India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 34 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/S. Aquapump Industries & Anr. v.Ravi Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification regarding a specific trademark registration. Following submissions from both parties, the court directed the cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6100995 for the mark in Class 11. This order mandates the trademark registry to rectify its records accordingly within four weeks, effectively clearing the title and resolving the dispute between M/S. Aquapump Industries and Ravi Yadav.
Ardo Medical Ag v.Ms Sdb International And Anr.
Ardo Medical Ag successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court to rectify the Trade Marks Register, seeking cancellation of a conflicting trademark registered by Ms Sdb International. The court found that Respondent No. 1 engaged in bad faith and trade mark squatting by registering an identical mark despite Ardo's prior use and global registrations. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the infringing trademark from the register.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Sanjay Tada
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully concluded its intellectual property dispute against Mr. Sanjay Tada through an amicable settlement before the Delhi High Court. The court decreed the suit based on the parties' undertaking, which required the defendant to acknowledge all of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright rights. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using infringing marks like '303', destroy all related materials, and change packaging for agricultural seeds.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company challenged the slow pace and procedural irregularities in the handling of its Patent Application No. 8004/DELNP/2011, which was subject to multiple pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner raised concerns regarding mechanical issuance of notices and delays in pronouncing orders after hearings were concluded. The Delhi High Court intervened, directing the Controller General's office to expedite the process and pass a consolidated order on all pending oppositions by December 31, 2025.
M.Ramesh v.V.Balu
The Madras High Court set aside an order from the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, which had rejected a trademark infringement suit based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court ruled that since the defendants were not parties to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause, and the dispute concerned trademark rights against third-party entities, the commercial suit was maintainable in civil court. This decision allows the original trademark infringement case to proceed.
Mars Incorporated v.Cadbury (India) Ltd & Ors
After nearly twenty-five years of protracted litigation over the trademark 'CELEBRATIONS,' Mars Incorporated and Cadbury (India) Ltd have reached a full and final amicable settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this mutual consent, which mandates both parties to withdraw various pending opposition and rectification proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry. Furthermore, in a gesture of goodwill, they jointly undertook to distribute confectionery assortments worth five lakhs each to schoolchildren across Delhi.
X v.Y
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff (X) against the Defendant (Y), who was accused of manufacturing and selling imitation nutrition supplements. The court recognized the Plaintiff's rights across multiple IP domains, including registered trademarks ('WELLVERSED', 'WELLCORE'), house marks, and copyright subsisting in the product packaging/labels. Furthermore, the court granted several procedural exemptions to facilitate urgent investigation via a Local Commissioner.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed its application for an injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, which was manufacturing and selling Risdiplam. The core dispute centered on whether the species patent (IN 3343971) covering compounds for Spinal Muscular Atrophy was infringed by Risdiplam, or if the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosures in a genus patent (WO'916/US'955).
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'Infrared (IR) Based Quantitation of Biomolecules.' The refusal was based on the grounds that the claimed method constituted an unpatentable diagnostic process under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the subject matter did not fall within the scope of this exclusion and that the amendments made were permissible refinements.
Natera Inc And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application for 'Methods for Lung Cancer Detection'. The refusal was based on the grounds that the methods were not patentable under Section 3(i) as they related to diagnosis/treatment, and certain claims violated Section 59. The High Court upheld the refusal.
Sequenom Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Sequenom Inc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant two patent applications related to methylation-based enrichment of fetal nucleic acid for non-invasive prenatal diagnoses. The core issue was whether this diagnostic process, conducted in a laboratory setting, fell under the exclusion of methods for diagnosis under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Anthem Biosciences Limited
The dispute involved Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha alleging infringement of its patent (IN 294424) concerning Alectinib against Anthem Biosciences Limited. The parties subsequently agreed to amicably resolve the matter.
Caterpillar Inc v.Gold Filter And Co And Another
Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gold Filter And Co for infringing several of its Patents related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court passed an order granting various procedural exemptions sought by the Plaintiff, including exemption from pre-institution Mediation and advance service, and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the alleged infringing parts.
Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Ors. v.Ashok Kumar(S)/John Does & Ors.
In a significant commercial dispute concerning the HARPIC brand, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders favoring the Plaintiffs (Reckitt And Colman). The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court also permitted an ex parte ad interim injunction by appointing Local Commissioners to conduct inspections of the alleged infringing products, reinforcing the strength of the brand's trademark and trade dress protection.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Amazon Technologies Inc.
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a Special Leave Petition filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. against Amazon Technologies Inc., concerning the stay of an execution decree related to trademark infringement. The core issue revolved around whether the Delhi High Court was justified in granting a stay on the money decree without insisting on the deposit of the decretal amount. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the stay.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd filed an application under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims and remand Patent Application No. 1982/DEL/2013 back to the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court issued notice and directed the filing of a reply within four weeks.
XX v.YY
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 419280, which covers Benzamide Derivatives. The court registered the plaint as a suit and issued directions regarding the appointment and scope of the Local Commissioner to investigate the matter.
Tapas Chatterjee v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Tapas Chatterjee appealed a decision where the Assistant Controller rejected his patent application for 'Recovery of Potassium Sulphate...'. The rejection was based on pre-grant opposition filed by CSIR, citing lack of inventive step (Section 25(1)(e)). The High Court remanded the matter back to the CGPDTM for fresh consideration, restricting it only to the objection raised by CSIR regarding inventive step.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.Shivam Udhyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited, declaring its trademark 'WIPRO' as a well-known mark. The judgment recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation associated with the brand, citing massive sales turnover (over INR 60,775 crores) and substantial promotional expenditure over several decades. This declaration is crucial for protecting the brand against unauthorized use by third parties.
M/S.Texmo Industries v.Mukesh Lamba
The Madras High Court addressed a complex intellectual property dispute involving M/S.Texmo Industries against Mukesh Lamba regarding the use of similar marks for pump goods. The suit claimed infringement under Trademark Act provisions, alongside copyright violations related to website design and content. Ultimately, the court decreed the case based on a compromise memorandum entered into by both parties, resolving the multi-faceted dispute.
Dilesh Raj Borana F.U.F. v.M/S Udhog Mandir
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision regarding the territorial jurisdiction for a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application to return/reject the plaint, arguing that the cause of action did not arise in Bikaner. However, the High Court ruled that Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides a special rule allowing an infringement suit to be filed where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, even if the cause of action is elsewhere. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
M/s. Zonex Industries v.Kunal Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision to stay an infringement lawsuit concerning the 'ZONEX' trademark. The petitioner, M/s. Zonex Industries, challenged the stay, arguing that their trademark was validly registered. However, the court found that since the respondent had initiated rectification proceedings challenging the validity of the registration before the competent forum, the suit for infringement must be stayed under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This ruling reinforces the legal mechanism allowing parties to pause litigation while trademark validity is being determined.
Signify Holding B V v.Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Signify Holding B V sought relief against Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati regarding the use of the mark 'dignify'. The court noted the defendant's submission that they do not intend to continue using the mark and expressed willingness to resolve the suit amicably. Consequently, the High Court granted a one-week standover period to facilitate settlement while temporarily restraining the defendant from making any further sales under the disputed trademark.
Sujatha Rajkumar v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Sujatha Rajkumar filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention against the Registrar of Trade Marks for the undue delay in processing an application related to the assignment of her trademark 'VELVETTE'. The petitioner sought recognition of the subsequent proprietor based on an Assignment Deed. While the court did not rule on the merits of the assignment, it issued a binding direction to the Respondent to dispose of the pending application within six weeks, treating the counsel's assurance as a formal undertaking.