India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 48 of 311 · 7,456 total
YKK Corporation v.Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl
YKK Corporation successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a conflicting trademark entry, '4 KK', registered under Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl. The court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the specified registration within 30 days. This ruling reinforces the rights of established brand owners against potentially confusing or infringing marks.
products and ideas india pvt ltd v.nilkamal limited
M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. sued Nilkamal Limited and others for trademark infringement, alleging unauthorized use of the 'STELLA' mark on induction cooktops, despite having a license to use 'STELLADEXIN'. The plaintiff claimed prior registration and significant sales under the 'STELLADEXIN' mark.
Chandan Sadija & Vikas Nahlani v.Neeraj Jewellery & Nishant Gupta
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Commercial Court's jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The petitioners argued that the court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, as the original trademark originated outside Chhattisgarh. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's finding, noting that the defendants were operating within Chhattisgarh and that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded their cause of action and valued the suit above the required threshold for commercial court jurisdiction.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
Goodfaith Holding Private Limited v.M/S Supreme Wood Products Private Limited
The appeal challenges a previous judgment where the defendant's application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was allowed, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The respondent questioned the maintainability of this appeal.
Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, challenging its validity. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider crucial expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong regarding the invention's technical advancement and advantages. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this procedural lapse.
Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller regarding its patent application for a biological surfactant used as an anti-inflammatory agent and tissue preservative solution. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this omission.
Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani v.Deputy Controller of Patents
The appellant, Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents on January 20, 2025, seeking to allow her Indian Patent Application Number 201941026810. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel informed the court that she would withdraw this appeal and file a new appeal against an earlier order dated February 2, 2023.
Kamterter Products Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents
Kamterter Products Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (IN 1044/KOLNP/2010) for a 'SEED TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS' under Section 15 of the Patent Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the rejection order was devoid of reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
M/s. The Sen Knitting Company v.K.S.Shenthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition filed by M/s. The Sen Knitting Company seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SEN SPIN,' and was used for identical goods (garments). Given the petitioner's established history as the prior adopter and user, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expunge the conflicting entry.
M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. v.M/s Pachala Murali Krishna
This Madras High Court case involves multiple rectification petitions filed by M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. against the registration of several 'MEDIA MONK' trademarks held by M/s Pachala Murali Krishna. The petitioner seeks to remove these marks, asserting its global reputation and prior use since 2001. Conversely, the respondent claims he coined and used the mark honestly in January 2009, preceding the petitioner's Indian application. The court has framed several key issues, including deceptive similarity, bad faith, and priority of adoption.
M/s.Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning the delay in processing an opposition petition against a trade mark application. M/s. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite the disposal of Opposition No. 1176324 related to Trade Mark Application No. 4853565. The Court, noting the prolonged delay despite complete pleadings, issued a directive mandating the Registrar of Trade Marks to resolve the matter within three months, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity to be heard.
ITC Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
ITC Ltd appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark regarding its patent application for an 'Electronic Aerosol Generating Device'. ITC contended that the rejection was based on technical materials not provided to them, violating principles of natural justice. Given this procedural lapse, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original rejection and remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights which dismissed its objection and issued a Copyright Certificate in favour of Respondent No.6 (Dinman Polypacks Private Limited). The appeal was filed after a significant delay, and the core issue before the court was whether sufficient cause existed to condone this 506-day delay.
N.C. Mahamood v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Chennai
The Kerala High Court intervened in a long-pending trademark application dispute, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite the process. The petitioner argued that six years had passed since filing without a final decision, despite an opposition being filed. The court ruled that such excessive delay in statutory proceedings cannot be excused by citing seniority or requiring special fees for expedited processing, compelling the authorities to act swiftly.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Aroa Biosurgery Limited challenged an order by the Controller General of Patents which dismissed its patent application for 'Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix.' The core dispute centered on procedural fairness, as the rejection order introduced a ground of non-patentability (Section 3(i)) that was never raised during the examination process. The Calcutta High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the merits.
Kausal Goyal And & Ors. v.Awadh Oils Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Awadh Goyal
The Delhi High Court stayed an adverse ex-parte interim injunction against Kausal Goyal and others in a trademark dispute involving the mark 'Kala Ghoda'. The court found that the Appellants had established a prima facie case, particularly citing a family settlement agreement and long-standing use of the trademark. This decision allows the parties to proceed with a full hearing, preventing immediate prejudice to the appellants.
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Rspl Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) sought an interim injunction against Rspl Limited over disparaging advertisements for its 'Ghadi' detergent, claiming the ads tarnished HUL's flagship product, 'Surf Excel.' The Delhi High Court found that while comparative advertising is permissible, derogatory and defamatory remarks are not. Consequently, the court issued a prima facie order directing Rspl to remove specific phrases—such as 'Na Na, yeh dhoka hai' and 'Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey'—from its commercials before they can be broadcast.
Mr.Sampath G.V. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. Sampath G.V., allowing him to renew his trademark 'THE VELLORE KITCHEN DEVICE' despite alleged failures in notification by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court held that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register, the petitioner was entitled to renewal subject to fees. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to facilitate the renewal process within 30 days.
R.V.Vinoth Kumar v.M/s.Kallal Hospitalities Private Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning 'MANJAL RESTAURANT' by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite proceedings. The petitioner, R.V.Vinoth Kumar, sought judicial intervention due to the prolonged delay in disposing of Opposition No.1350081 and Trade Mark Application No.5982440. The Court allowed the writ petition, mandating that the Registrar dispose of both matters within three months from the date of the order.
Krish-V Facility Management Services Private Limited v.Krishvi Projects Private Limited
In a significant commercial appeal concerning trademark infringement and passing off, the Karnataka High Court overturned an earlier dismissal by the Trial Court. Krish-V Facility Management Services successfully argued that procedural errors led to them being placed ex-parte in the original suit filed by Krishvi Projects Private Limited. The High Court set aside the adverse order, allowing both parties a chance to present their full pleadings and evidence on the merits of the trademark dispute, while crucially maintaining the existing temporary injunction.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.K.Venkateshwara Rao
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought the rectification and removal of a trademark registration ('NICSON PHARMA') held by K.Venkateshwara Rao, arguing that it was deceptively similar to its own established mark 'SUN PHARMA'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition. The court found that when comparing the two marks as a whole, there was no likelihood of confusion or deception among the average consumer, thereby upholding the validity of the rival registration.