India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 78 of 311 · 7,456 total
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd against Ks Agro Impex. The court found that the defendant's use of a nearly identical packaging and mark ('ZARDA SPECIAL') created a significant likelihood of consumer confusion with the plaintiff's 'Zarda King' product. This ruling protects the plaintiff's trade dress, which was deemed both an original trade dress under the Trade Marks Act and an original artistic work under the Copyright Act.
Natera Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed against an order issued by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that its patent application (No. 18/DELNP/2015) was not patentable due to non-compliance with various sections of the Patent Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding infringement of patent IN'841. The court considered the defense that the defendants were only engaged in permitted activities under Section 107(A) and had not yet obtained commercial manufacturing licenses from CDSCO. The court granted an interim order allowing the defendants to proceed with obtaining necessary permissions.
Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha Trading As Yonex Co Ltd v.Harshit Setia & Anr.
Yonex filed a petition seeking the rectification and expungement of a trademark registration (No. 5548308) in Class 25, held by Harshit Setia, for the mark 'AERUS'. Yonex argued that the registration was obtained in bad faith and lacked bonafide use, making it ex facie illegal under Section 47(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies within specified timelines, setting the matter for further hearing.
Havells India Ltd v.Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors regarding the alleged infringement of the registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark, 'REIO', constituted passing off and dilution. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct searches at the defendants' premises, seize infringing goods, and inspect relevant financial records.
Mr.A.Salaudeen v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Sunita Jaykumar Patel & Anr. v.International Institute Of Pelvic Floor Research Rahab and Education & Ors.
This Gujarat High Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging a restrictive interim injunction granted in a trademark and copyright dispute. The parties reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to resolve key aspects of the conflict, specifically regarding the use of the 'V Care' mark and the scope of copyright protection for educational materials. Consequently, the court substituted the original injunction order with the terms agreed upon in the MoU, effectively settling the immediate dispute at the injunction stage.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Jindal (India) Limited against Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr. While granting procedural exemptions, the court specifically advanced the main injunction request (I.A. 6082/2024). The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's registered mark 'JINDAL' and the defendants' usage on roofing sheets, ordering notice to the defendants to record their undertaking before the Court.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s application seeking permission to introduce crucial new evidence into the ongoing trademark dispute. The plaintiff sought to file the official trademark registration certificate and status, which was granted after the initial opposition filed by the defendants was rejected. This ruling allows the plaintiff to strengthen its case for rectification in the suit.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the invention was not merely a method of treatment but rather an in vitro method for selecting specific allogenic T-cell lines. The respondent had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, on this ground. The Madras High Court found that the respondent erroneously failed to appreciate the actual scope of the claim, which focused on the selection process rather than treatment itself.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited appealed the Controller's order refusing the grant of a patent (Application No. 202017011947) for Catalytic Combustion. The appellant argued that the refusal was flawed because it failed to consider their detailed responses and amendments, and that non-attendance at the hearing was not abandonment due to financial difficulties. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had rejected it on the grounds that the invention was a method of treatment, making it unpatentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the claim described an in vitro method of selecting T-cell lines, not a direct method of treating a patient. The Madras High Court agreed with this distinction, finding that the rejection was based on an erroneous application of law to the facts. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Ideal Technoplast Industries Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered patents and designs. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-litigation mediation. Furthermore, the court allowed an application for Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises regarding alleged patent infringement.
Mars Incorporated v.Rf Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Mars Incorporated against Rf Limited And Ors. following a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the distinctive packaging, trade dress, and branding of Mars' PEDIGREE pet food line. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged Mars' proprietary rights and agreed to cease manufacturing or marketing pet foods using an identical trade dress or get-up for their 'PETYUM' brand.
Fdc Limited v.Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Fdc Limited against Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'ZIFISAFE' for identical pharmaceutical products constitutes a blatant attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ZIFI'. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Irvinder Laur Chadha v.Garnish Electronics Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed to remove the trademark 'GARNISH'. The court found that the registration had expired on June 4, 2022. Since the statutory grace period for restoration and renewal under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, had lapsed in 2023, the court directed the Registry to remove the mark. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark registrations.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application. The Controller refused the grant on the ground that the invention related to tobacco use, which causes serious prejudice to human life or health, making it ineligible under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation has appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Patent Application No. 201617000209. The appellant contends that the respondent failed to consider their detailed submissions regarding the invention requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Is Eg Halal India Private Limited v.Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Is Eg Halal India Private Limited against Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, recognizing the importance of their 'IS EG Halal' mark in the market. Furthermore, it appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing packaging materials and inspect relevant books of accounts, ensuring immediate protection for the trademark holder.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan Live News & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan Live News, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court restrained the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'HINDUSTAN LIVE NEWS' and directed Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook/Instagram) and Google LLC (YouTube) to immediately remove infringing content. This ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to protect established brand goodwill in the digital media space.