India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 46 of 311 · 7,456 total
Vijay v.Havells India Limited
This order addresses procedural matters concerning a suit filed by an unnamed plaintiff against Vijay, which involves claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair trade practices. The petitioner (Vijay) is defending this suit, and the court directed that the petition be formally registered as CM (Main) (IPD) to ensure proper handling within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Array Biopharma Inc & Anr.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN304285 before the Delhi High Court. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner regarding document submission and extensions, while formally initiating the main revocation proceedings.
Dolby International Ab v.Lava International Limited
Dolby filed a suit claiming infringement of its SEPs related to AAC technology against Lava. During negotiations, which failed, Dolby sought interim relief and the court directed Lava to provide security. The court subsequently ordered Lava to deposit or guarantee INR 20,08,06,293.92 covering past sales (2019-2024) as a pro tem measure.
M/s. K.A.S.Zainulabdin And Co. v.K.G.Subramaniam and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark '399 BRAND K.G.S. SUBRAMANI AND CO' in Class 25. The court granted the relief after both parties reached an agreement: the contesting respondent agreed to change its trade mark, and the petitioner consented to this change. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the disputed entry from the register within 30 days.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Kapoor Bike Point
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. against Kapoor Bike Point, affirming the seriousness of the alleged IP infringements. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service to the defendant, recognizing the urgent need for protection due to potential consumer deception. Crucially, the Court granted an injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement claims, allowing for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises.
Zepto Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Zepto Private Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific trademark registration (No. 2773518) from Class 9. The court granted procedural directions, allowing the petitioner to file additional documents and setting timelines for both parties to submit replies, rejoinders, and a combined written synopsis. This order moves the case forward in the process of challenging the validity or use of the registered mark.
Orient Electric Limited v.R. R. Kabel Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Orient Electric Limited seeking the removal/cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by R. R. Kabel Limited in Class 11. The court initiated the formal proceedings, issuing notices to the respondents and setting detailed timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and conjoint written synopsis. This order moves the case forward into the substantive phase of challenging the existing trademark registration.
Krishan Lal Bansal v.Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Krishan Lal Bansal, who challenged the Registrar of Trademarks for incorrectly showing his 'Ganesh Chap' trademark status as 'Removed'. The court found that the initial registration was flawed—issued years late but confined to a past date (03.02.1996). Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if renewal was neglected, the Respondent failed in its duty by not issuing proper notices before cancellation. Consequently, the Registrar was mandated to issue a renewed trademark certificate with future validity.
Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd. v.Vivekananda Chintapalli
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd., directing the removal of a confusingly similar trademark registration held by Vivekananda Chintapalli. The court found that the petitioner's inherently distinctive mark, used for e-gaming computer hardware, was strikingly similar to the respondent's registered mark in Class 9. Given the substantial turnover and commercial presence of the petitioner, the continued existence of the impugned entry was deemed likely to cause public confusion or deception.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. v.Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. filed a commercial suit against Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co., alleging infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to edible products. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the potential health risks associated with substandard goods. Furthermore, the court condoned a delay in re-filing the suit, allowing the main plaint seeking permanent injunction for infringement to be registered and listed before the court.
M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry And Engineering Works v.Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry against Hindustan Technocast regarding the trademark 'BADAL'. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's registration was obtained through fraud and fabricated documents. However, the court held that while anomalies in the respondent's documentation were noted, the petitioner failed to establish the veracity of their claims on the face of it. Consequently, the cancellation of the long-standing mark could not be granted without a thorough evidentiary test before the Trial Court.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Jai Shree Krishna Cement & Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed an interim application filed by UltraTech Cement, finding that the defendants were willfully disobeying a prior court order restraining them from using deceptively similar trademarks. To enforce compliance and stop the continuing wrong, the Court ordered the attachment of the bank accounts belonging to two defendant partners for a period of six months. This action underscores the judiciary's willingness to use stringent measures under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC to protect registered well-known trademarks against persistent infringement.
Sunil Niranjan Shah v.Vijay Bahadur
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a trademark infringement suit filed by Sunil Niranjan Shah against Vijay Bahadur. Crucially, the court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the defendant's suspicious conduct and history of similar infringing activities through related parties. The court also directed the defendant to appear physically on the next date of hearing, signaling continued judicial scrutiny over the matter.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Caremankind Hospital Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Caremankind Hospital Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical or deceptively similar marks ('MANKIND'/'CAREMANKIND') in relation to similar services. This crucial early ruling protects Mankind Pharma's established brand equity while the main suit proceeds.
Lt Foods Limited v.Murli Flour Mills P Ltd
Lt Foods Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Murli Flour Mills P Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, a major player in the rice and food category, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks 'DAAWAT' and 'DAWAT' by using an identical mark for premium 'Jeera'. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, granting immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 784/CHE/2012 for an 'Accelerator Safety Control Device'. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1-D3, which were primarily related to four-wheeler vehicles. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
L And T Valves Limited v.M/S Ksa Valve Control Inc. & Ors.
In a case concerning the alleged passing off of its goods, L And T Valves Limited successfully secured several critical interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation due to the sensitive nature of the industry (defence, aerospace, oil & gas). Crucially, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with powers to search and seize infringing products at the defendants' premises, providing a strong procedural step in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
Pankaj Yadav v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pankaj Yadav against the Union of India and others. The petitioner sought intervention regarding alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by a third respondent manufacturing a similar product. However, the court found that the petitioner lacked an individual grievance or public interest standing to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction, leading to the petition's dismissal.
Adventia Pharma, S.L & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adventia Pharma appealed against the Assistant Controller's order dated January 29, 2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117035025. The court allowed applications for exemption and condonation of delay before directing parties to file synopsis and list the case.
Gruner Ag v.Guangxi Ramway Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for alleged patent infringement. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and replication. Various interim applications regarding stay, additional documents, and directions to Customs were also addressed.
Albemarle Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Albemarle Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 2897/DELNP/2012) by the Controller of Patents, which cited lack of novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the appellant sought to file an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to a process aspect for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court allowed this amendment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Soni Hospitality Services & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit between Moti Mahal Delux Management Services and Soni Hospitality Services based on an amicable settlement. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's registered trademarks ('Moti Mahal', 'Tandoori Trail') and agreed to cease all use of confusingly similar marks, hand over promotional materials, and adhere strictly to the terms of a new franchise agreement. This judgment highlights how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through negotiated settlements.
Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati House v.Vijay Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.
Reliance Retail Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Reliance Retail Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the matter involving mass consumer deception and financial fraud. Furthermore, the plaintiff was exempted from advanced service upon certain defendants, allowing the main suit concerning trademark rights (Tira) to be formally registered and proceed.