India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 72 of 295 · 7,068 total
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd v.Hub.Nrw-Euindia Invest Gmbh & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd (AMUL), granting a decree against multiple defendants for trademark infringement related to the 'AMUL TRU seltzer' brand. The court issued sweeping orders requiring domain registrars and the Department of Telecommunications to block access to various infringing websites globally. Furthermore, it restrained certain parties from exporting AMUL products that were not intended for the EU market, reinforcing robust protection against digital counterfeiting and unauthorized trade.
Grip Invest Technologies Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Grip Invest Technologies, restraining a newly discovered mirroring website (eliteedgebrokerage.info) from operating. The court found that the new site was an exact copy of the plaintiff's website, infringing both copyright and trademark. Furthermore, the court directed the Domain Name Registrar and the Department of Telecommunication to take immediate steps to block access to the infringing domain, reinforcing proactive measures against online IP infringement.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's attempt to reopen evidence regarding costs and damages in a trademark infringement suit. The court noted the defendant's history of 'abysmal conduct,' including being a 'habitual offender/rank infringer' who repeatedly infringes third-party products. Given that the defendant had ample opportunity to present their case previously, the court found the late application was not bona fide and aimed only at delay.
Tata Power Solar Systems Limited & Anr. v.Www.Tatapowersolardealership.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, finding that several defendants were infringing on its registered trademarks ('TATA' and 'TATA POWER SOLAR'). The court recognized the immense goodwill and reputation associated with the brand. Furthermore, the judgment included significant ancillary relief, directing the suspension of specific domain names and mandating the freezing and transfer of funds from bank accounts linked to the infringement activities into a designated RBI fund.
Saint Gobain Placo v.Khushbu Frames
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing on their registered patents related to corrugated construction elements. The defendants claim they have never used the technology in question.
Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others
The case involves a petition for revocation of a patent granted to the defendant and a counter suit alleging infringement of the suit patent by the plaintiff.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.The Advertising Standards Council of India
Reckitt Benckiser challenged an order passed by the learned Judge which rejected its application for an interim injunction against The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Reckitt, a manufacturer of consumer health products like MORTEIN mosquito repellent, sought to prevent ASCI from adjudicating complaints against its new product advertisements. The Madras High Court ultimately found that the suit did possess cause of action and jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, setting aside the initial order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patents, specifically concerning distributor plates and turbo tips compatible with SANDVIK VSI crushers. After initial ex parte orders, the matter was disposed of at a summary stage upon concession by the defendant regarding the injunction.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, which covers 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's Bi-Sector Array Antennas infringed both method and product claims of the patent. Despite the Defendant raising challenges regarding the patent's validity under Sections 64(e), 64(f), and 3(d) of the Patents Act, the Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Jamboree Resorts India Llp & Anr. v.Mehul Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Jamboree Resorts India LLP, who holds registered trademarks for 'JAMBOREE'. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, who were operating the resort under the name 'SIGNUM JAMBOREE CREEK RESORT' following a terminated revenue-sharing agreement. The order restrained the use of the infringing mark and mandated the handover of all associated digital assets to allow the plaintiffs to regain control.
Shrinath Travel Agency Through Its Partners & Anr. v.Harsh Kumar Trading As Shrinath Nama Travel Agency & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to implead several additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit. Finding a prima facie case of deception due to identical or deceptively similar marks being used for identical travel services, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the newly added parties from using the impugned trademarks. Furthermore, the court directed domain registrars associated with infringing websites to block and suspend access to those domains.
Bonn Nutrients Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v.Pahal Foods Pvt. Limited & Ors.
In a dispute over the packaging and trade dress of coconut cookies, Bonn Nutrients sought an injunction against Pahal Foods for alleged infringement. The Delhi High Court issued an order facilitating an amicable settlement between the parties. Defendants agreed not to manufacture any more products under the disputed label/packaging but were granted time to exhaust their existing stock of 15,000 cases. Both parties were also directed toward mediation and listed for further consideration.
Jr Rice India Pvt. Ltd v.Kishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jr Rice India Pvt. Ltd against Kishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while formally registering the plaint as a commercial suit. Crucially, regarding the injunction application seeking to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'ABBA HUZUR' on rice products, the Court issued notice to the defendant.
M/S. Lotus Organic Care v.M/S. Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd.
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Lotus Organic Care, setting aside a lower court's rejection of its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core issue was whether the petitioner had made sufficient prima facie pleadings in their written statement to warrant staying the infringement suit while they pursued trademark rectification. The High Court held that the trial court only needs to record prima facie satisfaction based on the pleadings, not evaluate the evidence for the eventual rectification application. Consequently, the infringement proceedings were stayed, allowing the petitioner to proceed with challenging the validity of the respondent's trademarks.
Leonhard Kurz Stiftung And Co. Kg v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of the Appellant's patent application, which held that subsequent amendments were outside the scope of the original filing. The High Court found that the amended claims referenced the complete specifications as originally filed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Patents Office.
Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealed a patent application rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, failed to consider submitted data and did not provide adequate opportunity to respond to the Section 3(d) objection.
Cassiopea S.P.A. v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Cassiopea S.P.A. appealed the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patent, which rejected its Indian Patent Application (No. 201717042863) and accepted a pre-grant opposition filed by other respondents. The Delhi High Court allowed applications for condoning delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
Castrol Limited v.Mohan Bajya
In a significant move against alleged counterfeiters, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited. The court recognized the substantial goodwill associated with Castrol's trademarks and trade dress for engine oils. To enforce this urgent relief, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods manufactured by the defendant, Mohan Bajya, and inspect relevant financial records.
Eastman Auto And Power Limited v.Shreejee Power Systems Llp
In a Delhi High Court case concerning trademark infringement and passing off, Eastman Auto And Power Limited successfully reached a settlement with Shreejee Power Systems Llp. The Defendant agreed to permanently cease using the disputed mark 'EASTON' in association with batteries and solar inverters, acknowledge the Plaintiff's rights in 'EASTMAN', and undertake specific actions including filing for cancellation of one registered mark and rectification of another. The suit was subsequently disposed of on these consent terms.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 872/DELNP/2011) for 'Crop Safeners' by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs. The primary objection was the lack of specification regarding the ratio of constituents and novelty issues. The High Court found that the suggested amendments could address the non-specification issue and remanded the application for a fresh hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Perilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'OMEZEE' and 'OMEZEE-DM' for pharmaceutical products similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'OMEZ'. This immediate relief prevents the defendant from continuing manufacturing or marketing the infringing products until the full trial.