India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 62 of 311 · 7,456 total
Pb Fintech Limited v.Policy Bazar Finance & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted significant interim relief in favor of Pb Fintech Limited against various parties accused of trademark infringement. The court impleaded new defendants and issued strict injunctions restraining them from using deceptively similar marks like 'POLICYBAZAAR' or 'PAISABAZAAR'. Furthermore, the judgment directed domain registrars (DNRs) to immediately suspend and block infringing domains, and mandated ISPs to prevent access to these websites. The court also ordered the temporary suspension of a bank account linked to one of the alleged infringers.
Parle Elizabeth Tools Private Limited v.Pacific Tools Private Limited
The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation of patent number 420765, which was granted in favour of respondent no.1. The court allowed an application for exemption from filing copies and listed the main petition for further proceedings.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Shabina Kundial & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited successfully petitioned for the rectification and removal of a deceptively similar trade mark registered by Shabina Kundial & Anr. The petitioner, which operates under the renowned FACES brand in beauty and wellness, demonstrated extensive prior use, goodwill, and reputation associated with its marks. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly similar to the established FACES marks and was adopted dishonestly to ride over the petitioner's reputation, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v.Askhok Kumar & Ors.
In this Delhi High Court order concerning trademark infringement, the court granted an exemption from advanced service to allow the plaintiffs (Panasonic) to seek urgent interim relief. The core decision was the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a comprehensive search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises. This action aims to confiscate counterfeit packaging materials bearing the 'ANCHOR' trademark, thereby protecting Panasonic's goodwill and preventing further infringement while the main suit proceeds.
Ajp Impex Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademark Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay in favor of Ajp Impex Private Limited regarding a trademark dispute. Despite the respondent failing to appear or file a reply, the court upheld and made absolute the existing interim order from February 2025. This decision allows the petitioner to maintain protection against the impugned mark until the final resolution of the main petition.
Mr Abhishek Sharma & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application (No. 202111053480). The subject matter related to 'black coloured wearing' and its alleged effects on human health, which the Controller rejected as non-technical and an abstract theory lacking scientific evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and due to the inordinate delay in filing.
Shimadzu Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Shimadzu Corporation appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647043103), which concerned a surrogate biomarker for evaluating amyloid beta peptide accumulation. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it related to diagnostic methods. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, finding that the appellants were prejudiced by not having access to a key judgment before the initial hearing.
The Trustees Of Columbia University v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its amended patent claims (1-19) for 'METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF AMYLOID DEPOSITION DISEASES' under Section 59 of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the amendments were supported by the complete specification, citing relevant case law. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh reconsideration.
Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd v.P.Sundaram
The Madras High Court allowed Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd to file additional documents in its rectification petition against P.Sundaram. The petitioner sought to introduce trade mark applications filed by the respondent's son, arguing they demonstrated deceptive similarity and concerted action. While the respondent raised several objections regarding relevance and timing, the court ruled that the issue of relevance could be determined during the trial phase, granting permission for filing while preserving the respondent's right to challenge admissibility later.
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'WAHEED.' The court held that because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory notice regarding the impending expiry of the registration, the petitioner was entitled to seek renewal despite the lapse of time. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative failure by the Registry can override strict procedural deadlines.
Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar v.Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
The appellant filed an RTI seeking comprehensive information from ICMR regarding the legal framework, ownership, and formalities associated with protecting a Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tool developed by undergraduate students. The Commission found that the PIO had disclosed available public domain information, but directed ICMR to provide the Appellant with its detailed Intellectual Property Policy for complete transparency.
Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) v.Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) to submit crucial documentation related to its '6E' trademark registration. The plaintiff sought leave under the CPC to place on record certificates that were only obtained after the initial filing of the suit, arguing they were not in their possession at the time of litigation commencement. Given the defendants had no objection, the court granted the application, allowing the evidence to be formally included in the ongoing trademark dispute.
Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited v.Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited against Sammaan Capital Limited and others. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement because the competing mark 'SAMMAAN' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'SVAMAAN' marks, and both parties operate in identical financial services sectors (granting loans). Despite initial challenges regarding the authenticity of the plaintiff's registration certificates, the court confirmed their validity through a status report from the Trade Marks Registry, thus upholding the injunction.
M/S Aravind Laboratories v.Payal Novelty Private Limited
In this trademark dispute concerning the 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi,' the Calcutta High Court issued an interim order. The court directed the respondents to attempt modifications to their product's get-up and trade dress. Furthermore, they must submit copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025, allowing the litigation to proceed while addressing potential infringement concerns.
M/S.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India & Sakthi Sai Glass Traders (Appellants) v.Compagnie De Saint-Gobain & Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (Respondents/Plaintiffs)
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals challenging an interim injunction granted to Saint-Gobain against Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India. The court found that the appellants, despite their contract with Saint-Gobain expiring, were infringing the 'Saint-Gobain' trademark by using it in connection with toughened glass products. Given the prima facie evidence of consumer confusion and dilution, the balance of convenience favored the trademark owner, upholding the injunction while allowing the main suit to proceed.
Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited v.Friends Inc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Friends Inc for infringing the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark. Furthermore, the court declared 'PETER ENGLAND' as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment emphasized that compliance with initial restraining orders was sufficient to proceed toward final decree and recognition of brand reputation.
M/S. Arvind Laboratories v.Mr. Pawan Kumar Singhania And Anr
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court issued an interim direction requiring the respondents to modify the get-up and trade dress of their product, 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi.' The respondents were mandated to forward copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025. This order allows both parties time to adjust the disputed branding while keeping the litigation moving toward a resolution.
M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd v.M/S Kaveri Polymers
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.
Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers v.Hari Om And Co. And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Anshul Vaish, Partner Rohit Wrapers, against Hari Om And Co. The court cancelled Respondent No. 1's registered mark because the petitioner demonstrated prior and continuous use of the dominant feature 'ROHIT' since 2000, predating the respondent's claim of use in 2005. Given the identical nature of the marks (despite language differences) and the commonality of goods, the court found that allowing the registration would inevitably cause confusion among consumers.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v.Ashar Nisar & Ors.
Star India Pvt. Ltd., an entertainment media company, filed a suit against various individuals and entities for the unauthorized dissemination and broadcasting of its copyrighted content through rogue mobile applications and illicit websites. The plaintiffs asserted their exclusive rights over content streamed via STAR Channels and Disney+ Hotstar. Given that the defendants failed to contest the suit by filing a written statement despite being served, the Delhi High Court found them liable for copyright piracy.
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nikita Dubey Rai, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' and associated copyrights in the field of educational services. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'LEARNING EINSTEINS'. However, both parties amicably settled their dispute through a joint memorandum of compromise dated February 6, 2025.
V.T. Varghese v.Jose Jacob and The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by V.T. Varghese seeking rectification and removal of a registered trademark (No. 1334030). The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court on multiple scheduled dates despite being given opportunities.
Jupeng Bio (Hk) Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Jupeng Bio appealed an order rejecting its patent application for 'Control of Conductivity in Anaerobic Fermentation'. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the prior art cited did not explicitly disclose all claimed elements (conductivity and SCU relationship), and that the reasons for rejection under Section 3(d) were unreasoned. The High Court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding both novelty and Section 3(d) non-patentability.
Purple Innovation, Llc v.Mr. Martin Davis Trading As M/S Purple Martin Mattreses And Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Purple Innovation, LLC, to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding three newly registered trademark applications. While the suit continues, the court noted that both parties use deceptively similar marks ('PURPLE' and 'PURPLE MARTIN') for mattresses. The court encouraged a settlement, instructing the plaintiff to consider dropping claims for costs and damages if the defendants agree to adopt a new mark.