India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 43 of 311 · 7,456 total
Hi Tech Products Private Limited v.Gopal Radios
The suit was filed by Hi Tech Products Private Limited, which uses the registered trademark FALCON for electrical goods since 1977. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Gopal Radios, adopted and used the deceptively similar mark 'FALCON' on products, including counterfeit electric wires and cables. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Jk India Eagritech Limited & Anr. v.Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jk India Eagritech Limited against Meera Trade Fair Media Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, logos, and associated copyright content. This urgent order restricts the Defendants from using or operating any website, social media pages, or promoting marks deceptively similar to 'ChiniMandi,' 'Bio Mandi,' and 'Bio Energy Times.'
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd v.Controller Of Patents and Designs and Another
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting their patent registration based on cited prior art. The court recognized the need for expert opinion to determine if the invention possessed inventive steps over the existing prior art documents.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning its application for a foam laminate product used in vehicle interiors. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-speaking, failed to consider their submissions, and introduced new grounds (Section 10(5)) at the final stage, violating natural justice. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
M/S. Askaaf Al-Sharq Trading Company v.Al-Noor Tradition P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed a multi-pronged order in the trademark dispute between M/S. Askaaf Al-Sharq Trading Company and Al-Noor Tradition P. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff's request for exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, allowing the case to proceed directly. Simultaneously, it set dates for filing replies regarding the defendant's application for trademark rectification and the plaintiff's interim injunction request, moving the core dispute towards active litigation.
Hilton Worldwide Manage Limited v.M/S Hotel Hilton
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'HILTON' brand, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on July 29, 2025. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption regarding document translation while simultaneously facilitating a resolution through mandatory mediation. Crucially, the defendants stated their willingness to cease using the disputed trademark, leading the court to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre and adjourn further proceedings pending its outcome.
M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Al Kareem
In a dispute over trademark similarity, the Madras High Court addressed M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking rectification of Al Kareem's mark 'AL Kareem'. Despite the petitioner asserting long-standing goodwill and deceptive similarity, the court ultimately favored the respondent. The judgment recognized the existing use of 'AL Kareem' in Hyderabad but imposed a crucial geographical limitation on its registration to prevent confusion outside that specific region.
Thumbtack Inc. v.Sangvish Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Thumbtack Inc. against Sangvish Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's mark 'THUMBSUP' is a deliberate and mala fide imitation of Thumbtack’s registered trademark, 'THUMBTACK.' The court noted the triple identity—identical mark, identical product category (home services), and identical consumer base—and restrained the Defendants from using any deceptively similar marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an Appeal under Section 117A(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 26.12.2024 which rejected its patent application (No. 202211027823). The court also disposed of applications regarding exemption and condoned a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal.
Diya Aggarwal v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
Diya Aggarwal has filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register her trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and set out a procedural schedule for the matter. This order directs both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders, indicating that the case is moving forward through the appellate process.
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.M. B. Enterprises
Ferrero Spa filed a suit against M. B. Enterprises alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition related to its globally recognized brand, NUTELLA. Following reports of counterfeit products being manufactured under the same name in Thane, Maharashtra, Ferrero sought immediate protection. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged infringing activities until further proceedings.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Eco Tech Recycling & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Eco Tech Recycling & Ors. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, ruling that the defendants' actions—specifically reintroducing scrapped or disposed products into the market—posed grave harm to the reputation and goodwill associated with the plaintiff's registered trademarks (including PURPLLE) and copyrights. This protective order aims to safeguard consumer trust and prevent further unauthorized commercial activity related to the plaintiffs' intellectual property.
Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued further directions in the trademark infringement suit filed by Indmoney Tech Private Limited. The court recognized that unknown entities were using the 'INDmoney/' trademarks across various digital platforms—including websites, WhatsApp, Telegram, and mobile apps—to defraud customers with fraudulent stock advice. The judgment specifically directed platform providers (like WhatsApp/Telegram operators) and financial institutions to take immediate action against the identified infringing accounts and bank details, reinforcing the court's stance on protecting brand integrity in the digital age.
Zenith Spray And Aerosols Pvt Ltd v.Urmila Goel Tin Works And Packaging
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing injunction against Urmila Goel Tin Works and Packaging after finding that the defendant's packaging remained deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade dress, despite changing its trademark. The court found that merely altering the brand name did not negate the infringement of the distinctive visual appearance (trade dress). Consequently, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises to prevent further violation of the original order.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited appealed the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently obtained registrations for ceiling fans that infringed upon Atomberg's registered design (No. 309694). The dispute also involved claims of passing off due to similarity in aesthetic features and market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan'. The dispute also involved claims of passing off, given Atomberg's established market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order that refused to grant an interim injunction against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied its registered ceiling fan design, 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan,' and committed passing off. The court examined the comparison between the two designs and found that prima facie differences existed in various aspects of the products and packaging. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed Atomberg's appeal, upholding the lower court's decision.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan.' The dispute involved claims of both design infringement and passing off, given the similarity between the products. The Bombay High Court examined the comparison table provided by both parties. Ultimately, the court found that Atomberg failed to demonstrate 'something more' than mere similarity required for a successful claim of passing off at the interim stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.
Mohun Nicholas D'Souza v.The Controller of Patents of Designs
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its Indian Patent No. 3945681, which covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court allowed an application for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2 after finding inescapable liability due to admissions made by the defendant.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Jaishankar
The plaintiff, Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt Ltd., claimed that its registered trademark 'HANS CHAAP' was being infringed and passed off by the defendants in relation to tobacco products. Despite initial interim injunctions, the suit proceeded despite non-appearance of several defendants. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction against Defendants 2 to 5 and awarding costs.
Pt Tech, Llc v.The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
The petition challenges the action of Respondent No.1 (Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks) for accepting a Counter Statement filed by Respondent No.2 beyond the statutory two-month period stipulated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court noted that the matter would be heard ex-parte against Respondent No.2 due to non-appearance despite service.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ajay Aggarwal
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Ajay Aggarwal, was manufacturing and selling goods using the deceptively similar trademark/label 'LV'. The court found that the defendant was violating the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, Quality Tools Srl, appealed against an order rejecting its Patent Application (3902/NP/2010) due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. The court found that the rejection order was devoid of proper reasoning and failed to apply sufficient judicial mind. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.