India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 86 of 311 · 7,456 total
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors. The court formally registered the plaint as a commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for both parties to file their respective pleadings, including affidavits of admission/denial of documents. Additionally, several interlocutory applications seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service were granted by the court.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Sudheer Sharma And Ors
Ambuja Cements Limited filed a suit alleging that several defendants were fraudulently using its 'AMBUJA CEMENT' trademarks and associated domains to run phishing websites, deceiving consumers into making payments. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, directing the maintenance of status quo on relevant domain names and ordering telecom/internet service providers (MEITY and DoT) to suspend access to these fraudulent sites. Furthermore, the court mandated that various defendants provide KYC documents and details of registered phone numbers to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Singh And Singh Law Firm Llp v.Singh And Singh Attorneys
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs (Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP) against the Defendants (Singh And Singh Attorneys). The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and goodwill associated with the name 'Singh & Singh'. Despite modifications to the scope of relief sought, the court affirmed the right of the Plaintiffs to protect their brand identity, emphasizing the international reputation and established goodwill of the law firm.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Microcosm Pharma & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.
Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. v.Himanshu Bhandari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. against Himanshu Bhandari & Ors. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and filing certain annexures, while also proceeding with the main injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'AMAATRA BANQUETS' against the registered trademark 'AMAATRA'.
Hershey India Private Limited v.Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani and Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark litigation cases involving Hershey India Private Limited and Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute, which involved various commercial IP matters including suit and rectification petitions, was resolved through mediation before the court. The court accepted the terms of the settlement agreement dated May 1, 2024, thereby disposing of the main suit while adjourning related rectification petitions subject to compliance with the agreed-upon clauses.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'AMUL BINDASS' registered in Class 25. The court accepted the arguments that Amul is the owner of the well-known mark 'AMUL' and has associated device marks, initiating formal proceedings. Notice was issued to Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd, setting the stage for a detailed legal contest over trademark rights.
Network18 Media And Investments Limited v.Www.Brawlersfightclub.Com & Ors.
Network18 Media successfully secured interim relief in the Delhi High Court against various rogue websites operating under domains like brawlersfightclub.com. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of Network18's intellectual property, including copyright in an interview video and associated trademarks. Furthermore, the judgment issued critical directions to telecom and internet service providers to block the identified infringing URLs, providing immediate relief against online piracy.
Cipla Health Limited v.Aishwarya Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Cipla Health Limited against Aishwarya Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the Defendants' mark 'OMNICEL' is virtually identical to the Plaintiff's established mark 'OMNIGEL'. Furthermore, the court recognized the Plaintiff's copyright claim over the product packaging, leading to a comprehensive restraint order against the use of deceptively similar marks and trade dress.
Cipla Limited v.Bioxen Health Care & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Cipla Limited against Bioxen Health Care & Anr. regarding the use of deceptively similar trademarks for respiratory medicinal products. The court found that Cipla had established a prima facie case based on its registered marks ('BUDECORT' and 'RESPULES') and extensive market presence. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from manufacturing or selling goods under names like 'BUDECOT RESPULES,' while also being required to disclose their sales figures and current stock.
M/S Avon Cycles Limited v.M/S Avon Automotive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Avon Cycles Limited against M/S Avon Automotive & Ors. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement concerning the 'AVON' mark across various vehicle and cycle components. This immediate relief restrains the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with goods under identical or deceptively similar marks until further proceedings are concluded.
The Food Masters v.V G And Group & Ors.
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'THE FOOD MASTER', the Delhi High Court suspended an existing ex parte injunction. The suspension was granted to allow the court to comprehensively assess conflicting claims regarding prior use and senior adoption by both parties. The court directed both sides to place crucial documents, including evidence of user status from 2013 and details of a related suit filed in Faridabad, on record before proceeding.
cipla health limited v.syndicate pharma anr
Cipla Health Limited (formerly Cipla Limited) sued Syndicate Pharma and another for infringement of its trademark 'OMNIGEL' and trade dress, alleging the defendants were using a nearly identical mark 'ONMIGEL' on pain relief ointments. The plaintiff claimed extensive prior use since 2000 and significant sales revenue (INR 231 crores in FY 2023-24), arguing the defendant’s actions constituted passing off, dilution, copyright infringement, and misrepresentation.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Domind Pizza & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Domino's IP Holder LLC against several competing pizza businesses. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar trademarks, such as 'DOMIN'D PIZZA,' which was causing confusion and damaging the reputation of the established 'DOMINO'S PIZZA' brand. Furthermore, the court ordered food delivery platforms like Zomato and Swiggy to immediately de-list the infringing listings.
Kathakaar Films Production House v.Shane Ali & Ors
This appeal concerns allegations that Kathakaar Films Production House infringed upon the registered trademarks and copyrights of Shane Ali & Ors. The dispute centers on the use of a logo/mark deceptively similar to the respondents' property in the film 'MAIN LADEGA'. While the appellant admitted using the similar mark, they contested both trademark infringement and copyright violation, arguing the usage was incidental under Section 52(1)(u)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The court listed the appeal for further consideration on merits.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.M/S R.M. Foods & Ors.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed a suit alleging that M/S R.M. Foods & Ors. adopted a deceptively similar trade dress for their products in the fitness and peanut butter industry. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the main suit to proceed, addressed several interlocutory applications regarding documentation and mediation. Crucially, the court noted the dispute over whether the Defendants' alleged infringing trade dress has been discontinued or if the current suit also covers a newer design adopted by the Respondents.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Raghav Jaggi
Rupa Gujral and others filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking removal of an impugned trademark (No. 3777931) related to 'Original Dal Makhani & Butter Chicken'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent, Raghav Jaggi, requiring him to file a reply within six weeks. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 25, 2024.
Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. v.Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. against a trademark registration granted to Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd. The court found that the impugned trademark was not deceptively similar to the appellants' existing trademarks, thereby negating the core grounds of opposition and prior use claims. This ruling reinforces the principle that similarity between marks is paramount in determining infringement or opposition success.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller cancelling his registered design for an Air Cooler (No. 233559) based on alleged prior publication in China. The appeal contended that the cancellation relied only on insufficient evidence from the CNIPA website and ignored previous rejections of similar claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Jaipuria Edutech Foundation & Anr. v.Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaipuria Edutech Foundation against Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust. The court found that the defendant continued to use deceptively similar trademarks despite a terminated franchise agreement and cease-and-desist notices. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using 'Jaipuria International Schools' and 'Seth M.R. Jaipuria School' marks, though the injunction will not take effect until July 15, 2024, allowing time for compliance.
Red Bull Ag v.Rahul Ranjan Partner Of M/S Wings Energy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court finalized a trademark infringement suit between Red Bull Ag and Rahul Ranjan Partner of M/S Wings Energy after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The court decreed the suit in favor of Red Bull, granting permanent injunctions against Defendants No. 1 & 2 to prevent them from using confusingly similar marks like 'WINGS' or 'ENERGY'. This resolution allows both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ajeet Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
Mr Lakshit Goyal Proprietor Of Rama Domestic Appliances v.Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances
The Delhi High Court initiated trademark infringement proceedings between Mr Lakshit Goyal's Rama Domestic Appliances and Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks ('HPC APPLIANCES'). While several procedural applications were disposed of, the core suit was registered, and notice was issued to the defendant, setting the stage for detailed arguments on trademark similarity and infringement.