India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 38 of 311 · 7,456 total
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds used in JAKAVI tablets. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to execute the interim injunction.
Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark
Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Sunlife Sciences Private Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against Sunlife Sciences Private Limited alleging multiple infringements, including the use of a deceptively similar trademark (ZIMCOFIT) and copyright violation concerning product labels for their pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages based on both Trademark Act and Copyrights Act provisions. Ultimately, the parties reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Madras High Court, leading to the decree of the suit.
Novartis AG v.Vachichem International Private Limited
The Plaintiffs, Novartis AG, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Vachichem International Private Limited for infringing their Indian Patent No. 283133 covering Ribociclib. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and obtain accounts related to the alleged infringement.
Ashish Aggarwal v.M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in sports activities under his trademarks 'X1' and 'X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED', filed a suit against the defendant for infringing these marks. The court found that the defendant was using an identical and deceptively similar mark ('X1') in relation to similar services without permission.
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited v.Standard Corporation India Limited
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited filed a suit against Standard Corporation India Limited alleging infringement of its copyright and passing off. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the copyrighted drawings for its popular MF 245 DI tractor model and alleged that the defendant's Standard 348 tractor was an identical copy, either through direct copying or reverse engineering. The defense challenged the originality of the drawings and raised issues regarding the applicability of copyright law versus design registration.
Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Medivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.
Mangalam Organics Ltd v.N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking injunction against the Defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting significant differences in packaging and vending methods between the two products. While rejecting defenses of laches and acquiescence, the judge concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that consumers would be misled into believing the goods were those of the Plaintiff.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous rejection of an injunction application in a trademark/passing off dispute between Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd and M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the suit's commercial nature and high valuation (around 10 Crores), the court directed that the matter be treated as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Furthermore, it mandated the Trial Court to expedite the trial process and aim for a final decision by March 31, 2027.
Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Chirag Haresh Shah v.Suresh Kumar Garg And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a non-compliance issue where defendants failed to adhere to an earlier undertaking regarding the withdrawal of a specific trade mark application. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the withdrawal of trademark no. 4336864 in respect of 'SUPERMAC' within two weeks, provided all legal formalities are met. This order sets clear compliance timelines and mandates status reporting by the Trademark Registrar.
Caterpillar Inc v.Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd and Others
Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd for infringing Caterpillar's patents, designs, and trade marks related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court granted several interim applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and secure the alleged infringing stock.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.
Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors
Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Femilab Healthcare
The applicant sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, however, noted that the subject patent had already expired, leading to the vacation of the existing interim protection.
Titan Company Limited v.M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr.
Titan Company Limited filed a suit against M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrighted images, and registered designs associated with the 'Tanishq' brand. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were using these proprietary assets on their website and social media to sell jewellery products. After considering the submissions, including an undertaking from the Defendants, the court decreed the suit.
Frimline Private Limited v.K-Smatco Lifesciences Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants are infringing upon their patented pharmaceutical composition, IN 382949, and also copying content from the Plaintiffs' website. The Suit Patent covers a synergistic combination of Lactoferrin and Guanosine Nucleotide for treating anaemia. Based on the prima facie evidence presented, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from marketing or selling the infringing product 'FERROTOK PLUS', while also allowing interim protection for the Plaintiffs' copyright.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Femilab Healthcare & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application seeking permanent injunction to restrain Femilab Healthcare from infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Novartis v. Natco), observed that the patent in issue had already expired. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Active Ayurvedic Life Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Pstgems Private Limited, an ex parte ad-interim injunction in a suit alleging infringement and passing off related to its trademark 'BRAMPIUM' and associated copyrights. The court recognized the urgency of the matter concerning counterfeit products and ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with accessing Defendant No. 1's premises, reviewing CCTV footage, and examining account books and stock registers to gather evidence of infringement.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Motocorp Limited in its suit against Tarbolin Lubricants Private Limited. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to the appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is tasked with inspecting and ascertaining the value of infringing products bearing similar designs and trade-dress of Hero Engine Oil, allowing for their seizure on Superdari. This order reinforces the court's willingness to grant immediate protective measures against alleged design and trademark infringement.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
In this trademark rectification proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, the court noted that the petitioner's advocate-on-record was absent and no representative could furnish instructions. Due to the wastage of judicial time caused by the non-appearance, the court directed Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
Nitin Maheshwari And Anr v.Patanjali Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a procedural matter in an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Patanjali Foods Limited. The petitioners sought to challenge a previous dismissal order, which was related to their application under Section 151 CPC. Recognizing the core dispute involves trademark rights (infringement and passing off), the court directed that the petition be re-registered as CM(M)-IPD to ensure proper classification within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Chembott Chemicals And Pharmaceutical Private Limited and Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Chembott Chemicals. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the infringement of its registered trademark, 'COBADEX', by the defendants' mark, 'COZIDEX'. Given the nature of pharmaceutical products and the potential for irreparable harm to both parties and the public, the injunction was granted immediately until the next hearing date.