India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 39 of 295 · 7,068 total
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revoke a dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using the mark 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the issue (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Citing precedents, the judge held that without a clear explanation for the delay, the urgency was artificially created, leading to the revocation of the dispensation.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case involved a dispute over trademarks and copyright infringement concerning plastic products marketed under 'Pankaj Flex' by the plaintiff. The core legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether the plaintiff could revoke an earlier dispensation granted to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court scrutinized the nine-month delay between the alleged date of knowledge (January 2024) and the filing of the suit (September 2024).
Hermes International & Anr. v.Neofusion Commerce Through Sole Proprietor Mr. Rishabh Jain & Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Hermes International against Neofusion Commerce, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 6, 2025. While the plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of their registered trademarks in relation to luxury bags and accessories, the court referred the parties to pre-litigation mediation. The defendants were granted a temporary reprieve, agreeing not to deal with existing disputed inventory while proposing alternative product variations.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.
Mohammed Azam Trading As Noor Ahmed Mohd Azam v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters: first, it condoned a minor delay in the petitioner's rectification petition. Second, the court initiated proceedings to cancel the trademark 'SARDARJI MASALE WALE NURY'. The court ordered notice to be served on all parties and directed the summoning of the complete registration record from the Trademark Registry for review.
Vidya Bhushan Jain v.Mohammed Younus Sheikh And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning Trademark No. 605340 after finding that the core issue had been resolved by the parties. The court noted that the trademark renewal process was completed, with the mark being renewed for another ten years. Consequently, the High Court set aside an earlier order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and allowed the petitioner's trademark to continue subsisting in the Register.
Goethe-Institut E.V. v.Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Goethe-Institut E.V., a well-known cultural institute, against Abhishek Yadav and others. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's use of similar marks like 'MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE' was likely to cause confusion among the public regarding their association with the established brand. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its prior goodwill and reputation in the market for German language courses, warranting immediate protective relief pending the final trial.
M/S Mittal Electronics v.Mr. Rohit Rana
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Rohit Rana. The settlement involved the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'SUJATA' trademark, apologizing for infringement and passing off, and undertaking not to use similar marks in the future. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as costs and Rs. 10,00,000 as liquidated damages in case of any breach.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Qpharm Health Care Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Uber India Systems Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, which sought to stop defendants from broadcasting an advertisement allegedly infringing or disparaging the 'Royal Challengers Bengaluru' trademark. The court found that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate irreparable harm. Furthermore, balancing the convenience between free commercial speech and the plaintiff's claims, the court allowed the advertisement to continue.
M/S Mittal Electronics Through Its Partner Mr. Akhil Aggarwal v.Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai @ Vijay Prajapati Trading as Shree Ganesh Industries
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai. The settlement confirmed that the Plaintiff exclusively owns the 'SUJATA' trademark and required the Defendant to apologize for infringement and passing off. Crucially, the Defendant agreed to cease all use of similar marks, destroy existing goods, and pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs, while also undertaking a liquidated damages clause.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
M/S. Panchajanya Features v.Bommareddy Ashok Reddy
This Civil Revision Petition challenged the Trial Court's refusal to transfer a copyright dispute concerning the Telugu movie "Vinnapalu Vinavale Vintha Vinthalu" to the specialized Commercial Court. The petitioners argued that since the matter involved intellectual property rights and exceeded the specified pecuniary threshold, it inherently fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, setting aside the Trial Court's order and allowing the petition for rejection of the suit.
Tv Today Network v.Saurashtra Aaj Tak And Anr
In a matter concerning alleged passing off, Tv Today Network (Appellant) raised concerns that the Respondent, Saurashtra Aaj Tak, continued to use the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' despite an existing decree in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant emphasized that her trademark had since been registered and declared 'well known.' The Delhi High Court has scheduled a further hearing on May 13, 2025, to address these ongoing infringement claims.
Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. v.Madhu Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. seeking the rectification or revocation of an impugned trademark registration (Application No. 1880542) in Class 35, which was granted to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners initially sought various interim injunctions and reliefs against multiple respondents, but subsequently withdrew claims against certain parties. The Court proceeded by deleting the withdrawn respondents and issued notice to the remaining parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders.
M/S. Rashik Soap Factory v.The Registrar Of Copyright & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S. Rashik Soap Factory to amend its ongoing petition by incorporating a subsequent trademark registration. The petitioner sought to update the court record, confirming that they had acquired ownership of Trademark No. 4176479 through an assignment deed during the pendency of the case. This order allows the petitioner to formally bring this change in IP ownership before the court, ensuring all relevant facts are on record for the ongoing litigation.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, which is crucial given the immediate need for evidence collection. Most notably, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged counterfeit 'HERO' branded auto parts, thereby bolstering the plaintiffs' case for injunction and damages.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
SSAB TECHNOLOGY AB v.DEEPAK DINESH MEHTA AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court issued a complex order in the trademark infringement suit, partially granting relief to SSAB Technology Ab. The court decreed the suit regarding specific permanent injunctions against the defendants concerning their use of infringing marks (HARDOX/Leomet-alloys). However, the court noted that the plaintiff declined an offer for full settlement and directed the suit to remain pending on remaining money claims, setting the stage for further litigation.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and Others
The appeal was filed by Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights. The respondent argued that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the Deputy Registrar's office is in New Delhi, citing amendments to the Copyright Act and judicial precedents on forum shopping. The Jharkhand High Court ultimately held that it possesses the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.