India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 75 of 311 · 7,456 total
Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order modifying a prior decision in the trademark dispute between Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak and Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr. The modification allows Respondent No. 1 to bring on record several crucial additional documents related to ownership changes, examination objections, and responses filed with the Trademark Registry. This procedural step is significant as it introduces detailed evidence regarding trademark assignment timelines and prior rejection grounds into the ongoing litigation.
Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH v.Devki Nandan Malik T/A Delhi Hardware and Engg Works
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH against Devki Nandan Malik. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff regarding filing documents and pre-institution mediation, while simultaneously allowing urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the defendant's premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the 'AKEMI' trademark, and examine relevant financial records.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Jyotiben Hareshbhai Chovatiya and Ors.
The Plaintiff sought permission to add several associated entities (Defendants No. 4 to 6) as party defendants, alleging they were involved in dealing with goods bearing an impugned trade mark 'NEUROGABA'. The Court found that these parties were necessary and proper for the adjudication of the matter.
Ulink Agritech Private Ltd. v.Sml Limited & Others
The appellant challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, which restrained them from infringing Patent No. 282092 (covering 'SELZIC'). The core legal issue was whether the Single Judge's order contained adequate reasons as mandated by proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court found that the conclusion of a prima facie case was not preceded by any proper reasoning, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the injunction.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran
V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar Anr.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Ashok Kumar Anr. for infringing their registered trademark 'COOKME'. The plaintiffs alleged that they only discovered the infringement in July 2024, necessitating urgent legal action. The Calcutta High Court granted leave to proceed with the suit under various provisions, including Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the plaint to be admitted subject to departmental scrutiny.
Nnova And Company v.Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition following a settlement between Nnova And Company and Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies. The court cancelled the registered trademark 'GLOWNOWO' (No. 3830607) in Class-03, which was deemed deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark NOVA. In exchange, the respondent agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks and committed to using a specific label format for 'Glownow', ensuring distinctiveness from the original brand.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals for infringing its patent IN 297581, which covers the compound Osimertinib. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case and granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further hearing.
Baynee Industries v.Rajiv Rosha
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking substantial damages against the defendant, alleging wrongful interference with business due to the defendant's patented product. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing lack of cause of action and correlation between the patent and the alleged business loss. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaint, when read as a whole, disclosed sufficient cause of action.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Plc
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Beacon Pharmaceuticals and others for infringing its patent (IN 297581) covering the compound Osimertinib. The court, after considering the prima facie case, granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from selling or offering the patented compound in any form.
Neela Film Productions Private Limited v.Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in favor of Neela Film Productions Private Limited (Plaintiff) in its copyright and trademark infringement suit against Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors. (Defendants). The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowed the plaintiff to serve advance copies on a specific defendant despite lack of contact details, and directed that the plaint be formally registered as a commercial suit. These orders pave the way for the substantive trial concerning the alleged infringement of the popular show 'Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah'.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.Mr Jayesh Dilip Mehta & Anr.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed multiple applications seeking an injunction against Mr. Jayesh Dilip Mehta and others, alleging that the respondents were communicating with e-commerce platforms to falsely claim infringement of their trademark 'MYFITNESS'. The petitioner argues that the respondents' actions are causing product delisting on major online marketplaces. While the respondent opposes the maintainability of the applications, citing different sections of the Trade Marks Act, the court has ordered notice and set a date for further arguments.
Lv Bhavani Sankar v.Gemini Edibles And Fats India Pvt Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a Transfer Review Petition filed by Lv Bhavani Sankar against a previous rectification order concerning Trademark 3830617. The petitioner sought to keep the trademark registered. However, the court noted that the arguments in the current petition were identical to another pending petition and closed (T)Rev.Pet(IPD)/2/2024 without issuing a specific ruling on costs.
Havells India Limited v.Hetram Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.
Natco Pharma Ltd. v.M/s. Schering Corporation
Natco Pharma Ltd filed an Original Petition (Patents) seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No.202128 against M/s. Schering Corporation and the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The court observed that the term of the patent had expired on 06.10.2018, rendering the petition infructuous.
Ashokbhai Manjibhai Sankharava trading as M/s. Unolex Aquatech v.M/S. Trishul Pump
The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commercial Court rejecting applications seeking exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff had filed four suits for patent infringement (No. 388576) but failed to demonstrate a genuine need for urgent interim relief.
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to permit the filing of renewal applications for several registered trademarks. The petitioner argued that due to the failure of the Registrar to issue timely notice, they were entitled to renew the marks as a successor-in-interest. The Court held that while the lapse by the Registrar is noted, the petitioner must first register the assignment deed before applying for renewal.
Himalaya Wellness Company And Ors v.Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found a prima facie case for passing off, noting that the plaintiffs have established significant goodwill with their 'HIMALAYA' brand since 1930. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'HIMALAYAN ORGANICS', though they were allowed three months to exhaust existing stock.
Akzo Nobel Coatings International B. v.Berger Paints India Limited and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the appeal concerning the trademark 'POLYDUR'. The court noted that Respondent No. 1 had submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal of the trademark application (No. 1949642). Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks, Kolkata, to process and pass the appropriate orders for the complete withdrawal of the mark within three weeks.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of M/S Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court referred a trademark dispute between Vijay Baweja and Ajay Baweja to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The petitioner sought rectification of their 'AIRGOLD' trademark and cancellation of the respondent's similar mark, 'AIR GOLD (DEVICE)', both registered in Class 12. This move indicates the court is encouraging parties to resolve complex IP conflicts through alternative dispute resolution before proceeding with a full trial.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd v.Kanchan Singh
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their trademark 'KENT' and registered design no. 312406 related to water purifiers. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are selling products that are identical or deceptively similar to their registered designs.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 202117035647 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court allowed exemption and set notice, granting both parties time to file their respective written synopses or rejoinders.
M/S Krbl Limited v.M/S J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Krbl Limited to file amendments and introduce crucial subsequent documentation in its ongoing suit against J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff successfully sought to place on record the registration certificate, legal proceedings, and official orders confirming 'INDIA GATE' as a well-known trademark. This procedural order allows the case to proceed with updated evidence relevant to the core dispute.
Dunar Foods Limited v.Ankit Vats Trading As Avjk Foods Llp & Anr.
Dunar Foods Limited initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'Nawazish' through a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court issued notice to all parties and set forth detailed timelines for filing replies and written synopses. This order marks a procedural step in the ongoing litigation aimed at challenging the validity of the registered mark.