India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 39 of 311 · 7,456 total
Urban Money Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Urban Money Private Limited appealed a trademark opposition decision before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Registrar's rejection of its 'URBAN MONEY' application. The appellant argued that the opposing party's claim of prior use was unsubstantiated by external evidence. While the case proceeds toward mediation and further arguments, the court granted an interim stay on the impugned order, providing immediate protection to the trademark applicant.
Syngene International Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & The Controller of Patents
Syngene appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method predicting organ toxicity. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, particularly regarding the requirement of novel hardware for CRIs. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the contribution lies in software and directing reconsideration based on updated guidelines.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.Gautam Kumar & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Gautam Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, addressing alleged infringement of its flagship 'MAXO' brand mosquito repellent product. The court recognized that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spying cameras embedded within or bearing deceptively similar marks to the plaintiff's registered products. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from dealing in these infringing goods and ordered to remove all related listings and advertisements from major e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart.
Zepto Private Limited & Anr. v.Owner Of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.Com & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Zepto Private Limited sought an interim injunction against domain name holders. The court proceeded with the initial stages of litigation, granting several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. While the core dispute over trademark rights and domain squatting remains pending, the court has set out a detailed schedule for service of summons and filing pleadings.
Jain Shikanji Private Limited v.Satish Kumar Jain
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal challenging a prior injunction against the use of the trademark 'Jain Shikanji'. The court found evidence suggesting continued infringement, despite assurances from the appellant. Consequently, the court mandated that Jain Shikanji Private Limited provide detailed affidavits regarding its current branding and bank account usage, while immediately ceasing the use of the disputed mark on digital payment platforms like UPI.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha, the patent holder of e-rickshaws/e-vehicles, appealed a judgment that had previously directed registration authorities to register these vehicles. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ashok Kumar (Unkown)
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Dainik Jagran News Papers Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the suit. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to defend against the use of the impugned mark by Defendant No. 1. Crucially, the court clarified that these dismissals do not prejudice the underlying claims regarding proprietary rights in the 'Dainik Jagran' trademark, which remain sub judice in other proceedings.
Xx And Anr v.Yy
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Xx And Anr against Yy concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the mark 'HARDWYN'. While a prima facie case was established, the court opted not to grant an immediate ad-interim injunction due to the defendant's existing registration. The court issued notice to the defendant for reply and granted several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Pstgems Private Limited v.M/S Sonu Motor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Pstgems Private Limited in its suit against M/S Sonu Motor & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiff, a health tech company selling nutraceutical products, to proceed with urgent measures despite seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory of the alleged infringing goods and packaging materials, paving the way for immediate enforcement against suspected trademark and copyright infringement.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking impleadment of third parties claiming proprietary rights in 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed these applications, finding them not to be necessary or proper parties to the current dispute concerning Defendant No. 1's use of the mark. However, the court clarified that the applicants' claims regarding their ownership rights will remain sub judice and subject to separate proceedings.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Amgen Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Amgen Inc. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that claims 1-13 of Patent Application No. 5857/CHENP/2008 were not patentable due to various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the claimed invention satisfied all requirements for protection and directing that the application proceed to grant.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Shilpa Medicare Limited
The suit was filed by Pharmacyclics Llc seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Registered Patent No. 262968 by Shilpa Medicare Limited. The parties subsequently entered into a successful settlement agreement through mediation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Anthem Biosciences Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from dealing in products that infringe their patent (IN 294424) related to Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those for document production and exemption from mediation. In the main application for interim injunction, the Defendant provided an undertaking not to launch infringing products.
Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. v.The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.
This appeal challenged a lower court's decision that rejected an application to dismiss a suit based on lack of jurisdiction. The respondent, holding registered trademarks like POLO, sued the petitioners (Da Polo) for infringement and passing off related to their use of similar marks online. The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order, finding that since both parties were conducting business through interactive websites and e-commerce platforms within the court's jurisdiction, a valid cause of action existed.
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register a trademark application. The core issue revolves around whether a cited mark had been properly assigned to the appellant before the refusal order was issued. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for both parties, indicating that the matter is proceeding through the appellate process.
K.Gobinath v.Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the framing of issues in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioners argued that the court failed to frame an issue regarding the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'Anugraha' trademark registration, which they claimed was based on fraud and common usage. However, the High Court ultimately allowed the petition partly by directing the Commercial Court to frame specific additional issues concerning the validity of the mark.
Cipla Limited v.Union Of India Through Department Of Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cipla Limited, directing the Trademark Registry to allow the renewal of its 'TRIEXER' trademark. The core finding was that the Registry failed to serve the mandatory statutory 'O3 notice' required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the trademark having lapsed and the petitioner failing to file timely renewals, the court emphasized this procedural lapse by the Respondent, granting Cipla a chance to regularize its mark.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Phillips 66 Company And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application seeking the rectification and cancellation of a trademark dispute between Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited and Phillips 66 Company. The court issued interim directions, requiring both parties to file their respective Affidavits-in-Opposition within three weeks from the judgment date. This procedural step moves the matter forward in the ongoing intellectual property litigation.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Vilas Nemichand Jain
The Bombay High Court allowed Pidilite Industries Ltd. to amend its original suit, which was initially filed for passing off. The plaintiffs sought to introduce claims for trademark infringement after successfully registering their mark during the pendency of the trial. The court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply in this case, noting that allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This decision allows the suit to evolve and incorporate stronger IP protections.
Officine Maccaferri S. P. A. v.Techfab India Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an injunction and account of profits against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from pre-institution mediation and condonation of delay in filing replies.