India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 44 of 311 · 7,456 total
Upgrad Education Private Limited v.Lavangiri Ansar Basha And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Upgrad Education Private Limited against Lavangiri Ansar Basha and others. The court found that the defendant was actively making false, malicious, and disparaging statements about the plaintiff's brand 'upGrad' on social media platforms, including using the trademark with derogatory hashtags like 'scam' and 'fraud'. Consequently, the defendant is restrained from further defamatory posts until the next hearing, while the plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs.
Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v.Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application concerning the alleged contempt of a prior injunction order. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants continued using the trademarks 'Rasna' and 'Rasna Buzz' despite the expiration of their Master License Agreement (MLA). While the court noted the dispute over a purported new agreement, it primarily directed the Defendants to file their reply within two weeks. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the existing injunction order must be strictly complied with.
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged an order of refusal dated 30.05.2023 passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The Petitioner argued that the Impugned Order summarily rejected the application without examining the submissions made in response to the First Examination Report (FER).
Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors
Malikie Innovations Ltd filed a suit against Xiaomi Corporation seeking restraining orders against infringing their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are incorporated into 4G and 5G cellular standards. The Plaintiffs also seek damages and declarations regarding FRAND compliance. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including leave to amend claims and grant temporary injunctions.
ITC Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
ITC Ltd challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for 'METHOD OF PRODUCING AEROSOL GENERATING SUBSTRATE'. The core contention was that the rejection, based on non-patentability and lack of inventive step, violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the Controller relied on technical materials not furnished to them at any prior stage or during the hearing. Recognizing this serious procedural infirmity, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Moti Mahal Delux Management Services against its ex-franchisee, M/S Doyir Eshi & Anr. The court found that the defendant was willfully infringing upon the Plaintiffs' well-known and registered trade marks, specifically 'Moti Mahal' and 'Tandoori Trail'. The order immediately restrained the defendant from using confusingly similar marks in their restaurant business and mandated the removal of all impugned references from public platforms.
Upgrid Solutions Private Limited v.Vikas Pal And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Upgrid Solutions against Vikas Pal and others. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial evidence, including GPS-tagged photographs of unauthorized swap stations and true-caller screenshots, citing the need for substantial justice. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of protecting its 'Battery Smart' brand, the Court granted an interim injunction through the appointment of Receivers to secure the plaintiff's assets and prevent further infringement.
Innoviti Payment Solutions Private Limited v.Pine Labs Private Limited
The Original Suit filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, was listed for an interlocutory application. The plaintiff subsequently submitted that they were withdrawing the suit, which the court accepted and dismissed it as withdrawn. Additionally, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed due to the prior revocation order.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed an order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding an interim application in a patent dispute. The respondents argued they had a license to manufacture but not sell the impugned drug in India, reserving the right to export. The High Court disposed of the appeal, advancing the date for further consideration on the issue of export.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of two Indian patents related to Pertuzumab (Perjeta). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and selling a competing version. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to conduct necessary analytical characterization or reverse engineering of the defendant's product as required under Section 104A.
Astral Ltd v.Grasim Industries Ltd
Astral Ltd successfully reached an amicable settlement with Grasim Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to building materials. The court accepted the joint application, leading to a decree that incorporates all the detailed settlement terms. Under these terms, Grasim recognized Astral's exclusive rights while agreeing to adopt a new label and cease using the impugned mark in specific ways, effectively resolving the dispute.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v.Ajanta Pharma Limited
This is an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in a suit concerning alleged infringement of patents. The court settled several issues, including whether the defendants' activities infringe specific patents and the validity/restoration status of one of the patents.
Lucas TVS Limited v.FFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 202117018914. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal due to an inadvertent error in filing.
Haveli Restaurants And Resorts Ltd. v.Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Haveli Restaurants and Resorts Ltd. challenging the rejection of its opposition against a trademark application for 'AMRITSARI HAVELI.' The core issue was whether the Appellant was properly served with the Counter Statement, leading to the Opposition being deemed abandoned. While the court allowed applications related to delay and record summoning, it proceeded to issue notice for written submissions on the main appeal, indicating that the matter is moving toward a substantive hearing.
Asif Ahmad Najar v.Yasir Farooq Shirgugurie & Anr.
Asif Ahmad Najar filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of an existing trademark registration held by Respondent No. 1, which bears the name 'Baker's Hub'. The petitioner also sought a declaration establishing his prior and rightful use of the mark. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their replies within four weeks, setting the matter for further hearing in November 2025.
M/S Nature Magic World v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
M/S Nature Magic World challenged the Registrar of Trademarks' failure to recognize a Deed of Assignment that transferred two trademarks, 'COLORESSENCE' and 'COLORESSENCE eyes spy', to them. The Petitioner argued that despite the assignment, the records incorrectly showed the predecessor company as the owner. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar to consider the Petitioner's representations for correcting the ownership status within four weeks, taking into account a no-objection from the original proprietor.
Lacoste S.A. v.Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited
Lacoste S.A. filed a suit against Ninety Nine Labels Private Limited and others for infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to its trademark LACOSTE and associated labels. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were using identical or deceptively similar marks on goods like tags, buttons, and packaging materials. The court decreed the suit in favor of Lacoste.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zydus Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab used in cancer treatment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was planning to launch a bio-similar version (ZRC-3276) during the patent's term. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and irreparable loss would occur without immediate relief.
Brawn Biotech Ltd. v.Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Brawn Biotech Ltd. against Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd., following the failure of mediation proceedings to settle the dispute. The court has set out procedural timelines, including filing written statements and replication. Crucially, the court also granted notice for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application, allowing the plaintiffs to seek immediate protection against alleged infringement of the 'BRAWN' trademark.
Chemo Healthcare Private Limited v.Examiner Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Chemo Healthcare Private Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'VILDAZE'. The court held that despite objections raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, the appellant was entitled to have the mark advertised. This decision allows the applicant to establish prior use and address any third-party opposition on its merits.
Oncquest Laboratories Limited v.Manish Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Oncquest Laboratories Limited, successfully challenging the registration of the identical mark 'ONCQUEST' held by the respondent. The court found that the petitioner was the prior user and adopter of the trademark since 2007, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of use for their registered mark. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill of the petitioner, leading to the cancellation of the impugned registration.
Astha Jain & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs against various traders accused of selling counterfeit goods. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the marks 'AYUVYA', 'i-GAIN+', 'IMFRESH', and 'BOOBEAUTIFUL'. Consequently, all defendants were restrained from using these impugned marks until further hearing, and specific directions were issued to take down product listings from major e-commerce platforms.
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Ms. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the trademark dispute involving Abbott Products Operations Ag and Alrom Pharmaceuticals. The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking leave to file additional documents, while simultaneously initiating proceedings for a rectification petition concerning the 'KREOFLAT' trademark. This order sets out timelines for both parties to file replies and written synopses, moving the core dispute forward.