India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 45 of 311 · 7,456 total
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of its patent application no. 201917042060 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant also sought condonation for a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.
E3D A.C. A. L. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent on January 27, 2025, which refused the Indian patent application titled 'MULTIPLE USE COMPUTERIZED INJECTOR'. The court first allowed the application seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing the appeal and granted exemptions for documentation.
Vikas Abhimanyu Gupta v.Dive Marketing Private Limited
In this interim application concerning a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court addressed the respondent's willingness to withdraw certain trademarks. The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit from its responsible officer within one week, indicating that the matter is proceeding through procedural steps rather than a final judgment on infringement or validity.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Anr. v.Janricsan Pharma P Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Janricsan Pharma P Ltd. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the potential for dangerous public confusion due to the similarity between the parties' pharmaceutical product names. This protective order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under marks deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks until the final hearing.
M/s. Ttk Prestige Limited v.Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali
In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.
Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.
Lotus Herbals Private Limited v.Nishtu Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Lotus Herbals Private Limited to implead a new entity, Jhalak Cosmetics Store, as a defendant in its trademark infringement suit. This decision was based on the plaintiff's discovery that the new store was selling counterfeit products using the infringing 'LOTUS' mark and trade dress. Furthermore, the court extended the existing interim injunction to this newly added defendant and granted extensive powers to a Local Commissioner to conduct search, seizure, and document examination at the premises of the infringer.
Piyush Agrawal v.Velbiom Probiotics Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Piyush Agrawal against Velbiom Probiotics. The court granted an initial restraint, requiring the defendants to confine their use of the mark 'Happy Cultures' solely to Prebiotic and Probiotic products until further hearing. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to file additional documents, while the court also exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to its urgent nature.
Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade
The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.
UTO Nederland B.V. v.Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.
Valary Lab Private Ltd v.G1 Therapeutics Inc & Anr.
The petitioner, Valary Lab Private Ltd, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 434029 and an injunction against threats related to its alleged infringement. The court allowed applications for additional documents and granted notice to all parties. The case is set for re-notification on November 12, 2025.
Elofic Industries Limited v.Mobis India Limited
The Delhi High Court consolidated two commercial suits (CS(COMM) 17/2016 and CS(COMM) 363/2018) involving Elofic Industries Limited and Mahle Filter Systems India Private Limited versus Mobis India Limited. The court proceeded to frame detailed issues for trial, focusing heavily on whether the plaintiff's use of the defendant's trademarks qualifies as 'honest use' under Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further issues addressed the maintainability of the suit and the possibility of granting permanent injunction against criminal complaints.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co.Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected its application for a patent related to aripiprazole microspheres. The core contention raised by Otsuka was that the rejection order lacked any reasoned justification, failing to discuss the invention or adequately address prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The Calcutta High Court agreed with this assessment, finding the impugned order unreasoned and unsustainable.
Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning trademark oppositions, where Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite pending proceedings. The court recognized that the delay in disposal was unjustified given the history of the applications and oppositions. Consequently, the High Court issued a mandate directing the Registrar of Trademarks to conclude both opposition cases within a strict three-month timeframe.
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention to compel the Registrar of Trademarks to decide an opposition petition and trademark application within a fixed timeframe. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition because the underlying matter had already been decided by the Trademark Office on July 9, 2025, rendering the petitioner's request moot.
Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the trademark dispute concerning an allegedly forged assignment deed. Given that Respondent No. 2 filed an assignment deed which is being challenged, the court mandated that Respondent No. 1 (the Registrar) must file a detailed response within four weeks. Furthermore, the Registrar must specify the safeguards taken by the Trade Marks Registry when processing such assignments, highlighting concerns over potential fraud.
Google Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Google LLC challenging the refusal to register its trademark 'OUTLINE'. The core issue involved potential conflicts with existing trademarks. Recognizing that two pending rectification petitions, which directly impacted the dispute, were lodged in different registries (Chennai and Ahmedabad), the court took a procedural step. It directed the transfer of these two related rectification petitions to the High Court for consolidation with the main appeal, ensuring a unified adjudication of all interconnected trademark matters.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ram Babu
Asian Paints Limited challenged the High Court's decision that barred its ability to appeal a criminal acquittal concerning counterfeit products. The case originated from an incident where the company found unauthorized, similar-looking paint in the market. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the company, as the rights holder and victim of IP infringement (trademark and copyright), could utilize the provisions of Section 372 CrPC to challenge the acquittal. The apex court held that the proviso creates a substantive right for victims, allowing the appeal to be restored.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kindwaves Healthcare Private Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs favoring the plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory of all products bearing the allegedly infringing mark 'KINDWAVES' at the defendant's premises. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of the matter, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation and granted exemption from advance service, allowing the suit to proceed swiftly.
Bishan Purohit v.Mr Nensingh & Ors
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Bishan Purohit following an amicable settlement reached with Defendants 1 through 4. The defendants admitted the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in registered trademarks (MONITOR LABEL & MONITEC LABEL) and trade names, agreeing to cease using deceptively similar marks like MONTEIL LABEL. Furthermore, the court also passed a decree against Defendant No. 5 due to their default and withdrawal of relevant trademark applications, reinforcing the plaintiff's exclusive rights.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Ashiana Ispat Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant's application to consolidate two related commercial suits, CS(COMM) 569/2025 and CS(COMM) 130/2025. Furthermore, the court issued detailed directions requiring the defendant to file extensive documentation, including three years of accounts, Income Tax Returns, and agreements pertaining to the trademark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD'. This order sets the stage for a deeper factual examination regarding the alleged trademark usage.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Mold Tek Packaging Limited challenged a Commercial Court order that had vacated an ad-interim injunction restraining Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing and selling products infringing Mold Tek's patents (IN 4014173 and IN 2987244). The suit patents relate to tamper-evident lid closure systems used for food containers. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Commercial Court had erred in its application of legal principles regarding infringement. Consequently, the original injunction was restored to remain in operation pending a fresh consideration by the lower court.
Ricky Rubber Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Ricky Rubber Industries challenging the Trade Marks Registry's rejection of an application for rectification. The petitioner sought to correct a minor typographical error—a wrong registration number—in a recordal form (FORM TM-P). The court ruled that procedural rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to dilute substantive rights, directing the Registrar to accept the rectification application and make the necessary amendments.
Vinit Dua v.Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.