India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 5 of 311 · 7,456 total
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd v.Blueheavenin.Com & Ors
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'BLUE HEAVEN' and associated formative/device marks, filed a commercial suit against Blueheavenin.Com and others for online trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was operating the domain blueheavenin.com, which incorporated its trademark in its entirety and presented itself as the official website, while Defendant No. 2 was hosting an infringing BLUE HEAVEN cosmetics page on an unrelated domain. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the impugned websites and directed the domain registrars/intermediaries to preserve records and transfer-lock the domain names.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 20th September 2023 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing Indian Patent Application No.202047054780. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal and made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and John Doe (unknown)
Ashok Leyland Limited sought an ad-interim injunction before the Madras High Court against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe entity operating the website ashokleylandevdealer.com, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant alleged that the respondents were illegally representing themselves as affiliated with or endorsed by Ashok Leyland and soliciting dealership/franchise opportunities using identical or deceptively similar marks. The Court extended the interim injunction previously granted on 28.08.2026 until 27.10.2026 and listed the matter for further hearing.
Md. Gyas Alam @ Gyas Alam v.The State Of Bihar
The petitioner, Md. Gyas Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from the alleged manufacture and sale of counterfeit lubricant products at a godown in Nawada. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated merely because he was the brother of co-accused Md. Niyaz, the actual proprietor of the firm from whose premises the counterfeit goods were recovered. The Patna High Court, considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's clean antecedent, allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to conditions.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr
The plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against M/S GM Foods & Anr. Defendant No. 1 sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause in a Tripartite Lease Agreement dated 19.03.2024. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement did not bind the parties with respect to their separate inter se agreement governing their rights and obligations, and that an arbitration agreement cannot be inferred where none exists.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Devinder Singh
This is a civil suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Devinder Singh seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court framed six issues for trial, including whether the agreement was cancelled/terminated as alleged by the defendant and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its obligations. The matter was listed for recording of evidence before the Joint Registrar (Judicial).
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(OS) 666/2024) involving a dispute over an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- paid to the defendants. The court framed six issues for trial, directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Anr
This is a commercial suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Ramesh Chand and Anr seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The Defendants contended that the agreement was cancelled or terminated. The Delhi High Court framed the issues for trial and directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a commercial suit (CS(OS) 665/2024) before the Delhi High Court in which the plaintiff seeks specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022 executed between the parties, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court, with the consent of the parties, framed six issues for trial and directed the parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence affidavits within stipulated timelines. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence, while a pending interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was listed separately.
Onesto Labs Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Onesto Labs Private Limited, a Delhi-based personal care products company operating under the house mark 'Innovist' and brands including 'Chemist at Play', filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademark, logo, trade dress, and domain name, as well as passing off. The suit was filed on a John Doe basis against the operator of the infringing website www.chemistatplay.com. Since the domain name Registrar (defendant no.4) agreed to transfer the impugned domain to the plaintiff and there was no contest, the court made the temporary injunction absolute and decreed the suit against defendant no.1.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors. (including proposed defendant nos. 5-8: Mohit Talwar and associated entities)
This is an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 283/2020) filed by Havells India Limited against Ratheesh Govindan and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought impleadment of proposed defendants 5 to 8, who were identified as the manufacturers and controlling entities behind the infringing products. The Court allowed the impleadment application, noting that the proposed defendants were not innocent or bona fide users, and bound them to the existing interim injunction order dated 30.07.2020.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & Ors v.State Of Delhi & Ors
The petitioners (10 in number, led by Mr. Shashi Bhushan) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 0896/2022 registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging stocking and sale of counterfeit products bearing infringing marks. The parties entered into a compromise deed dated 27.07.2026, and the court, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the non-compoundable offences were essentially against the rights of the IP proprietor and were of a commercial/civil character.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors v.Nitin Sonkhla
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge's dismissal of their Section 34 objections against an arbitral award in favor of contractor Nitin Sonkhla. The dispute arose from a road construction contract that was rescinded after the contractor failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment on the ground that the District Judge was not designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of filing or adjudicating the objections, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the commercial dispute.
