India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 91 of 311 · 7,456 total
Janssen Sciences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Sciences Ireland appealed the Deputy Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application for 'LONG TERM TREATMENT OF HIV-INFECTION WITH TMC278'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step. The Court noted an inconsistency between the formulation claim and method claims in the application, allowing the Appellant to file a fresh, amended application.
M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries
The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar v.G.Saravanan
The Madras High Court closed an Original Petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration after both parties entered into a joint compromise memo. The petitioner, M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar, successfully secured commitments from G.Saravanan to cease using the disputed mark and take steps within 30 days to cancel Registration No. 3814752 in Class 29. This settlement provides a definitive resolution to the trademark dispute.
Richi Mathew v.Muthoot Finance Ltd; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court addressed two Original Petitions concerning the rectification and expungement of specific trademarks registered under Trademark Nos. 1880132 and 1248199 in Class 36. However, before any substantive ruling could be made on the merits of the trademark entries, the petitioner filed an endorsement stating that they no longer wished to pursue these petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Original Petitions as withdrawn.
The Procter & Gamble Company v.Rspl Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by The Procter & Gamble Company against Rspl Limited, directing the removal of the trade mark 'VINGS'. The court found that 'VINGS' was phonetically and identically similar to the petitioner's prior registered trademark 'WINGS', which covered identical goods (sanitary pads). Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of use for their mark during the application process. While the immediate rectification is granted, the broader issue regarding Rspl's descriptive use of 'with wings' remains open and will be decided in a separate suit.
Anuj Bindal M/S Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Tarsem Chand M/S R.D Traders
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical trademark registration held by R.D Traders. The court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the animal feed market. Crucially, the court determined that while the Petitioner's prior use was not perfectly documented, the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed date of first use, thus invalidating the registration under Section 9(2)(a) and on grounds of fraudulent representation.
Dharmaj Technologies v.Mac Swin Technologies
Dharmaj Technologies filed a suit against Mac Swin Technologies alleging infringement and passing off related to its Registered Design No. 253469, which pertains to a diamond processing machine. The dispute centered on the defendant's manufacturing and sale of machines bearing identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's design. Following an undertaking by the defendant discontinuing the use of the impugned design, the court allowed the suit to the extent of granting permanent injunctions against future infringement.
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited filed an appeal against the impugned order dated December 18, 2023, which rejected its patent application No. 20201711947 due to non-appearance on a scheduled hearing date. The appellant sought remand for hearing and condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
Glow Shoes Private Limited v.Trk Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant, Trk Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the validity of Glow Shoes Private Limited's trademark registration No. 1467735 ('TRV') in Class 25. Despite unsuccessful settlement attempts between the parties, the court issued notice and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on August 29, 2024. This order keeps the dispute alive, allowing both sides to proceed with their arguments regarding trademark validity.
M.Anees Ahmed (M/s.Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by M.Anees Ahmed concerning the alleged misuse of his trade name, "Ambur Star Briyani," by the defendant, "Star Briyani." The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing-off, as well as a declaration that his mark is a 'well-known mark.' The court examined the long history and extensive public recognition of the plaintiff's brand, which traces its origins back to 1890. While the judgment details the claims for relief, it appears to be an interim or procedural order given the lack of detailed findings on merits in the provided excerpt, setting the stage for further litigation.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Maventech Labs Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Shrinath Travel Agency against Maventech Labs Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively adopting their registered trademarks ('SHRINATH') and associated marks in the tour and travel industry, including through identical domain names. The court found a prima facie case was made out, noting that balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, leading to immediate restraint on the use of infringing marks and websites until the final hearing.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Om Prakash Gupta
In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited sought clarification on the service status of a hearing notice related to their application. While the Registrar of Trade Marks cited database records indicating successful notice dispatch, the appellant argued that the portal did not confirm actual service. The court granted the appellant liberty to file an affidavit to substantiate their claim regarding the lack of service confirmation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case based on the phonetic similarity between the 'MANKIND' mark and the defendant's adopted variations, as well as the use of a deceptively similar logo device. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted suspicious corporate links, suggesting the defendant was incorporated by an ex-employee to dishonestly adopt the protected brand identity.
Pluto Travels India Private Limited v.Ptw Holidays Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pluto Travels against Ptw Holidays. The court allowed several procedural requests, including condonation of delay and exemptions from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court noted the plaintiff's claim regarding the use of the identical mark 'PLUTO' for travel services and directed service of notice on the defendant concerning the injunction request, setting a date for further hearing.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent no. IN 319780. The appellant argued that since the respondent failed to comply with previous court remands, the High Court should rule on the merits of the case.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated November 9, 2023, which refused its patents application. The court first allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that dismissed his opposition against a trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to the respondents, who have been granted six weeks to file their reply and subsequent rejoinder.
Zydus Healthcare Limited v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed concerns raised by Zydus Healthcare regarding counterfeit goods sold on Flipkart. While acknowledging that e-commerce platforms have mechanisms in place, the court highlighted critical procedural flaws, particularly concerning seller onboarding, GST misuse, and product identification (FSN). The judgment mandates Flipkart to investigate these issues, provide specific documentation like bank details, and implement technical solutions to prevent genuine sellers from being unfairly de-listed.
Bic Cello India Private Limited v.Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain
Bic Cello India Private Limited initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the invalidation of a trademark registration held by Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain, specifically concerning the mark 'TRIMORE'. The court accepted the plaintiff's application and issued notice to the defendant. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity of the registered trademark.
Belle Wears Private Limited v.Hobby Garments Private Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, while the Defendant challenged the validity of the patent. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and sought a consent decree.