India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 73 of 311 · 7,456 total
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.
SMC NOVA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED v.SURYA MARKETING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court ordered the settlement of an IP dispute between SMC Nova Estate Private Limited and Surya Marketing Company. The matter specifically concerned the respondent's mark in relation to Tea and Elachi products. As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to file documentation showing a proposed change in their packaging and trademark, replacing 'NOVA' with 'SUPERHOVA', before the court.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed against the rejection of its patent by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Design. The appellant argued that the rejection, which relied upon Section 3(d) of The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, was incorrect. The Court directed both parties to file replies and rejoinders.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr. v.M/S Steel India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to be exempted from pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court also granted permission to file additional documents and, crucially, ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence regarding patent infringement.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants concerning Indian Patent No. 269841. The defendants submitted that they had not commercialized any product containing 'Ruxolitinib' and did not intend to do so in the future.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice issued by Respondent No. 2 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202017037539. After reviewing submissions and noting the lack of reply from respondent no. 2, the court directed both parties to file their short notes of submissions.
Sanjay Kumar v.Rattan Lal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Kumar, who holds the registered trademark 'CHAND' for mustard oil. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'R.L. CHAND' on identical products and packaging, causing potential confusion among consumers. This preliminary order restrains the defendants from continuing to use the infringing mark until the full trial.
Somalogic Operating Co., INC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Somalogic Operating Co. appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'CARDIOVASCULAR RISK EVENT PREDICTION AND USES THEREOF'. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed invention qualified as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to argue against the classification and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Motor And General Finance Limited v.A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of The Motor And General Finance Limited against A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MGF INDIA' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established trademark 'MGF'. Given the prima facie case for infringement and the risk of irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a suit and a rectification petition following a successful mediation process between the parties. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr., successfully secured a decree against Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr. based on a settlement agreement dated May 22, 2024. Crucially, the respondent was directed to withdraw their trademark 'RAKARNI GYPSUM' (Registration No. 3618245) and undertake not to commit any acts of infringement or passing off related to similar marks in Class 19.
M.K. Srinivasan And Another v.Chemsol India And Another
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M.K. Srinivasan And Another against Chemsol India And Another, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess significant goodwill associated with their 'TAURUS' trademarks used for testing and measurement instruments. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Morepen Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma against Morepen Laboratories. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-institution mediation, while proceeding with the main injunction application (I.A. 38001/2024). The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption of their registered trade dress and copyright for a pregnancy detection strip, leading to claims of infringement and passing off. The defendant countered by arguing that the plaintiff approached the court belatedly.
Ms. Bhupinder Mehta v.Sh Pradeep Bareja & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'BSM' (Application No. 5149074) in Class-11. The petitioner alleged that the respondent dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark, which was identical to her prior registered trademark. While some procedural applications were disposed of, the court formally issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies, moving the core dispute forward.
Malpani Enterprises v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malpani Enterprises, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept and proceed with its Notice of Opposition. The core issue was a technical glitch in the online filing portal which prevented the petitioner from meeting the deadline. Given that the respondent admitted the statutory period had not lapsed, the court held that a party should not suffer due to administrative or technical failures, thereby setting aside the rejection letter.
Ppc Broadband Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ppc Broadband Inc filed an appeal challenging an impugned order dated 28.03.2024 which held that its patent application subject matter ('REEL ENCLOSURES') fell under Section 2(1)(ia) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed applications for exemption from filing documents and condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application, "Administration of Wireless Systems," which was initially objected to on grounds including lack of inventive step and subject matter eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court examined whether the invention provided a sufficient technical contribution beyond mere algorithmic processes. Ultimately, the court found that the core functionality relied heavily on conditional logic and procedural steps, classifying it as an algorithmic process excluded by law.
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Patent Controller regarding its patent application for a live scene recognition system that filters objectionable content before recording. The Controller rejected the claim based on lack of inventive step, citing two pieces of prior art (D1 and D2).
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company filed an appeal against a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs. The company, citing procedural difficulties inherent to being a foreign entity, sought condonation for a two-month delay in filing the appeal. The Calcutta High Court accepted the grounds presented, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
Enterabio Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.
Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.