India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 57 of 295 · 7,068 total
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, Mankind Pharma Limited sought an injunction against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited regarding the use of the mark 'TOFASTAR' versus 'TOBASTAR'. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to settle the dispute at the earliest opportunity, leading the court to renotify the case for further proceedings.
Rahul Kapoor Trading As Royal Field And Co. v.Naresh Kumar Trading As Ms Nutan Malleables
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications in a trademark rectification case concerning the mark 'ROYAL'. While granting an exemption from filing certified copies, the court also accepted the application for condonation of 143 days of delay. The core petition seeks to rectify the trademark 'ROYAL' based on the discovery of a competing registered mark owned by the respondent, arguing likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd v.Voiceage Evs Llc
The petitioners sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN405869 before the Delhi High Court. The court granted notice and allowed various interim applications, including directions for respondents to file prosecution records and granting extensions of time for both parties.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited concerning the product Shan6, which allegedly infringes IN 351. The parties reached an amicable resolution and settled the dispute before the Delhi High Court.
Axcess Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Axcess Limited appealed the Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 2427/DELNP/2011), which covered bile acids and biguanides as protease inhibitors for gut peptides. The Controller had rejected the application under Section 59(1) of the Patent Act, arguing that the amendments exceeded the original scope. However, the Delhi High Court found that a detailed examination of the complete specification supported the amended claims regarding composition as a product. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries v.M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar Saroja Hangaraki Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries, quashing an earlier order that had dismissed their application for staying civil suit proceedings. The petitioners sought to halt the ongoing litigation (O.S.No.3/2012) while their trademark rectification application was pending before the Madras High Court. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act mandates a stay on civil proceedings when a rectification application is pending, thereby granting relief and directing the petitioners to expedite the process.
Aachi Spices and Condiments Private Limited (and others) v.Aachiamman Chit Funds Private Limited
This appeal before the Madras High Court Commercial Appellate Division challenged a summary judgment that dismissed a suit for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, owners of registered trademarks related to 'AACHI', argued that the judgment was flawed because it was rendered without hearing their arguments. The court found that the impugned judgment proceeded solely on perusal of the plaint and failed to consider the plaintiffs' submissions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Division for a fresh legal drill.
Sanjeev Gupta v.Aman Gupta Trading As M/S Delhi Electricals Trading Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple petitions concerning trademark disputes between family members. The cases involved rectification requests challenging the registration of marks like 'USHA' and a suit seeking injunction against alleged infringement using the mark 'ANUSHA'. Given the familial nature of the dispute, the court opted not to proceed with immediate litigation. Instead, the parties were referred to Pre-Institution Mediation to explore an amicable resolution. This order highlights the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex family IP disputes.
M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp Through Its Partner Mr. Bharat Khubchandani v.Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized an amicable settlement between M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp (Plaintiff) and Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises (Defendant). The parties agreed that the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff's well-known trademarks (TAKAI / HAK), acknowledged their rights, and committed to ceasing all use of similar marks. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included the cancellation of the infringing trademark and a payment of liquidated damages.
Manish Kumar Jain & Another v.Tushar Saraf & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal challenging a prior interim trademark injunction. The court found that while the initial stay was granted based on prima facie evidence, further material had become available to both parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the original interim order restraining the appellants from using the marks 'JJ DELUX' and related forms was extended until September 20, 2024, allowing for a comprehensive review by the trial judge.
Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. v.Mumtaz Ahmed & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal or rectification of the registered trademark 'GMW' (No. 1978669) from the Register, alleging that it is deceptively and confusingly similar to their own mark. The court accepted notice and directed that respondent no. 1 be served with notice, allowing them four weeks to file a reply. This order sets the stage for further litigation on trademark infringement and rectification grounds.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
Paragon Cable India & Anr. v.Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Paragon Cable India against Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The core dispute involved the infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ELEKTRON'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to expeditiously transfer the rights of the 'ELEKTRON' mark into the name of the plaintiffs, formalizing the assignment made by the defendants.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
The Delhi High Court has initiated proceedings in the suit concerning the alleged infringement of the 'HAVELLS' trademark. The court allowed several procedural applications filed by Havells India Limited, granting exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon the defendants. Furthermore, the court registered the plaint seeking permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation, while also addressing an application for interim relief based on the plaintiff's well-known mark status.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, a well-known luxury brand, had made out a prima facie case for infringement of its registered trademark 'LV' and associated copyrights. This interim order immediately restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products featuring marks identical or deceptively similar to LV, pending further proceedings.
Headout Inc. v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors.
Headout Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against the defendants in the Delhi High Court, addressing claims of trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of confusingly similar marks related to travel services. Furthermore, specific mandatory directions were issued compelling the defendants to immediately take down, block, and suspend all infringing websites, domain names, and social media profiles.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Terre Primitive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by the Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation (AMUL) against Terre Primitive. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Amuleti' was identical and deceptively similar to AMUL's well-known mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted interim relief, directing the defendant to cease using the infringing marks, take down products from their website, surrender materials for destruction, and block specific social media URLs.
SRMB Srijan Private Limited v.Grihashakti Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of SRMB Srijan Private Limited against Grihashakti Private Limited. The court found that the respondent was grossly violating the terms of a franchise agreement by misusing the petitioner's 'SRMB' trademark and brand, logo, and trade dress while manufacturing TMT Steel Bars without adhering to required standards. Given the urgency and apprehension of further misuse, the court restrained the respondent from using the marks or selling related products until November 30, 2024.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the respondent's refusal to restore Indian Patent no. 408932. The court issued notice and, without addressing the merits, granted the respondent two weeks to clarify a discrepancy regarding the email ID of the Patent Agent.
Genovie Ab v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Genovie Ab has appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appeal challenges new objections raised at the notice stage, which the appellant claims were not appreciated on merits despite submissions being filed.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates And Ors
In an amicable settlement reached before the Delhi High Court, Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd secured a decree against Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates. The parties agreed that the defendants would transition their seven existing 'Sagar Express' outlets into franchisees under Sagar Ratna's brand. Crucially, the defendants committed to surrendering the 'Sagar Express' trademark and agreeing not to use any similar names in the future, effectively resolving long-standing trademark infringement disputes.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two original petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking the rectification and cancellation of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan. The court noted that the first respondent had subsequently initiated applications for the cancellation of the disputed registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Since the underlying issue was being addressed through administrative channels, the petitions were deemed infructuous.