India IP Litigation

7,068 annotated decisions

7,068
Decisions
4
IP Types
10
Courts

Page 49 of 295 · 7,068 total

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 8, 2025

Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Yash Arora As Trading As Siddhi Vinayak Traders And Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 225/2021

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark, 'GREEN DIAMOND.' The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and identical to the petitioner's established trademark 'DIAMOND,' which had significant goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market since 1975. Crucially, the judgment highlighted the dishonest adoption by the respondent, who was an ex-distributor of the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the principle against riding on a competitor's reputation.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 8, 2025

RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd.

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 203/2022

The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by RPG Enterprises Limited against RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd., leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark registration (No. 2778255). The court found that the impugned mark wrongfully incorporated the petitioner’s well-known 'RPG' brand, which has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use across various industries. This decision reinforces the principle that a registered mark cannot be maintained if it is deceptively similar to an established, widely recognized trademark.

trademark settled · Jan 7, 2025

M/s.TTK Prestige Limited v.Sarvodaya Industries

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.175 of 2024

M/s. TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Sarvodaya Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'PROTEIN' to infringe upon the registered trademarks and artistic logo of 'PRESTIGE'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which the court subsequently recorded and decreed.

patent In favor of Plaintiff · Jan 7, 2025

Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 256/2021; I.A. No. 153/2025

The case was filed for a permanent injunction against NATCO PHARMA for infringing on Novartis's Indian Patent No. 233161. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the proceedings.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jan 7, 2025

Apollo Pipes Ltd v.Nirmal Polymers

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm.) No. 41/2023

Apollo Pipes Ltd filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against Nirmal Polymers for infringing its well-known trademarks ('APOLLO', 'APL APOLLO'). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks like 'A ONE APOLLO' in relation to PVC pipes and building material products, causing financial loss and damaging goodwill. The court passed an ex-parte decree in favor of Apollo Pipes Ltd.

trademark mixed · Jan 7, 2025

Under Armour, Inc v.Pro-Train Sports Llp & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1/2025

In a trademark infringement suit filed by Under Armour against Pro-Train Sports LLP, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical trade and business operations, including the use of similar logos (a bull), the court opted not to grant the exemption. Instead, it referred the matter to Pre-Institution Mediation, setting a date for January 15, 2025.

trademark settled · Jan 3, 2025

Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. v.Kuppanna Foods

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.200 of 2022

Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd filed suit against Kuppanna Foods, among others, alleging multiple infringements across trademarks and copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'KUPPANNA FOODS' and 'Kuppanna', as well as damages for dilution and tarnishment. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the Memorandum of Compromise.

trademark settled · Jan 3, 2025

Tube Investments Of India Ltd. v.BSA-Regal Group Ltd.

Madras High Court · C.S.Nos.42 of 2009 and 706 of 2011

This case involved disputes between Tube Investments Of India Ltd. and the BSA-Regal Group Ltd. concerning the use of the 'BSA' trademark on motorcycles, parts, and accessories. Both parties filed suits alleging infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, during the proceedings before the Madras High Court, both plaintiffs successfully endorsed that their respective suits had been settled out of court.

design plaintiff favorable · Jan 2, 2025

Thermo Electrics Madras Manufacturing v.P.R.Gopalakrishnan

Madras High Court · C.S. No.391 of 2004

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for committing piracy through fraudulent imitation of four registered designs (No. 193288, 193289, 193290, 193291) related to Extraction and Heating Mantles. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had access to their trade secrets and designs during his employment with the second plaintiff, leading to unauthorized imitation.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 2, 2025

M/s.Haldor Topsoe A/S v.Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · Writ Petition No.2943 of 2022

The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.03.2021 rejecting/abandoning their patent application (No. 297/CHE/2012). The petitioner argued that the rejection violated natural justice and was based on non-application of mind, as no proper second examination report was conducted. The Court found the order unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

design mixed · Dec 24, 2024

Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 41/2024

The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the writ petition filed by Neeraj Jain against the Controller General of Patents. Crucially, the court condoned a 36-day delay in filing the petition itself. The core matter involves challenging an order that declared the petitioner's design application abandoned due to a belatedly filed Power of Attorney. Notice has been issued, setting the stage for further arguments on the merits of the abandonment claim.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 24, 2024

Phonepe Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.AGF Finlease India Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1211/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Phonepe Pvt Ltd against AGF Finlease India Ltd and others. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks like 'PHONEPEY' and 'PHONEPEY LOAN,' leading to infringement, passing off, and dilution of PhonePe's goodwill. Consequently, the court ordered a restraint on the use of these marks across various platforms and directed the suspension of specific domains and social media accounts.

