India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 88 of 311 · 7,456 total
Eastman Auto And Power Limited v.Shreejee Power Systems Llp
In a Delhi High Court case concerning trademark infringement and passing off, Eastman Auto And Power Limited successfully reached a settlement with Shreejee Power Systems Llp. The Defendant agreed to permanently cease using the disputed mark 'EASTON' in association with batteries and solar inverters, acknowledge the Plaintiff's rights in 'EASTMAN', and undertake specific actions including filing for cancellation of one registered mark and rectification of another. The suit was subsequently disposed of on these consent terms.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 872/DELNP/2011) for 'Crop Safeners' by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs. The primary objection was the lack of specification regarding the ratio of constituents and novelty issues. The High Court found that the suggested amendments could address the non-specification issue and remanded the application for a fresh hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Perilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'OMEZEE' and 'OMEZEE-DM' for pharmaceutical products similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'OMEZ'. This immediate relief prevents the defendant from continuing manufacturing or marketing the infringing products until the full trial.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.M/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs alleged infringement of their statutory rights over Indian Patent No. 224186. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The case involves allegations of patent infringement regarding product patent IN 268632 and process patent IN 464646.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Devender Kumar
The Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 3841841 related to a suspo-emulsion of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The parties mutually resolved their disputes and agreed to a compromise.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications in the patent infringement suit filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and others. The court disposed of the application seeking exemption from mediation and dismissed the application filed by Defendant No. 5 seeking deletion from the array of parties, affirming that all defendants are necessary for the dispute.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
The appellants filed an appeal challenging a single bench order that had dismissed their writ petition. The original petition questioned the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court admitted the appeal but dismissed the prayer for stay, stating that the statute remains valid until struck down.
Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr. v.Mr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.
Future Bath Products Private Limited v.Corza International & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.
M/S New Bharat Overseas v.M/S Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an application for substitution, recognizing that the original petitioner's trademark and copyright rights had been assigned to a new entity, M/s New Bharat Impex. The court held that since the cause of action now rested with the assignee, the substitution was necessary for effective adjudication. This order ensures continuity in IP litigation following a change in ownership.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design's order dated January 2, 2024. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, concerning the Appellant's Indian Patent Application No. 201917025257.
R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Navnath Pipes
The plaintiff, R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the defendant, M/S Navnath Pipes, was infringing its distinctive trademark 'PLASTO/' in relation to plastic pipes and fittings. The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered the defendant using a deceptively similar mark for manufacturing and selling impugned goods.
M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. v.M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. against M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the similarity between the marks and the services provided (travel, transport, logistics). Crucially, the defendants were ordered to deactivate their infringing domain name within one week, while the operational injunction would take effect after a six-week grace period.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v.Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and removal of the trademark registration 'MAZELO' held by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, permitted the petitioner to amend their petition to include the Registrar of Trademarks as Respondent No. 2. This procedural step moves the case forward toward challenging the validity of the existing trademark.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Hike Global Pte. Ltd.
WinZO Games Private Limited filed a petition seeking interim reliefs against Hike Global Pte. Ltd. alleging that the Respondents launched a competing app ('Rush') which imitated WinZO's features, misused confidential information, and utilized WinZO's proprietary match-making algorithm. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to place relevant source codes and algorithms on record for the Sole Arbitrator.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Advent Brand House Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Advent Brand House Private Limited. Noting that certain respondents were unserved despite previous attempts, the court directed the issuance of fresh notices to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner was also instructed to serve the Trade Mark Attorney who represented Respondent No. 1 in the registration process. This procedural step ensures all parties are properly notified before further proceedings continue.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the continuation of litigation concerning the 'RATHI' trademark dispute between Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. and Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Despite unsuccessful mediation efforts, the court scheduled the matter before a different bench for September 3, 2024, to continue addressing the disputed issues.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product NIVOLUMAB, marketed as OPDYTA in India. The defendant is attempting to process a biosimilar version of the plaintiff's drug.
Manish Vanigota v.Commissioner of Customs Nagpur
The appeal challenged the absolute confiscation of goods and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur. The case involved various consignments containing prohibited items, including those infringing intellectual property rights, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products. The Tribunal set aside several penalties, finding that the adjudicating authority failed to elaborate on the specific prescriptions violated.