India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 69 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/s Hi-Tech Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Spdd Infra Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for a decree of Rs. 46,54,721/-, along with interest and permanent injunction, alleging misuse or infringement related to 80 patented moulds used in constructing Reinforced Earth (RE) Walls. The court examined the contractual relationship and the claims regarding outstanding payments.
Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital Enterprises v.Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram Puranmall And Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, allowing them to incorporate facts regarding the subsequent registration of their trademark. The court emphasized that amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of a case and should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, especially when avoiding multiplicity of litigation is at stake. This ruling reinforces the liberal approach courts must take when considering pleadings amendments in IP disputes.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that the respondents copied the entire content of his two Marathi language books, 'Hkkjrh; vFkZO;oLFkk' and 'Hkkjrh; jkT;?kVuk iz'kklu'. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale of these allegedly duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by the plaintiff, finding prima facie no merit in his case.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that defendants had infringed his copyrights by copying the content of two Marathi language books. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale and publication of these alleged duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal, finding prima facie no merit in the plaintiff's case regarding the grant of temporary relief.
Levi Strauss & Co v.Ashok Woven Labels And Ors
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Co., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks, specifically 'LEVI's' and 'LEVI'S PREMIUM'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit labels and goods using the protected marks. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew a trademark registration (No. 1150198). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the certificate, coupled with failure to serve mandatory renewal notices (O-3 Notice), prevented them from renewing their mark despite its initial validity period expiring. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for administrative lapses by the Registry, mandating the restoration and subsequent renewal of the trademark.
V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited v.Jayashree
In a dispute over the 'MANAPURAM' trademark, V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited successfully reached a settlement with Jayashree before the Madras High Court. The parties agreed that the Petitioner has prior rights to the mark and that the Respondent will cancel her existing registration (No. 5109630) and transfer associated domain names within ten days. This compromise resolves the petition seeking removal of the infringing trademark entry.
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. v.Rehan Talat Khan and N.S. Sangolli
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. filed an application to set aside an arbitration award dated 10-01-2012. The dispute arose from a partnership in M/s Gambaz Foods International, involving allegations of breach of trust, financial misappropriation, and trademark disputes related to the brand 'Prawnto'.
Mr.Rahul Bagga v.The Controller of Patent
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on two grounds: that the amendment sought changed the scope of invention (violating Section 59), and that the subject matter lacked substantial benefit to mankind (Section 3(b)).
Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Chennai
Malabar Natural Foods Private Limited approached the Kerala High Court seeking intervention regarding pending trademark applications before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai. The petitioner sought a direction for timely disposal of their applications (Exts.P1 and P2). Recognizing the procedural backlog but acknowledging the need for resolution, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to take earnest efforts to pass orders on the pending matters within a stipulated period of four months.
Kedar Nath Mishra v.Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court deferred the appeals filed by Kedar Nath Mishra against Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The court allowed further time for arguments and noted that the respondent required additional time to place documents on record regarding an amendment to its trademark registration, reflecting usage since 31.12.2007. Consequently, the appeals were released from part-heard status and rescheduled for a later date.
Harvinder Kumar v.M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction in favor of Harvinder Kumar regarding the infringement of his registered trademark. The dispute centered on M/S Upgride Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'s continued use of batteries and chargers bearing the plaintiff's mark after their agreement was terminated. The court found that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, granting directions to the respondent to cease using the marked assets and return them within one week.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Samsung Electronics filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of its Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of a Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
M/s.Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited v.Union of India
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited, upholding an earlier order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The core dispute involved the use of the identical trade name 'Shaktiman' by both parties. The court affirmed that since the respondent company held extensive and long-standing trademark rights for 'Shaktiman,' its continued use by the petitioner was contrary to corporate incorporation rules, regardless of differences in product categories.
S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27) v.The Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)
The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited
The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking permanent injunctions and recall orders against the defendant regarding the sale of 'Sigrima', a biosimilar of Pertuzumab, infringing patents IN 268632 and IN 464646. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable loss.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Delhi High Court heard several part-heard matters. In C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 16/2023, the court noted that the Patent Office had submitted a report concerning issues related to inventive steps, subject matter eligibility, and amendment under the Patents Act, 1970.