India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 54 of 311 · 7,456 total
Abbott Product Operations Ag & Anr. v.Medinox Pharmaceuticals & Ors.
In a significant development concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued an order compelling Defendants No. 1 and 2 (pharmaceutical distributors) to immediately cease manufacturing medicines bearing the impugned trademark 'DUPHAMED' or any variation using 'DUPHA'. This interim relief was granted in the context of urgent proceedings, while also allowing time for existing stock disposal. The court further streamlined procedural requirements by granting exemptions related to document filing and pre-institution mediation.
Ms Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v.Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce additional documents related to trademark applications and assignments in a commercial suit. The court, emphasizing that procedure is the handmaid of justice, permitted the plaintiff to place statutory Trademark Registry documents on record, despite their belated submission. However, the court rejected a third-party legal notice as irrelevant to the pleadings. This order allows the litigation to proceed with expanded evidence while ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
The Football Association Premier League Limited v.Yoghurt Tv & Ors.
The Football Association Premier League Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for the infringement of its copyrighted content by various 'Rogue Apps' like Yoghurt TV. The court initially granted procedural exemptions sought by the plaintiff regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon regulatory bodies (DoT/MEITY). Crucially, the court also passed a significant temporary injunction order, granting a 'Dynamic+' relief to protect its works against ongoing infringement across various platforms.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.
Luxottica Group S.P.A. v.Azad Optical Co. India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in favor of Luxottica Group S.P.A., which is seeking relief against counterfeiters selling 'RAY-BAN' products. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, while also allowing the filing of additional documents and deficit court fees. Crucially, the court allowed an ad interim injunction, permitting a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendants' premises, including assistance from local police, to curb large-scale trademark infringement.
Ashok Kumar Bhatia Trading As Kanika Impetus v.Kamal Raheja Trading As Amaira Herbals
The Delhi High Court issued an interim stay on a Commercial Court's order that had made an ad-interim injunction absolute. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off concerning the identical trademark 'MARKS GO' used for skin products by both parties. While noting procedural deficiencies in the lower court's decision regarding passing off principles, the High Court ultimately decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order pending a full appeal hearing.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application seeking revocation of a dispensation granted to the plaintiff (Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited) allowing them to bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the infringement (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Consequently, the court allowed the application seeking revocation of dispensation.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court involved an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revive its trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anita Anu. The core dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could override a previous court order that required adherence to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant argued that the nine-month delay between the alleged knowledge (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024) was unexplained, suggesting an artificial creation of urgency.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case involved a dispute over trademarks and copyright infringement concerning plastic products marketed under 'Pankaj Flex' by the plaintiff. The core legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether the plaintiff could revoke an earlier dispensation granted to bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court scrutinized the nine-month delay between the alleged date of knowledge (January 2024) and the filing of the suit (September 2024).
Trodat Gmbh & Anr. v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the infringement of registered stamp designs. The defendant, Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd, sought clarification regarding an interim injunction that had previously restrained it from manufacturing products deemed imitations of the plaintiffs' (Trodat Gmbh & Anr.) designs. The defendant proposed a new, alternative design and argued that it was sufficiently distinct to avoid infringement. The court examined the visual differences between the two designs and granted prima facie permission for the defendant to proceed with the manufacture and marketing of this modified product.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revoke a dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using the mark 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the issue (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Citing precedents, the judge held that without a clear explanation for the delay, the urgency was artificially created, leading to the revocation of the dispensation.
Hermes International & Anr. v.Neofusion Commerce Through Sole Proprietor Mr. Rishabh Jain & Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Hermes International against Neofusion Commerce, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 6, 2025. While the plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of their registered trademarks in relation to luxury bags and accessories, the court referred the parties to pre-litigation mediation. The defendants were granted a temporary reprieve, agreeing not to deal with existing disputed inventory while proposing alternative product variations.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.
Mohammed Azam Trading As Noor Ahmed Mohd Azam v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters: first, it condoned a minor delay in the petitioner's rectification petition. Second, the court initiated proceedings to cancel the trademark 'SARDARJI MASALE WALE NURY'. The court ordered notice to be served on all parties and directed the summoning of the complete registration record from the Trademark Registry for review.
Vidya Bhushan Jain v.Mohammed Younus Sheikh And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning Trademark No. 605340 after finding that the core issue had been resolved by the parties. The court noted that the trademark renewal process was completed, with the mark being renewed for another ten years. Consequently, the High Court set aside an earlier order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and allowed the petitioner's trademark to continue subsisting in the Register.
Goethe-Institut E.V. v.Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Goethe-Institut E.V., a well-known cultural institute, against Abhishek Yadav and others. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's use of similar marks like 'MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE' was likely to cause confusion among the public regarding their association with the established brand. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its prior goodwill and reputation in the market for German language courses, warranting immediate protective relief pending the final trial.
M/S Mittal Electronics v.Mr. Rohit Rana
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Rohit Rana. The settlement involved the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'SUJATA' trademark, apologizing for infringement and passing off, and undertaking not to use similar marks in the future. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as costs and Rs. 10,00,000 as liquidated damages in case of any breach.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Qpharm Health Care Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Uber India Systems Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, which sought to stop defendants from broadcasting an advertisement allegedly infringing or disparaging the 'Royal Challengers Bengaluru' trademark. The court found that there was no prima facie case of trademark infringement or disparagement, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate irreparable harm. Furthermore, balancing the convenience between free commercial speech and the plaintiff's claims, the court allowed the advertisement to continue.
M/S Mittal Electronics Through Its Partner Mr. Akhil Aggarwal v.Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai @ Vijay Prajapati Trading as Shree Ganesh Industries
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for consent decree, formally settling an intellectual property dispute between M/S Mittal Electronics and Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai. The settlement confirmed that the Plaintiff exclusively owns the 'SUJATA' trademark and required the Defendant to apologize for infringement and passing off. Crucially, the Defendant agreed to cease all use of similar marks, destroy existing goods, and pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs, while also undertaking a liquidated damages clause.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
M/S. Panchajanya Features v.Bommareddy Ashok Reddy
This Civil Revision Petition challenged the Trial Court's refusal to transfer a copyright dispute concerning the Telugu movie "Vinnapalu Vinavale Vintha Vinthalu" to the specialized Commercial Court. The petitioners argued that since the matter involved intellectual property rights and exceeded the specified pecuniary threshold, it inherently fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, setting aside the Trial Court's order and allowing the petition for rejection of the suit.
Tv Today Network v.Saurashtra Aaj Tak And Anr
In a matter concerning alleged passing off, Tv Today Network (Appellant) raised concerns that the Respondent, Saurashtra Aaj Tak, continued to use the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' despite an existing decree in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant emphasized that her trademark had since been registered and declared 'well known.' The Delhi High Court has scheduled a further hearing on May 13, 2025, to address these ongoing infringement claims.