India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 47 of 311 · 7,456 total
Chet Chamnitiravanich v.Organovedics Through Its Partners Ms. Sonia and Mr. Nitin Gangadhar and Ors
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief to the plaintiff, Chet Chamnitiravanich. The court allowed the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory and seize counterfeit 'MENA' soap products being manufactured and exported by the defendants. Furthermore, recognizing the urgency of stopping counterfeiting, the court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory advance service requirements against key defendants.
Oramed Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Xiaomi for allegedly infringing their patented technology, 'A Communication Device Finder System', which is listed as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). The court dismissed both applications for interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of infringement and noting an inordinate delay in filing the suit.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. v.Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. was infringing its patent related to textile machinery. The suit sought an injunction, based on products being imported and used in Pune, Maharashtra. However, the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the Bombay High Court's purview. Consequently, the court allowed the application for return of the plaint, dismissing the amendment request as well.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.
M/S Swagath v.Dhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order. First, the petitioner was permitted to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Second, the court initiated proceedings regarding a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'SWAGATH' (Registration No. 2037599). Notice has been issued to the respondents, who are required to file their replies within six weeks, setting the stage for further litigation on the core issue of trademark validity.
Staar Surgical Company v.Jagrat Natvar Dave Trading As Polymer Technologies International & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a rectification application filed by Staar Surgical Company against the trademark 'IPC L' under No. 2511431. The court noted that despite multiple attempts by the Registry to serve notice, the applicant failed to appear or ensure proper service of process. Consequently, the application was disposed of for want of prosecution, though the petitioner retains the liberty to revive the case if difficulties are overcome.
Dabur India Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Array Biopharma, Inc & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN304285 ('ERBB Inhibitors') granted to Respondent No. 1 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding filing documents and extensions of time.
Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. v.Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Bhalla Sports Pvt Ltd. against Ashutosh Bhalla M/S Vinex Enterprises, directing the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration. The court found that the petitioner was the 'prior user' of the mark 'SOFT TOUCH' since 2001, which predated the respondent's application and use claims. Given the identical nature of the goods (sports goods) and the deceptive similarity of the marks, the court ruled that the subsequent registration was invalid and must be removed from the register.
Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal case, Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd vs Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr. The court allowed the appellant to withdraw a previously filed review petition. Crucially, the court also condoned a delay of 62 days in filing the main appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2025). Following these procedural orders, the case was listed for final hearing on May 27, 2025.
Network 18 Media And Investments Ltd v.Tv Today Network Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of trademark cancellation petitions filed by Network 18 Media against Tv Today Network Ltd. and others. The resolution was reached through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement signed between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 on July 1, 2025. Both parties confirmed their adherence to the terms of this agreement, leading the Court to close the proceedings without further litigation.
M/S Avriva Solutions & Ors. v.Avriva Skintech Private Limited & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed petitions filed by defendants against the trial court's orders in a trademark infringement suit. The court upheld the grant of an interim injunction, finding that the defendants were actively infringing the plaintiff's 'AVRIVA' trademark. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the plaint rejected on procedural grounds related to directorial authority, confirming the validity of the suit.
Sahil Sachdeva & Anr. v.Ayush Dhingra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit, granting plaintiffs several procedural exemptions crucial for urgent relief. Notably, the court exempted the plaintiffs from providing advance service to defendants, recognizing the risk that defendants might destroy evidence. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to inventory and seize infringing products and inspect relevant books of accounts, setting the stage for immediate enforcement against alleged trademark infringers.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Gunwal Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Gunwal Sports concerning alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The court recognized the public interest risk associated with consumer deception regarding the 'HERO' brand merchandise. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed without pre-litigation mediation or advance service, enabling the immediate appointment of a Local Commissioner for search and seizure of evidence.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Sunil Gupta
New Balance Athletics Inc. successfully secured several critical preliminary orders in its suit against Sunil Gupta regarding trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing immediate legal action. Crucially, the court passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEW BLANCO' and 'BALANCE'. Furthermore, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence and counterfeit products at the defendant's premises.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
Kroll Information Assurance, Llc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Ors
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a Peer-to-Peer Network search system. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on grounds that it fell under the excluded subject matter of 'computer program per se' and 'algorithm' as defined by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court upheld this rejection, concluding that the invention merely performs conventional search functions without demonstrating a demonstrable technical advancement to the hardware. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India & Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by Crocs Inc USA against various footwear manufacturers, including Bata India. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of Crocs' suits for passing off, which had previously been dismissed by a Single Judge. The court found that dismissing the suits outright was an error, as the claim for passing off extends beyond merely copying a registered design and requires factual examination.
Srinivas Jegannathan v.The Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting Patent Application No. 122/CHE/2006 for a novel antibiotic formulation (Ceftazidime, Tazobactum, and Linezolid). The appellant argued that the combination was not obvious from prior art. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the original claims.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v.Lmw Limited
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendant for using products allegedly infringing Indian Patents IN2447593 and IN3948834. The court focused only on IN2447593 (Spinpact) and found that since this patent had already expired on May 24, 2025, it could not grant an effective restraining order.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2554/DEL/2013) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step in view of prior art D-5. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
VIP Industries Ltd v.Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision granting an interim injunction to Carlton Shoes Ltd. against Vip Industries Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether Vip's adoption of the 'CARLTON' mark for travel luggage constituted passing off, despite both parties possessing registrations in Class 18. The court found that VIP undertook the risk by adopting a non-ordinary word mark without sufficient prior knowledge of Carlton's established use and goodwill, thus upholding the injunction.
Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.