India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 35 of 311 · 7,456 total
Dpac Ventures Llp v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between Dpac Ventures LLP and Exotic Mile Private Limited, modifying the Commercial Court's order that had granted an ex parte temporary injunction against 'GOBOULT'. Recognizing the defendant's significant business turnover (Rs. 188.94 Crores) and operational impact, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to dispense with pre-institution mediation while permitting the defendant to continue using its trademark subject to filing weekly accounts. This decision emphasizes balancing IP rights protection against commercial viability during litigation.
Biotech Visioncare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks against Biotech Visioncare's trademark application for 'BIOVISION'. The petitioner successfully argued that a subsequent successful registration of the same mark provided grounds to reconsider the initial denial. Consequently, the court directed the Trademark Registry to freshly hear the original 2016 application while taking into account the later certificate of registration.
Anita Rajesh Upadhyay v.Automark Industries (India) Pvt.Ltd.
The Bombay High Court partially allowed a writ petition challenging an order that appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the original application lacked proper foundation, was filed long after the injunction, and contained arbitrary directions regarding premises searches. While quashing the impugned order, the High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the defendant's objections regarding the commissioner's appointment.
Suresh Gulwani and Others v.M/S Dammani Brothers Through Partner Shri Rajendra Dammani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted a stay on an earlier Commercial Court order that had restricted the manufacturing, selling, and advertising activities under the 'SWAD GOLD' trademark. The petitioners argued that the restriction was causing immediate irreparable business loss, halting their entire operations and preventing them from selling existing stock. Given the prima facie case of injury, the High Court decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order until further hearing.
XX v.YY
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which relates to Janus Kinase Inhibitors. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect premises and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Aet Laboratories Private Limited & Anr
The suit was filed by Helsinn Healthcare Sa seeking permanent injunction against Aet Laboratories Private Limited and others for infringing its patent IN 426553, which covers compositions for treating chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The court ultimately vacated the existing ad interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish territorial jurisdiction or a prima facie case.
Neeraj Gupta v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Neeraj Gupta appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected his patent application for an 'Intravenous Catheter Device.' The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, citing specific prior art. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider detailed submissions and oral arguments, thereby violating natural justice. The Delhi High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside both the initial rejection order and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd
The suit was filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The patents relate to technologies incorporated into 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court addressed various interlocutory applications regarding amendments, discovery, and procedural exemptions.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Aethlon Medical, Inc appealed an order refusing to grant its patent application for a medical device used in extracorporeal removal of microvesicular particles. The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court examined the matter, accepting the auxiliary claims as permissible amendments within the specification. Ultimately, the court found that the merits had not been fully examined and remanded the case back to the Controller General for fresh consideration, granting the appellant a hearing.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc & Anr. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit asserting infringement of their portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to cellular standards (3G, 4G, 5G, HEVC) by the Defendants' mobile and smart devices. The court issued orders allowing various procedural applications, including granting liberty to amend claims for additional patents and devices, while setting timelines for pleadings and interim relief hearings.
Xx v.Yy
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff (Xx) against the Defendants (Yy) concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'KAMA GEMS' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered marks, leading to a restraint on selling infringing products and preventing disparagement. Additionally, the court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Honasa Consumer Limited sought an interim injunction against Cloud Wellness Private Limited, alleging infringement of its trade dress and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, noting that the issues of originality, prior use, and distinctiveness of the 'Subject Trade Dress' are complex factual questions requiring a full trial. Given the prolonged market co-existence between both parties, the court found no compelling case for granting an immediate injunction.
Thrillophilia Travel Solutions Private Limited & Anr. v.Mrs Vishali Maggo & Ors.
Thrillophilia Travel Solutions filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defamation and disparagement of its trademark 'THRILLOPHILIA' by individuals who posted negative comments online. The Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint, preventing the defendants from uploading any new defamatory content using the Plaintiffs' marks or disparaging language on social media platforms. This order also allowed the Plaintiffs to file additional documents in the ongoing commercial suit.
M/S Gopika Industries v.Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Defendant's application seeking rectification of the Plaintiff's trademark registration. The core dispute centered on prior user rights, where the Defendant claimed earlier use of 'DAYAL' in cattle feed compared to the Plaintiff's earliest documented use. However, the Court found that the Defendant's claims were not tenable and did not raise a triable issue, upholding the validity of the Plaintiff's registered mark.
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited v.Registrar of Trademarks
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal of its 'Apollo' trademark application in the Gujarat High Court. The initial rejection was based on a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark, but the court accepted an affidavit and No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the owner of the cited mark. Consequently, the court quashed the original rejection order and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application.
Kei Industries Limited v.M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kei Industries Limited against M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, recognizing the urgent need for protection. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with seeking an ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the premises, allowing the Plaintiff to gather evidence of alleged trademark infringement related to 'KEI' and 'HOMECAB-FR'.
Dhanuka Agritech Limited v.Agrim Wholesale Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Dhanuka Agritech Limited against Agrim Wholesale Private Limited. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff's request for an urgent interim injunction and directed the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and inventory the alleged infringing goods, setting a clear path for immediate evidence gathering in the dispute.
Estuaries Industries Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the trademark application 'BLEND IT'. The court noted that the Respondent failed to consider the Petitioner's existing registered mark, 'BLEND IT RIGHT', in Class 32. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application, ensuring the prior registration is taken into account.
IFB Industries Limited v.Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya And Others
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint in the case of IFB Industries Limited vs Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya And Others. The court granted leave under relevant procedural rules, allowing the matter to proceed for scrutiny by the Department.
Gsp Crop Science Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors
Gsp Crop Science Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 298645 from the Register of Patents. The court heard initial arguments but adjourned the matter to allow counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 time to obtain instructions, noting that the patent is nearing its expiry date.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Verinder Cigrate Store And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pataka Industries against Verinder Cigrate Store. The court granted exemptions from advance service, filing certified copies, and mandatory pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed swiftly. Crucially, the court permitted a Local Commissioner to execute a commission to seize stock bearing similar marks ('S02 PATAKHA') to the Plaintiff's registered trademark '502 PATAKA', signaling strong judicial support for immediate injunctive relief.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv & Anr. v.Mr Lalit Kumar Goel & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of the plaintiffs, Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein. The court exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, it allowed an exemption from advance service to the defendants, recognizing the imminent risk that the defendant might conceal infringing operations. Crucially, the court directed local commissioners to inspect the premises to ascertain the value of deceptively similar stock and gather evidence against the alleged infringers.
Pooja Electric Co. v.Anand Tomar Trading As Pooja Rading Company
In this intellectual property dispute, the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Pooja Electric Co., to introduce evidence of subsequently registered trademarks into the ongoing litigation. Although the plaintiff sought an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court determined that since the original plaint already disclosed the pendency of these trademark applications, a formal amendment was unnecessary. The court permitted the plaintiff to rely on the registration certificates while leading evidence, allowing the suit to proceed toward the recording of evidence.
M/S Blinkit Private Limited / M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited v.M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited / The Registrar of Trade Marks Chennai
The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S Blinkit Private Limited and M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited. The petitions involved disputes over the validity and cancellation of specific trademark registrations (Nos. 3480206 and 3480207). Both parties submitted memos requesting the dismissal of their respective cases as withdrawn, leading to the court's order.