India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 6 of 311 · 7,456 total
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others v.Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Thakur
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge Mandi's dismissal of objections under Section 34 against an arbitral award in a construction contract dispute. The High Court found that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction because it had not been designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of hearing the objections, as commercial courts at the district level were notified only on 13.5.2026. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment and directing the District Judge to return the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum, with the limitation period being excluded.
Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Dinesh Kumar (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vijay (Defendant No. 4)
This commercial suit was filed by Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd., the licensee of the 'ANCHOR' trademark originally owned by Panasonic Corporation, against Mr. Dinesh Kumar and others for trademark/copyright infringement and passing off under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that defendants no. 1 and 4 had infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the ANCHOR trademark/label and granted a decree of permanent injunction along with damages of Rs. 3,10,000/- and simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of e-filing of the suit.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited & Anr v.The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing and exporting fly ash and fly ash bricks, challenged the rectification order dated 20.05.2022 which upheld the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 49,60,054/- for accumulated/unutilized Input Tax Credit on exports made under Letter of Undertaking for the period December 2019 to March 2020. The Calcutta High Court found that the Appellate Authority had expanded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing grounds relating to Rule 96A, Rule 96B, and Rule 89(4)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which were never part of the original notice, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity to rebut those allegations. The Court set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing.
Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, Ashique Exports Pvt.Ltd., proprietor of the registered trademark 'Dr. WASH' (Registration No. 1130214) for washing soap, sued the defendants, Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt.Ltd. and Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off through their use of the mark 'Dr. BRIGHT'. The defendants additionally filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to expunge the plaintiff's trademark registration. The Madras High Court dismissed both the suit and the rectification petition, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs.
State v.Chandan Kumar Tiwari and Anr.
This case involved charges under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act against two accused persons for allegedly dealing in counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. The prosecution's case collapsed because the complainant and the Director of Speed Search Pvt. Ltd. (the authorized investigator) remained untraceable for nearly seven years. The Court acquitted both accused, holding that without the complainant's testimony, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, and mere recovery of allegedly infringing articles was insufficient for conviction.
State v.Arun Jaiswal and Anr.
This criminal case involved charges under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from an alleged raid on counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Titan Fastrack Sonata. The prosecution's case collapsed when the complainant turned hostile and failed to support the material allegations. The court acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Mujeeb A.K v.State Of Kerala
This writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by Mujeeb A.K challenging an order of the 6th respondent (Jofin Lukose). During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the service of the 6th respondent had already been terminated. In light of this submission, the court closed the writ petition while leaving open all contentions of the petitioner.
Puneet Batra v.Union Of India & Ors
The Petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the search conducted on 25.07.2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents, along with the panchnama and summons issued on the same date, alleging violation of advocate-client privilege. The Respondents contended that the search was duly authorized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and that prima facie material indicated the Petitioner was personally involved in the affairs of M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) beyond acting as a legal adviser. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the search was validly authorized and that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the Advocate's own conduct, while directing safeguards for the protection of privileged and third-party client data.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural listing order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial appeal concerning trademark matters. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing without recording any substantive reasoning or decision on the merits.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Patent Controller regarding Patent No. 272351, and to withdraw its post-grant amendment application (Form-13) filed on 17.05.2019 under Section 57 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, permitting the withdrawal of the amendment application without prejudice to the parties' rights, and directed the Learned Controller to decide the pending post-grant oppositions under Section 25(2) of the 1970 Act within nine weeks.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's chain of title and right to maintain the rectification application, but arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This case involves a rectification application filed before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's standing and right to maintain the rectification application, tracing the chain of title through various agreements, but the arguments could not be concluded.
K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Indotech Switchgear And Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr.
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a trademark cancellation petition filed by K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd against Indotech Switchgear and Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr. The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 CPC seeking cancellation/removal of trademark registration No. 4314092 in Class 09. The court disposed of the interlocutory applications and issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 19.01.2027.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Hostinger Operations UAB & 4 Others (Fino Payments Bank Limited, Sachin Kumar, Rohit Kumar, John Doe operating ashokaleyland.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against the respondents for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the use of its registered marks 'LEYLAND' and 'ASHOK LEYLAND' and the impugned domain name 'ashokaleyland.com'. The respondents included a Lithuanian web hosting company, a payments bank, two John Doe individuals, and an unknown operator of the infringing website. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim injunction until the next hearing date.
The Principal Commissioner v.M/S Dhariwal Industries Pvt Limited
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner challenging the CESTAT order that allowed M/s Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd's appeal seeking remission of excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent had huge stocks of pan masala and gutkha bearing the brand name 'Manikchand' which became unsellable due to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, Mandleshwar restraining use of that trademark. The Court held that the goods were beyond the respondent's control to market and squarely covered under Rule 21, and consequently quashed the consequential show cause notice in the connected writ petition.
Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd. v.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
This transfer petition arose from cross-appeals filed by both parties against a common order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Commercial Court-III, Ernakulam, in proceedings challenging an arbitral award. The petitioners sought transfer of C.M.A.(Arb) Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024, pending before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, to the Kerala High Court. The court allowed the petition, holding that under the amended Government Order designating Commercial Courts, appeals from arbitration-related commercial disputes must be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Man Mohan Narang v.Union Of India & Anr
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to process and allow Form TM-12 filed on 21.02.2012 for Trademark Registration No. 1081552, and to waive a surcharge of Rs. 5,000/-. The Registrar agreed to process the renewal application in accordance with law upon payment of prescribed fee, restoration charges, and the surcharge. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition granting the petitioner liberty to file the renewal application within one month, with no expression on merits.
Shubham Khandelwal Through Shubham Trading Company v.S.K. Trademark Through Proprietor Gaurav
This is a criminal revision petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in which the petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent's counsel raised no objection to the condonation of delay. The court allowed the application, condoned the delay, called for the record, and listed the matter after two weeks.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is an interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking waiver of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- that had been imposed upon it by an earlier order dated 13.08.2026. The court found no ground made out for waiver of the cost and dismissed the application.
M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v.Deputy Registrar, Trademark & Anr
This is a non-substantive procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2023). Because the presiding judge was on leave, the matter was not taken up and was re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Private Limited v.M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arose from a trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning edible oils. The respondent/plaintiff, M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries, claimed prior use of the trademark 'Tasty Gold' since December 2000, while the appellants/defendants, M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils, adopted the mark 'Namaskar Tasty Nutts' for a blended edible oil. The Telangana High Court upheld the Trial Court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendants' mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among illiterate and semiliterate consumers.
Abbott GmbH & Anr. v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Abbott GmbH & Anr., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited from using the marks COMIFFIN/COMIFFIN PLUS, which were alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered CREMAFFIN marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, with the defendant agreeing to cease use of the impugned marks and withdraw its trademark application. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and granted the plaintiffs a refund of court fees.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
This intra-court appeal (LPA 688/2026) was filed by Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against the decision of a Single Judge who had set aside the rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the application had not reached the stage of acceptance and that the statutory authorities were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Curewell Drugs And Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
This order of the Delhi High Court dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Curewell Drugs and Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. concerning the marks REVITAL and BEVITAL. The court allowed Sun Pharma to place additional documents on record to substantiate its claim of prior use of the trademark REVITAL since 1988, noting that no new case was being set up. The application for appointment of Local Commissioners was not pressed, and the matter was listed for further proceedings.