Ankur Mahajan v.VRV Sattvic Private Limited & Ors
The petitioner, Ankur Mahajan, filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation/removal of the respondents' trademark registration no. 3197787 in Class 32 from the Register of Trade Marks. The court allowed the petitioner's application for leave to file additional documents and issued notice to all respondents, who accepted notice through their respective counsel. The matter was adjourned with directions for filing of replies and rejoinders, and re-notified for hearing on 15.01.2027.
Novartis AG & Anr. (Novartis Healthcare Private Limited) v.Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary Novartis Healthcare Private Limited sued Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited for infringement of their registered and well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS', passing off, dilution, and unfair competition, alleging that the defendant's mark 'NOVOSYS' used for pharmaceutical products was deceptively similar. The matter was resolved through settlement, with the defendant undertaking to cease use of the impugned mark, clear existing stock, and withdraw/cancel its trademark registrations and applications. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, granted three months for exhaustion of existing stock, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the defendant's registrations and treat its pending applications as withdrawn.
TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd v.State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd before the Delhi High Court concerning a trademark dispute. The petitioner's counsel suggested mediation, but the respondent's counsel informed the Court that a prior mediation attempt had failed and that the respondents had already voluntarily discontinued use of the impugned mark. The Court declined to refer the matter to mediation, permitted the parties to file short written submissions, directed summoning of the e-TCR record, and required the petitioner's Director to appear in person on the next date of hearing.
Sri Veerendra Patil Kumbri v.Sri Madiwalayya G Math
The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Share Purchase Agreement dated 23.01.2023. The dispute concerned Clause 7.1 of the agreement, under which the petitioners had agreed to withdraw the trade name 'SOUTHERN' from the companies, believing the respondents had registered it as a trademark, which later turned out to be untrue. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator.
M/s Harisons (India) Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Harilal and Sons and Another
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which rejected the petitioner's application seeking expeditious disposal of its pending interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, on the ground that the injunction application could not be adjudicated while the respondents' Order VII Rule 11 application remained pending. The Allahabad High Court held that the Commercial Court had misread the High Court's earlier interim order dated 06.04.2026, which stayed only the amendment order and not the entire suit proceedings, and that the pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application does not oust the trial court's jurisdiction to decide an interim injunction application on its merits.
Shri Nand Kishore v.The State Of Madhya Pradesh
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the Tehsildar's order dated 26.2.2026 rejecting their mutation application and seeking direction to mutate their name as bhumiswami over agricultural land in Sardarpur, District Dhar. The State raised a preliminary objection regarding availability of alternative efficacious remedy under Section 44(1) of the MP Land Revenue Code. The High Court disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.M/S Pooja Lubricant
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and its related entities restraining M/S Pooja Lubricant from using the marks 'MAX VOLVO', 'MAX VOLWO', 'VOLWO GOLD', and other marks deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'VOLVO' in relation to lubricants and allied goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement, passing off, and dilution, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury warranted urgent relief without prior notice to the defendant.
Ankit Kumar Singla v.The State NCT of Delhi Through SHO Police Station Nangloi & Anr.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 478/2021 registered at Police Station Nangloi for offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, on the ground that the complainant (respondent no. 2) had compromised the dispute. Upon the court observing that in trademark infringement or passing off cases the general public is the victim and not merely the complainant, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to face trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited & Anr.
Incyte Holdings Corporation and its associated entities filed a patent infringement suit against Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were offering for sale Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API through their website and third-party platforms, and had obtained a manufacturing licence and developed a generic version of the patented compound. The court, satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib until the next date of hearing.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Melody Healthcare Private Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation and others filed a patent infringement suit against Melody Healthcare Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was offering for sale Ruxolitinib Phosphate API on third-party platforms and had obtained a manufacturing licence to commercially produce a generic version. The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib that would infringe the suit patent.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural directions order in a commercial appeal concerning patents before the Delhi High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the matter had already been heard at length by the predecessor bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and that he was concluding his rejoinder arguments before that bench. The court directed the matter to be relisted before Justice Jyoti Singh's bench on 29th September 2026.