India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 90 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Shri Ram Polymers & Anr
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited filed an opposition against the trademark registration of 'Shri New Prakash Flex' by Shri Ram Polymers & Anr, arguing that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to their existing registered marks ('Prakash', 'Prakash Gold'). The Delhi High Court has initiated the proceedings, issuing notice and setting timelines for both parties to file detailed written submissions. This case will determine whether the new registration infringes upon the petitioner's established brand rights.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.Gurinder Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s petition seeking the cancellation of a competing trademark registered by Gurinder Singh. The court held that due to Mankind's long-standing use and established goodwill, its marks (including 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family) had acquired well-known status. Consequently, the registration of the impugned mark was deemed violative of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments v.Vandhana Jain & Anr.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.
Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr
The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
The court addressed several interlocutory applications. Most notably, it allowed the Plaintiff's application invoking Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims of Patent IN No. 410993. Notice was served on the Controller and Defendants, setting a date for completion of pleadings.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Meet Dilipkumar Patel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'KHADI ARK' and similar marks, maintaining the status quo during the ongoing suit. While the court upheld the protection of the plaintiff's trademark rights, discussions opened regarding a potential settlement, with the defendant offering an undertaking not to use the trademarks in the future if damages were waived. The matter was adjourned for further resolution.
Liberty Group Marketing Division v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Liberty Group Marketing Division's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their trademark application. The court set aside the initial refusal, which was based on a cited mark under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act. Crucially, the court restored the application to its original number but made it conditional: the applicant must first take steps to have the cited mark cancelled or rectified before the merits of their own application will be considered.
Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has suppressed information regarding the utilization of the patent and has fabricated invoices to demonstrate its working. The Defendant contests the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and seeks dismissal of the application based on these allegations.
UPL Limited v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Ors
UPL Limited appealed a decision by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to proceed with its patent application (No. 1378/KOL/2013). The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural flaws, specifically the failure to address expert affidavits and critical technical submissions. The Court set aside the impugned order based on admissions made by the authorities in their affidavit in opposition.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa & Anr. v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Helsinn Healthcare filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare Limited for infringing their patent (No. 426553) related to a combination treatment for nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. The court, after considering the promotional material of 'NETUPIN', found that the defendant's product was an integrated combination of the patented compounds, thus making a prima facie case for infringement.
Pinnacle Engines Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Pinnacle Engines Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8612/CHENP/2012) for an opposed piston engine with non-collinear axes of translation, arguing that it provided a technical advance over conventional collinear engines. The court found potential prior art relevant to the inventive features and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals against Corona Remedies concerning the marks STIMULIV and STIMULET. The core dispute involved the validity of the Defendant's trademark registration, which the Plaintiff challenged. Satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity was prima facie tenable, the court framed an issue on this matter and adjourned the suit for further proceedings.
Green Gold Animation Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Green Gold Animation Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the abandonment of opposition proceedings related to the 'MIGHTY RAJU' device mark. The High Court was asked to restore the opposition and allow the applicant to file a counter statement. However, the appellant subsequently conveyed instructions that they did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Marico Limited v.Bayer AG
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark cancellation petition filed by Marico Limited against Bayer AG. The court noted that despite delays in execution due to one signatory being in Germany, the parties had reached a full settlement regarding the trademark No. 1296206. Consequently, the original petition was closed, and both parties were directed to file a formal memo of settlement with the Registry.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
M/s Munjal Showa Limited v.M/s Star India Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a batch of petitions concerning the rectification and removal of several trademarks, including 'MANJAL.' The court accepted the first respondent's affidavit stating that some trademarks had expired and others were not being put to use despite renewal. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, directing the first respondent to initiate necessary cancellation applications before the Trade Marks Registry within a specified timeframe.
Sebile Educations Private Limited v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebile Educations Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Nikita Dubey Rai and others for infringing its registered trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINS', and violating copyright laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'LEARNING EINSTEINS' in educational services. However, despite previous court directions to file proof affidavits and documents before the Master, the plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit for default.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding two products, 'Xyfen' and 'Xyfen Ultra', which are alleged to infringe Indian Patent No. 394568. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant's products.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. filed an appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 495/DEL/2013). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1999. The court issued directions for notice and filing of replies.