India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 81 of 311 · 7,456 total
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Olvo Lubes International & Ors.
In a significant resolution for Volvo, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The defendants formally acknowledged Volvo's exclusive statutory rights and well-known status of the 'VOLVO' trademark in India. As part of the agreement, the defendants committed to paying ₹1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs, effectively concluding the long-running dispute over trademark infringement and passing off.
M/S Kwality Food Products v.Anil Singla @ Anil Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Kwality Food Products against Anil Singla and others, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the plaintiff has been continuously using the 'Ruchi' marks for spices since 1992, establishing common law rights. Given the identical nature of the goods and deceptive similarity of the packaging, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark to prevent consumer confusion.
Anil Kumar Sole Proprietor Of M/S Anil Kumar Ramesh Kumar v.Jyoti Sales House & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Anil Kumar, seeking permanent injunctions against the alleged infringement of his registered trademark 'DHANI' used for edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's mark, 'DHANIBABA', was deceptively similar in the same business sector. Recognizing the potential for resolution, the court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, allowing both parties an opportunity to settle their trademark dispute outside of litigation.
Mr.A.S.Nagabhushana v.M/s.Shesha Matching
This Madras High Court judgment records the settlement of trademark disputes between Mr. A.S. Nagabhushana and M/s. Shesha Matching. The original petitions, which sought to expunge registered trademarks (SESHA) from the registry, were ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Both parties reached a compromise agreement on July 8, 2024, resolving the conflict without further litigation.
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in favor of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) against Meta Platforms Inc. and other social media intermediaries. The court addressed urgent concerns regarding sophisticated AI-generated 'deepfake' videos impersonating the NSE's MD & CEO, which were used to promote fraudulent stock picking schemes. The order mandates that the platforms immediately remove these unauthorized deepfakes and infringing content, while also compelling them to disclose details of the unknown perpetrators involved in the misuse of the NSE trademark.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of Patent No. 210284, along with damages and other reliefs. The patent has expired, and the remaining issue pertains to the payment of damages.
Ht Process Controls Private Limited v.Ankur Gupta & Ors.
The petitioner, Ht Process Controls Private Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking protection of its intellectual property rights over confidential information and technical know-how related to an automatic robotic system for gas cylinder handling. The Court passed several orders allowing various applications, including granting exemptions and directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct searches and seizures at the defendants' premises.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a rejection order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent Application No. 2260/DELNP/2008. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and falling under 'algorithms'. With consent from both parties, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Loreal India Pvt Ltd v.Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
Mrs Arti Gupta & Anr. v.Puran Rana & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mrs Arti Gupta against Puran Rana, leading to the cancellation of the trademark 'KONVIO NEER' registered in Class 35. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the mark since 2018, while the respondent obtained registration much later in 2022. Citing provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the High Court ruled that the subsequent registration by the respondent was not made in good faith and constituted a contravention of statutory rights.
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Durgai Oil Stores
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Sri Durgai Oil Stores alleging infringement of its 'Gold Winner' trademark and copyright related to edible sunflower oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for using deceptively similar marks like 'Son Gold'. However, the court noted that this matter had already been decreed by a Division Bench in 2019 based on the defendant's affidavit agreeing to cease such activities. Consequently, the current suit was dismissed as nothing remained to be adjudicated.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of their valid patent, IN 334397, related to compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy. The court registered the plaint as a suit and addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for written statements.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh And ... v.Suresh Kumar Suman
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh & Co. KG, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel using the identical trademark 'HUGO BOSS' in South Delhi. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief after the defendant failed to file a written statement despite being served.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Anr. v.Voiceage Evs Llc & Anr.
The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. IN 322739 under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing smartphones, expressed concern over potential wrongful enforcement of this patent by the respondent. The court accepted notice and granted both respondents six weeks to file their respective replies.
Rhodia Operations v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the rejection of its patent application for an esteramide compound by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The respondent rejected the claim as lacking inventive steps. The High Court found that the rejection was based on general observations and failed to address specific arguments made by the appellant regarding prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed.
ITC Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
ITC Limited filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 8, 2024. The original order rejected a post-grant opposition filed by ITC against Patent No. 377333 and denied relief for patent revocation.
Asian Paints Limited v.John Doe And Others
Asian Paints Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court granted orders directing various parties—including Domain Name Registrars, banks, and mobile service providers—to suspend specific infringing websites and freeze associated bank accounts. This decisive order aims to immediately halt the sale of counterfeit products using the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark across e-commerce platforms.
Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court overturned a trademark refusal order in favor of Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd. The appeal was based on the fundamental principle of natural justice, as the appellant claimed they were never properly served with the Show Cause Notice before the Examiner's hearing. Citing established legal precedents, the court held that administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions must afford parties a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration after granting due process.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5948/CHENP/2014) for a hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), known as Rimegepant, by the Indian Patent Office. The opposition was primarily based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, arguing that enhanced bioavailability alone does not guarantee patentability. The High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Pramit Sanghavi v.Energy Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in a suit concerning design infringement. The plaintiff, Pramit Sanghavi (representing market leaders in packaged natural mineral water), alleged that the defendant was imitating their registered bottle designs (Nos. 281573 and 311139) for their product "NU". After considering the prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the Court granted an interim injunction to protect the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application for a new hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the compound demonstrated enhanced bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy compared to the free base form. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
Pfizer Inc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Pfizer Inc has filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated March 27, 2024, which refused to grant a patent. Pfizer contends that the refusal was arbitrary, incorrectly concluding that the subject matter lacked technical advancement or failed Section 3(d) requirements.
Varun Chopra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Varun Chopra against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf. The court allowed the main suit to proceed after resolving jurisdictional issues and granting various procedural exemptions, including those related to document filing and advance service. Crucially, the court referred the dispute to mediation, encouraging the parties to explore an amicable settlement despite the clear allegations of passing off and trademark infringement.