India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 52 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private Limited v.M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant challenging the District Judge's order that allowed the Respondent to file a suit afresh regarding trademark infringement. While initial applications concerning delay condonation were granted, the core dispute over jurisdiction—specifically why a 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court instead of under the Commercial Courts Act—was deferred. The court has now scheduled further proceedings for August 19, 2025, requiring both parties to file detailed notes of contentions.
Fiacre Telematics Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark
The petitioner appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Kolkata, arguing that the rejection of their patent application lacked reasoning and failed to address the arguments regarding inventive steps. The court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to its unreasoned nature and remanded the matter.
Trodat Gmbh v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Trodat Gmbh appealed a single judge's order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to manufacture and sell a self-inking stamp design without infringing Trodat's registered designs. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's new design produced a different overall impression on an 'informed user.' The Delhi High Court, while extensively discussing established principles of design infringement, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that no piracy had occurred.
Orient Electric Ltd v.Polycab India Limited
Orient Electric Ltd filed a suit against Polycab India Limited alleging that its 'Polycab Ceiling Fan Silencio Cruiser' infringes upon Orient Electric's Indian Patent No. 477284, which relates to a twisted compounded plastic blade for ceiling fans. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the Defendant's premises and collect evidence regarding the infringing products and sales.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v.Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd.
Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., alleging infringement of its patent and design related to non-metallic pipes embedded with tracer cables for leak detection. The defendant challenged both the infringement and the validity of the patent itself. After extensive proceedings, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dura-Line, upholding the validity of the Suit Patent and decreeing the suit.
Vikas Gupta / Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute over the common name 'NEHA' used in the personal care sector. The Plaintiffs, Neha Herbals, claimed infringement and passing off against Sahni Cosmetics, which uses the mark for creams. While the court acknowledged the Defendant's prior use of the mark for creams, it ultimately found that the Plaintiffs had established continuous use and valid registrations for their goods (Mehandi). Consequently, the suit seeking damages was dismissed, but the cancellation petitions filed by the Defendant were also rejected.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited v.James Glendye And Co Limited and Ors
The Calcutta High Court, in its Intellectual Property Rights Division, admitted the plaint filed by Tirupati Vancom Private Limited against James Glendye and Co Limited. The court granted leave under relevant provisions due to the urgency pleaded by the plaintiff.
Enhaz Beverages Private Limited v.Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Enhaz Beverages Private Limited against Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'GROWSY' and a deceptively similar trade dress constituted infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'GROOVY' and its family of marks. This preliminary order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation while the full suit proceeds.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for a consent decree in the dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. The parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark infringement concerning 'PEPFIZ' and 'MINOZ'. Key terms include Defendants recognizing Plaintiff's exclusive rights, agreeing to cease use of deceptively similar marks like 'PEPFIX' and 'MINOZIL', and changing the product name from 'MINOZIL' to 'MINODYL'. The court partially decreed the suit based on these binding settlement terms.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademark And Anr.
Andreas Gutzeit appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which rejected his patent application, "Blood Flow Control System and Method for In-vivo Imaging and Other Application," primarily on grounds of non-compliance with Section 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether the amendment—specifically changing the claim from a method to a system—was permissible under the law. The Calcutta High Court found serious infirmities in the Controller's order, noting that it failed to properly assess if the amendments broadened the scope beyond the original specification. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the merits.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a novel piperidine compound. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d), citing prior art D1. The High Court found that the Controller failed to identify a specific 'known substance' from the Markush structure in D1, making the rejection unsustainable.
Nocil Ltd v.Finorchem Ltd And Anr
The defendants filed an application seeking revocation of the dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The dispute involves allegations of patent infringement and breach of confidentiality concerning the manufacturing process of 4-ADPA. The court ruled that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded urgency based on a holistic reading of the plaint.
Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd v.Yash Tiwari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court framed key issues in the trademark infringement suit filed by Ayka Tech And Systems Pvt Ltd against Yash Tiwari & Anr. The core dispute revolves around whether the defendants breached an MoU and infringed upon the 'Salestown' trademark used for a CRM software. Crucially, the court clarified that while injunctions are sought regarding 'Salestown,' the defendants remain free to use any other CRM software in their business.
Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart v.Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart, against Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises. The court found that the defendant's pending trademark application for 'ROYAL PETS CART/' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark and constituted a prima facie case of infringement. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark in relation to identical goods until the final hearing.
Signatureglobal (India) Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Signatureglobal (India) Limited, a leading real estate developer. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off by various online entities imitating its brand 'SIGNATUREGLOBAL'. Consequently, the defendants were directed to immediately take down or block all infringing websites and were restrained from registering similar domains, protecting the company's digital presence and consumer trust.
Microtex Energy Private Limited v.Microtek International Private Limited and Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 116/2025, where the petitioner sought the cancellation of the trademark 'MICROTEK TECHNOLOGY WE LIVE' (No. 3482800). The court issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. Several ancillary applications regarding document submission and procedural matters were also disposed of by the court.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ram Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the dispute between Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited and Ram Kumar & Anr., addressing both rectification and interim stay applications. The court granted an interim stay on the registration of trademark No. 5849311, recognizing the petitioner's prior rights concerning similar packaging and marks (JK/JKLC). Furthermore, the court directed the initiation of formal proceedings for the rectification of the impugned mark in Class 19, setting clear timelines for notice and response from all parties.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The appeal challenged the rejection order, citing exceptional delays in the patent process. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
The Football Association Premier League Limited v.Sportshub.Stream & Ors.
The Football Association Premier League Limited filed a suit against various defendants and websites alleging widespread copyright infringement through unauthorized streaming of its content. The court addressed several procedural applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advanced service requirements concerning regulatory authorities like DoT and MEITY. Furthermore, the court registered the plaint as a formal suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against infringing websites and domains.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Alivus Life Sciences Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 282654 related to Ivacaftor. The court initially allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation, and subsequently passed an interim order granting ex-parte injunctions against the defendant regarding the use and sale of the patented product.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Novo Nordisk A/S
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents (Novo Nordisk A/S) and set timelines for filing replies, while also disposing of several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors, Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The court found the rejection order unsustainable due to misinterpretation of previous orders and noted an exceptional delay in the process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing fresh adjudication by another Controller.