India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 33 of 311 · 7,456 total
Kbm Foods Private Limited v.Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kbm Foods Private Limited against Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed the appointment and execution of a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing allegedly infringing marks, thereby providing immediate interim relief to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.
Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Wazahat Choudhary
In a trademark infringement suit concerning skincare products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiff, Pureplay Skin Sciences. The court granted leave to file additional documents and exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court also allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises for potential counterfeit goods, while simultaneously granting exemptions regarding advance service and discovery procedures.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Vivanta Stays & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against Vivanta Stays & Ors. The court recognized 'VIVANTA' as a well-known trademark and immediately restrained the defendants from using similar marks, such as VIVANTA STAYS/VIVANTA REALTY, both online and offline. Furthermore, the order mandated the immediate takedown of infringing websites and domain names, providing swift protection to the plaintiff's brand reputation.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Dilipkumar Narandas Sheth Trading As M/s. Arihant Enterprise
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications. The court allowed the defendant to file vernacular and dim documents while simultaneously directing both parties to engage in an amicable resolution. Crucially, the court acknowledged evidence presented by the defendant regarding the historical use of a specific logo as a watermark on invoices dating back to 1993, allowing the plaintiff to inspect these original documents. The judgment emphasizes the possibility of settlement before further litigation proceeds.
Grasim Industries Limited & Anr. v.Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co.
Grasim Industries Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Mridula Kumari Trading As M/S Superior Birla Rock And Co. The parties reached an amicable agreement where the defendant formally recognized the plaintiffs' exclusive proprietary rights in trademarks like BIRLA and BIRLA WHITE, trade dress, and packaging. Crucially, the settlement mandates that the defendant cease using any confusingly similar marks or trade names, change her business name, and refrain from online misuse of the protected brands. The court decreed the suit based on these comprehensive settlement terms.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent Application No. 201917024125. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. v.Mr. Shashikant Sharma & Anr.
The Plaintiffs, owners of the SOLIDWORKS software copyright, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringement. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' systems.
Darzi India Llp v.Kafil Ahmed
This Delhi High Court order addresses a contempt petition filed by Darzi India Llp against Kafil Ahmed for alleged violation of a prior court decree. The core dispute revolves around the permissible use of the trade mark 'KAFIL DARZI'. While the petitioner sought strict enforcement and removal of infringing marks, the respondent argued that the previous judgment permitted the usage. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent liberty to seek clarification from the Single Judge regarding the scope of the prior order.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr., addressing claims of trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'YATRI' brand used for electric vehicles. The court recognized the Plaintiff's status as a prior user and owner, issuing a broad restraint order preventing Defendants from using deceptively similar marks online or offline. This interim relief is crucial for protecting the market reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's established e-vehicle brand.
Bima Sugam India Federation v.A Range Gowda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Bima Sugam India Federation against A Range Gowda & Ors., addressing a dispute over trademark infringement and domain name ownership. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the 'BIMA SUGAM' mark in bad faith, leading to deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff's established marketplace brand. Consequently, the Court directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the key domain names, www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in, to the Plaintiff, subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Unique International Ev Private Limited v.Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Unique International EV Private Limited against Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr. The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of electric vehicles under the 'PANTHER' brand, successfully argued that the Defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and copyrights by using confusingly similar marks for identical goods (e-rickshaws). This interim relief prevents the Defendants from continuing their alleged infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Burger & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, quashing a single judge's order that had dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the respondent's proposed mark, 'WOW BURGER', was highly likely to cause confusion with the appellant's established marks like 'WOW MOMO' and 'WOW DIMSUMS'. Despite arguments regarding common usage or descriptive nature of 'WOW', the court held that the combination of the exclamation with the food item created a distinctive association in the mind of the average consumer, thereby establishing a prima facie case of infringement.
Rajesh Pal Sharma v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Rajesh Pal Sharma filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1, which rejected his Indian Patent Application No. 201811004587. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies within specified timelines.
Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Jubilant Generics Ltd.
