India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 48 of 295 · 7,068 total
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute concerns alleged copyright infringement related to 'behind the scenes (BTS)' footage from the film "NAANUM ROWDY DHAAN". The fifth defendant challenged the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit filed by Los Gatos Production Services India LLP, arguing lack of territorial nexus and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, it retained territorial jurisdiction, thus dismissing the challenges.
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute involved applications seeking rejection of plaint and revocation of leave to sue in a copyright infringement matter. The fifth defendant argued lack of territorial jurisdiction and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose within Chennai, it retained jurisdiction, thus dismissing both applications.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking execution of Letters Rogatory issued by a US District Court. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' related to VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner and setting up protocols for evidence collection.
Goodai Global Inc v.Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Goodai Global Inc against Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr., directing the removal of an identical device mark registration (No. 5635163) in Class 3. The court found that the respondent obtained the mark dishonestly and in bad faith, attempting to trade upon the petitioner's established goodwill associated with its 'Beauty of Joseon' brand. Given the clear intent to appropriate the petitioner's reputation, the registration was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Ethichem Biotech
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Ethichem Biotech and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA and for passing off. Despite the initial claims of trademark and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
M/S. SONA BEVERAGES PVT LTD v.THE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND ANR
The Calcutta High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S. Sona Beverages Pvt Ltd seeking the removal of the mark 'SIMBA' registered in favor of The Coca-Cola Company. The court found that the trademark, which had lapsed on February 24, 2020, was never renewed despite receiving official notices from the Registry. Consequently, the court directed the expunging of the expired registration.
Birendra Prasad Sah v.Debendra Jalewal
The Gauhati High Court set aside several ex-parte orders passed by the Civil Judge, Nalbari, concerning a trademark infringement dispute over 'Matar Mixture.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent failed to adhere to procedural mandates, including providing notice before search and seizure (Misc. J Case 27/2023) and granting an injunction without allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard (Misc. J Case 28/2023). While dismissing the revision petition on maintainability grounds, the court vacated the interim order, effectively protecting the petitioner's business operations pending further proceedings in the trial court.
M/s.Nico Quality Products v.M/s.N.C.Arya Snuff & Cigar Co.
This complex litigation before the Madras High Court revolves around the ownership and use of registered trademarks related to snuff and cigar products. M/s. Nico Quality Products sought permanent injunctions against alleged infringement and passing-off by M/s. N.C. Arya Snuff & Cigar Co., while other parties challenged the validity of an assignment deed. The court addressed multiple suits concerning trademark rights, including declarations regarding the legality of assignments.
Amazon Technologies Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Amazon Technologies Inc. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant a patent for its invention (Application No. 5937/CHENP/2010). The appeal challenged the refusal on the ground that it lacked inventive step, arguing that the refusal order was non-speaking as it failed to provide reasons for how the cited prior art documents applied to the claimed invention.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr v.Goyal Herbals Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiffs, Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr, to amend their original plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that introducing subsequent trade mark registrations, evidence of enhanced goodwill, and relevant judicial records did not change the nature or character of the existing dispute. This decision allows the plaintiffs to strengthen their case by incorporating new statutory rights acquired after the suit's inception.
First Fiddle F & B Private Limited v.Big Fish Ventures
Plaintiffs, owners of the brand name "The Lord of the Drinks," sued Defendants for infringing their trademark and damaging goodwill. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misused the brand name after a franchise agreement was terminated, leading to public outrage and reputational harm.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Amreek Singh Chawla & Ors.
The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order granted to the plaintiff. The court considered arguments that the plaintiff had suppressed facts, specifically claiming they only discovered the infringing product on 30th October 2024, when in fact they were aware of the defendant's mark since 2018. Consequently, the court vacated the injunction and referred the matter to mediation.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.
Krbl Limited v.Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Krbl Limited's appeal, overturning a Commercial Court decision that had vacated an existing injunction. The court found that the respondent's use of 'Bharat Gate' for rice constituted clear infringement of the appellant's registered trademark 'India Gate.' Citing established legal precedents, the High Court held that prima facie evidence of infringement necessitates the continuation of the injunction to protect the goodwill and reputation of the original mark.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. v.Abhishek Sapra
M/S Fiitjee Ltd. challenged an arbitral award, alleging that Abhishek Sapra violated a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and service contract by diverting vital company information during his employment as Financial Controller. The petitioner sought damages for this breach. The Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, holding that the court cannot review the dispute on merits or set aside the award without finding patent illegality.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.General Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the defendants/counter claimants. The court condoned a 57-day delay in filing the written statement and directed the numbering of the counter claim seeking revocation of the plaintiff's patent (IN 394568). Further directions were issued regarding discovery and placing sales figures on record.
Jitesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Maheshwary v.Babushah Ibrahimsha Juneja & Anr.
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2023. The original plaintiffs sought relief against alleged infringement of their registered copyright and passing-off of their trademark 'RAJ KHUSHBU' concerning Ayurvedic Medicinal Oils. The High Court, while not examining the merits of the underlying dispute, quashed the lower court's order on the grounds that it was non-speaking. Consequently, the injunction application was restored to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac v.M/s.Selvee Indigenous Food Factory India Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex trademark dispute involving the brands 'AACHI' and 'PARAMPARIYA APPACHI RICE'. The litigation, which sought to cancel a rival mark and restrain infringement, concluded amicably. Both parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise (MoC) on January 7, 2025, leading the court to dispose of both the petition and the suit without awarding costs.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Novartis seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent IN'026. Natco Pharma sought leave to file an additional written statement, arguing that plaintiffs suppressed documents relating to a prior Divisional Application which led to the grant of the patent. The Court allowed the application, holding that Order VIII Rule 9 CPC grants wide discretion to allow such pleadings in the interest of justice.
Syngenta Limited And Anr. v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a direction to the defendant to comply with the mutually agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) and provide access to specific documents shared under the ToR. The defendant opposed this, citing concerns over leakage of proprietary information and violation of Section 104A of the Patents Act. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to supply the requested information while allowing redaction of supplier names.
Global Health Limited And Anr v.John Doe And Ors
Global Health Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against defendants in a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and violation of personality rights. The plaintiffs sought relief due to the circulation of fabricated 'deep fake' videos featuring Dr. Naresh Trehan, which used the protected brand name 'MEDANTA.' The court directed the defendants to immediately remove or disable the infringing content within strict timeframes, recognizing the irreparable harm caused by the unauthorized use of their intellectual property and goodwill.
Abacus Montessori School v.Abacus International Montessori School; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Abacus Montessori School, a long-standing educational institution, by ordering the expungement of a conflicting trademark registration held by Abacus International Montessori School. The court found that despite geographical proximity and differences in scope (e.g., 'International'), the identical use of the mark 'ABACUS' for similar educational services created a likelihood of confusion. The judgment emphasized the importance of prior user rights and established goodwill over subsequent registrations.