India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 85 of 311 · 7,456 total
Ashim Gujral v.Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Private Limited & Anr.
Ashim Gujral has initiated legal action against Moti Mahal Delux Management Services regarding the registration of the trademark 'MOTI MAHAL GROUP'. The petitioner asserts co-ownership of the 'MOTI MAHAL' mark and claims that Respondent No. 1 obtained the impugned registration by making false statements, relying on the petitioner's rights without consent. The court has issued notice to both parties, setting the stage for formal opposition proceedings.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited v.Mr. Nipun Gupta & Anr.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of an allegedly infringing trademark, 'RAPIDO' (No. 4459206), registered in Class 39. The Delhi High Court proceeded with issuing notice to all permissible parties, setting the matter for return on September 24, 2024. While procedural applications regarding document filing were addressed, the core dispute over trademark cancellation is now moving forward.
GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. v.Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. against a commercial court order that granted an injunction to Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. The dispute centered on the use of specific alphanumeric codes (e.g., '786', '2048M') in chemical products. The court found prima facie evidence that GTZ copied these unique alpha numerals, which are used by Artek as source identifiers for their goods, thereby establishing a case of both trademark infringement and passing off.
Ranjit Prasad Mathuri v.Gopal Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Ranjit Prasad Mathuri, against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement concerning his 'GS GULAB BIDI 755' mark. This immediate relief restrains the defendants from manufacturing or dealing in bidis using marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark, pending further proceedings.
Malhotra Surgical Industries v.Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia & Anr.
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued interim directions concerning the online sale of 'MICROTONE' products. While the defendant undertook not to sell or distribute the impugned goods, the plaintiff noted that the products remained available on various e-commerce platforms. Consequently, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits—the plaintiff detailing current infringing listings and the defendants naming all distributors—to allow for further appropriate judicial action.
Jrpl Riceland Llp v.Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction favoring Jrpl Riceland LLP against Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's subsequent adoption of a deceptively similar trademark ('2') for rice constituted passing off, given the Plaintiff's established goodwill and senior user status with their mark ('9090'). This interim relief prevents the defendant from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v.Superior Industries Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Radico Khaitan Ltd against Superior Industries Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GREAT GRAND MASTI' for alcoholic beverages was highly likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff's established mark, 'MASTIH'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from manufacturing or selling products bearing the impugned marks until the final hearing.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 by the defendant's manufacturing and sale of generic versions of Empagliflozin and related formulations, including products sold under the trade mark 'Linares-E'.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The suit concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 related to the medicinal product Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted the requested restraint.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, represented by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and its Indian subsidiary, sought an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited for allegedly infringing their Indian Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience, leading to the grant of temporary relief.
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd v.Gm Sales
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Gm Sales was engaging in passing off, unfair competition, and copyright infringement by slavishly copying its salon furniture designs and using its product images. The plaintiff claimed market dominance and distinctiveness in their products. The court reviewed the application to vacate the interim injunction granted earlier.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 268846. The patent covers pharmaceutical products like Empagliflozin and related formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an injunction.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an exemption from advance service based on the apprehension that Defendants might flood the market with infringing products before formal service could occur.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging impending infringement of its patent (IN2698411) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The parties reached an agreement where the defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of on these consent terms.
M/S Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. v.M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking interim relief in a trademark dispute. The court noted that while the respondent's mark is registered and well-known, the appellants' mark was unregistered and had previously been withdrawn from registration. Consequently, the court declined to grant any ad interim order at this stage but directed the appellants to file detailed documentation regarding their prior use and application history for future consideration.
Ds Agrifoods Private Limited v.M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Ds Agrifoods Private Limited against M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'DOODMALAI' and its associated trade dress was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DOONMALAI'. Given the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity, coupled with a prior business relationship suggesting bad faith, the court ruled that the Defendants were passing off their goods. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's market standing until the final hearing.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Property Services Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tata Sia Airlines Limited against Vistara Property Services Llp. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'VISTARA GETAWAYS' and similar marks by the defendant across various online platforms. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft. & Anr. v.National Internet Exchange Of India (NIXI) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft., addressing the misuse of its 'HELL' trademark by imposters operating fraudulent websites. The court directed domain registrars to block infringing domains, mandated banks to freeze suspicious accounts, and ordered telecom providers and government agencies (MeitY/DoT) to take steps to disable mobile numbers and block website access. This decisive order aims to protect the plaintiff's brand reputation and prevent further financial fraud.
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Mr. Muheen Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Abbott Products Operations Ag to cancel the trademark registration 'DUFAKWIK' (No. 4459400) in Class 05. The cancellation was achieved through a mutual agreement, as both parties agreed that the mark should be removed from the Register without any claim for damages. This order provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved efficiently through negotiated settlements before the court.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar Of Copyrights And Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed proceedings against the Registrar of Copyrights, alleging that certain copyright grants were improperly issued. The petitioner contended that these grants failed to properly consider their pre-existing registered trademarks. During the hearing on May 29, 2024, the court accepted trademark search certificates and noted the petitioner's request for a stay on the use of the disputed marks. The matter was listed for further consideration.
Saregama India Limited v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Saregama India Limited filed a declaratory suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, seeking protection against threats made by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited regarding copyright infringement. The core dispute involved Saregama claiming ownership over numerous sound recordings and literary works. However, when Zee subsequently initiated its own suit for copyright infringement against Saregama, the Delhi High Court held that this action brought the matter within the scope of the proviso to Section 60. Consequently, the initial declaratory suit filed by Saregama was rendered infructuous.
Mahesh Gupta v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mahesh Gupta appealed the refusal of his patent application for a 'Portable Vehicle Management System' by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step, citing various prior art documents (D4 and D5). The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the features were predictable applications of existing technology.
Phillip Morris Products S.A. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Products S.A. filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated January 24, 2024, which rejected their patent application (No. 201617026827) under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request while directing parties to file written submissions.
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application (no. 202117021605). The High Court granted exemption in a related interlocutory application and directed parties to file written submissions.