India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 55 of 311 · 7,456 total
Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. v.Madhu Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. seeking the rectification or revocation of an impugned trademark registration (Application No. 1880542) in Class 35, which was granted to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners initially sought various interim injunctions and reliefs against multiple respondents, but subsequently withdrew claims against certain parties. The Court proceeded by deleting the withdrawn respondents and issued notice to the remaining parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders.
M/S. Rashik Soap Factory v.The Registrar Of Copyright & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S. Rashik Soap Factory to amend its ongoing petition by incorporating a subsequent trademark registration. The petitioner sought to update the court record, confirming that they had acquired ownership of Trademark No. 4176479 through an assignment deed during the pendency of the case. This order allows the petitioner to formally bring this change in IP ownership before the court, ensuring all relevant facts are on record for the ongoing litigation.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Hero Investcorp Private Limited against Advance Ss Auto Parts Pvt Ltd. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, which is crucial given the immediate need for evidence collection. Most notably, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged counterfeit 'HERO' branded auto parts, thereby bolstering the plaintiffs' case for injunction and damages.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
SSAB TECHNOLOGY AB v.DEEPAK DINESH MEHTA AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court issued a complex order in the trademark infringement suit, partially granting relief to SSAB Technology Ab. The court decreed the suit regarding specific permanent injunctions against the defendants concerning their use of infringing marks (HARDOX/Leomet-alloys). However, the court noted that the plaintiff declined an offer for full settlement and directed the suit to remain pending on remaining money claims, setting the stage for further litigation.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals challenged notices and orders issued by the Controller General regarding its patent application for a cystic fibrosis treatment compound. The core legal question was whether a pre-grant opposition could be entertained after the patent had already been granted by the Controller. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Vertex, holding that once the Controller grants the patent, they become functus officio and cannot legally entertain subsequent oppositions.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, and Others
The appeal was filed by Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited challenging an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copy Rights. The respondent argued that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the Deputy Registrar's office is in New Delhi, citing amendments to the Copyright Act and judicial precedents on forum shopping. The Jharkhand High Court ultimately held that it possesses the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)
The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order revoking Patent No. 452008, which covered an Intelligent Cooking Stove System. The revocation was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Abhi Traders v.Fashnear Technologies Private Limited & Ors.
Abhi Traders, a clothing manufacturer, filed a suit against various sellers operating on an e-commerce platform (Defendant No. 1) for infringing its copyrights and passing off its products. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the artistic designs and promotional photographs used to market its 'Ibrana' line of ethnic wear. After the defendants failed to file written statements despite being served, the court found that the defendants substantially reproduced the copyrighted images and took unfair advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill.
San Nutrition Private Limited v.Arpit Mangal And Others
The Delhi High Court addressed the tension between brand reputation and freedom of speech in influencer marketing. San Nutrition Private Limited sought an interim injunction against social media influencers, alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices based on critical videos about its products. However, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or disparagement. The judgment emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must be protected unless demonstrably false or malicious.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v.Mr. A.R. Rahman & Ors.
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar filed a suit seeking recognition of copyright and injunction against Mr. A.R. Rahman and others regarding the musical composition 'Shiva Stuti'. The plaintiff alleged that his ancestral work was being used in the song 'Veera Raja Veera' without proper attribution or authorization. The Delhi High Court, while addressing an interim application, found prima facie evidence of copyright infringement. Consequently, the court directed mandatory changes to credit slides on online platforms and ordered a substantial deposit from the defendants.
Vineet Kapur v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Vineet Kapur's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the numerical mark '2929' for cosmetics. The court held that a combination of numbers can function as an inherently distinctive and arbitrary trademark, provided it is not descriptive or common in trade. By setting aside the rejection, the Court directed the application to proceed to advertisement, reinforcing the principle that numerals are capable of serving as effective source identifiers.
M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited v.Kamran Ghani And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S. Modern Snacks Private Limited against Kamran Ghani, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's trademark 'MARDEM'. The petitioner successfully argued that their established mark 'MODERN' was deceptively and identically similar to 'MARDEM', causing likelihood of confusion in Class 30 (snacks). This judgment reinforces the principle that prior use and strong goodwill can be grounds for cancelling a later registration if it is confusingly similar.
Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v.The Government of India
This writ petition was filed by the Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association seeking to prevent private associations from conducting bodybuilding competitions using names like 'Mr. India' and 'Open Mr. South India'. The petitioner argued that such usage violated Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that these titles are common terminology specific to bodybuilding competitions and do not constitute an improper use of national emblems or names for trade purposes.
Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed whether Rainbow Health Care was infringing upon or passing off against the registered trademarks of Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to maintain an injunction against deceptive use of its brand name. The trial court had previously dismissed these interim applications and vacated existing injunction orders. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned orders, reviving the ad-interim injunctions until the final decision of the suit.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India Ors
The appellants challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patent Act, 1970, arguing that the delay in granting their patent (from application date to grant date) and subsequent demand for renewal fees violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution and that the USA model of Patent Term Adjustment is not conducive to India.