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., asserting infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking leave to amend claims and file documents, while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings and listing for injunction hearing.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited
Atomberg Technologies filed a suit in Bombay against Eureka Forbes regarding groundless threats of patent infringement. Eureka Forbes subsequently filed an infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg's 'Atomberg Intellon' water purifier infringed their patented technologies. The Supreme Court addressed the competing transfer petitions to consolidate the proceedings.
Celligence International Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Celligence International Llc filed an appeal against an order dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Indian patent application no. 202117058456. The court issued notice to the respondent, directing them to file a reply within four weeks.
Krbl Limited v.Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in Krbl Limited vs Shailendra Chaturvedi & Anr., resolving a dispute over the scope of the trademark 'DOON MEMORIES'. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to amend the registration (TM No. 421683) to restrict the goods exclusively to bakery products, based on an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1. This decision effectively narrowed the scope of the mark's use, provided the respondent adheres strictly to the agreed-upon limitations.
Abbott Laboratories v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Abbott Laboratories to appeal the rejection of its 'ENSURE' trademark application. The original rejection was based on insufficient evidence supporting a very early claimed date of use (31.12.1999). The court granted liberty for the Appellant to amend its user claim, restricting it to 23.04.2012, and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh. This decision effectively restored the trademark application to its original status.
Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Suraj Collection And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd against Suraj Collection And Anr, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was calculated to deceive consumers and erode the plaintiff's established goodwill associated with its cosmetic products. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.