This appeal before the Allahabad High Court addressed challenges to a Commercial Court's injunction order. The plaintiff, Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, successfully argued that its comprehensive Product Dossiers—containing sensitive technical data for generic drugs like Losartan and Amlodipine—qualify as protected literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that the defendants misappropriated these confidential dossiers by transferring them from a Canadian subsidiary to their Indian affiliate, leading to unauthorized manufacturing and use in India. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the injunction.
Saksham Impex Private Limited v.Amit Patel
Saksham Impex Pvt. Ltd. challenged an arbitral award that rejected its claims against former employee Amit Patel, alleging breach of confidentiality and trade secrets related to the 'Monin' brand. The petitioner argued the arbitrator erred on grounds of perversity and patent illegality. However, the court upheld the arbitration award, finding no ground to set it aside.
Smt. B.K. Annapurnamma, Sri B.N.K. Sarathi, Smt. B.S. Nagarathna, and Sri B.S. Sapthagiri (Partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works) v.M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works
The plaintiffs, partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works for infringing their registered design (No. 203040) of a display box. The court found that the copyright subsisting in the design had expired in 2016, rendering the cause of action infructuous.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.John Doe And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of The Indian Hotels Company Limited against defendants for alleged trademark infringement and disparagement of its iconic 'TAJ' brand. Citing the TAJ trademark as a well-known mark, the court restrained the defendants from publishing or disseminating any content that infringes upon the brand. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 was specifically directed to immediately take down an impugned video uploaded on its Instagram channel.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. and Agrosaf Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. following an amicable settlement. The defendants agreed to permanently cease all use, promotion, and sale of products bearing the mark 'AGROCONTIN.' Furthermore, they acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights in 'NITROCONTIN' and committed not to adopt any deceptively similar marks incorporating the suffix 'CONTIN,' effectively resolving the dispute through a binding decree.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Yogesh Chaurasia
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bisleri International Private Limited against Yogesh Chaurasia. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was passing off their packaged drinking water as being associated with the plaintiff. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant's mark 'BRISLEI,' labels (OXY FINE and BILIFE), bottle design/shape, and even the green cap were substantially similar to Bisleri's distinctive trade dress. This ruling provides immediate protection to Bisleri while the main suit proceeds.
Le Shark Apparel Limited v.Anil Shah And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court granted rectification to remove a registered trademark (No. 466002) belonging to the Respondents, which was identical to the Petitioner's established global mark 'LE SHARK'. The court found that the Respondents had fraudulently adopted the mark and lacked evidence of genuine use, thereby allowing the Petitioner to proceed with its brand in India. This decision reinforces the principle that a trademark register must maintain purity against deceptive or fraudulent registrations.
Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. v.La Chemise Lacoste & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Crocodile International Pte. Ltd against La Chemise Lacoste & Anr. The court condoned the plaintiff's delay in filing its replication and granted an extension for filing a rejoinder, provided the plaintiff deposits costs. Furthermore, the court set out a clear roadmap for the case management, directing both parties to file documents, affidavits of admission/denial, and joint document schedules before proceeding to trial.
Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Flora Beverages India Pvt Ltd
In a commercial IP suit concerning energy beverages, the Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiff's request to consolidate multiple claims. The court granted leave for Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to combine its cause of action for passing off with those related to trademark and copyright infringement. This procedural step allows the parties to address all facets of their intellectual property dispute within a single legal framework, paving the way for further substantive hearings.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M. Bathla & Anr.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that M. Bathla & Anr. infringed its Indian Patent No. 175971, which covered a 'Digital Transmission System,' through the manufacturing and sale of VCD systems and media. The court examined whether the defendants' replication process utilized the patented technology. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found that the suit patent did not cover the resultant VCD product or the specific replication process employed by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish infringement and the suit was dismissed.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.As Print Pack Global Private Limited
The Plaintiffs sought permission from the Bombay High Court to combine their cause of action involving infringement and passing off. The court allowed the interim application. Furthermore, the suit against Defendant No. 4 was disposed of based on Consent Minutes of the Order, while the suit continued against Defendants No. 1 to 3.