trademark mixed · Dec 24, 2024

Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Tilaknagar Industries Limited & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1199/2024

In a suit concerning alleged trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. Crucially, regarding the interim injunction application, the court accepted the defendants' commitment to immediately stop using the disputed label on new products as of December 26, 2024. This temporary relief is subject to the defendants exhausting their existing stock bearing the impugned label, which they must detail in an affidavit.

trademark mixed · Dec 24, 2024

Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v.Two Star Media Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 275/2024 & I.A. Nos. 49793/2024

Bennett Coleman And Company Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of a deceptively similar trademark (LIVE TIMES) registered by Two Star Media Private Limited. The petitioner argued that its own trademarks, 'TIMES' and its family, are prior, extensively used since 1943, and highly reputed. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on trademark infringement and similarity.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 24, 2024

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.Wipro Gas Service & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1203/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited against Wipro Gas Service & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'WIPRO,' which it alleged was being infringed and used deceptively by the defendants. Given that the defendant failed to appear despite service, the court found a prima facie case existed, leading to an immediate restraint order on the use of the identical mark.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 24, 2024

Rahul Mishra & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1194/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of fashion designer Rahul Mishra, restraining defendants from using or dealing in goods deceptively similar to his registered trademarks and trade names. The court also directed the defendant operating the website www.rahudress.com to immediately suspend the domain name and disclose complete details of the primary infringing entity (Defendant No. 1). This order protects both trademark rights and copyright/design rights related to Mishra's luxury apparel.

trademark mixed · Dec 24, 2024

Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. v.John Doe/ Ashok Kumar And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1198/2024

The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. against John Doe and others. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents. Crucially, the court permitted specific service methods—such as email communication via designated Grievance Officers—for defendants located outside India or those identified as DNRs (Defendant Not Represented), while also exempting the plaintiff from advance service upon Defendant No. 1 due to the urgent nature of the relief sought.

trademark defendant favorable · Dec 23, 2024

M/S GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. v.M/S EVERGREEN VENEERS PVT. LTD.

Delhi District Court · CS DJ ADJ No. 254/2020

The plaintiff, Greenply Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark 'GREEN' against the defendant, Evergreen Veneers Pvt. Ltd., who was using the mark 'EVERGREEN' on similar goods (plywood products). The court examined issues of delay and trademark similarity.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 23, 2024

Evergreen Sweet House v.JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 430/2024 with I.A. 32723/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Evergreen Sweet House against JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats. The court found a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the plaintiff has been operating under the 'Evergreen' mark since 1963, establishing significant goodwill and prior use. Given the defendant's recent entry into the market and the likelihood of customer confusion on food delivery platforms, the court restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark until the final suit adjudication.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 21, 2024

Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd. v.Mr.Tallam Uma Shankar Gupta

Madras High Court · 2024:MHC:4211 (T)OP(TM)/404/2023

The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'GYPLOCK' (No. 3536418). The petitioner, Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd., successfully argued that its established trademark 'GYPROC' was similar to the impugned mark and used on identical goods—building materials. Despite arguments regarding common trade terms ('GYP'), the court found the overall similarity between 'GYPROC' and 'GYPLOCK' likely to cause confusion, thereby protecting the purity of the register.

patent defendant favorable · Dec 20, 2024

Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(PT) No.45 of 2023

Italfarmaco Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method involving iron (III) caseinsuccinylate. The Deputy Controller rejected the grant on the grounds that the claimed invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court upheld the respondent's decision.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 20, 2024

Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Aparna Mallick And Anr.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 515/2024

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, granting a permanent injunction against Ms. Aparna Mallick and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'KHADISAREE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark 'KHADI'. Furthermore, the Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name and awarded substantial damages and costs against the defendant due to their non-cooperation.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 19, 2024

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v.Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore - I

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · Service Tax Appeal No. 23356 of 2014

The appeal challenged the imposition of service tax under the 'Intellectual Property Right' category on payments made by HAL to BAE System for technical knowhow and assistance related to aircraft manufacturing. The Tribunal ruled that since the contract involved a temporary transfer of technology, it did not fall under the definition of IPR services chargeable to service tax.

patent remanded · Dec 19, 2024

Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India

Madras High Court · W.P. No.7449 of 2022

Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent opposition board recommendation related to Indian Patent No.319927, arguing that the process violated The Patents Act, 1970 by not allowing them to present evidence. The Court quashed the impugned notices and recommendations.

1 •••484950•••295