India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 92 of 311 · 7,456 total
SRF LIMITED v.SOLVAY S A & ANR.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Respondent No.1, including an application seeking leave to amend the claims of Patent IN 331314 and a request for condonation of delay. The Court allowed the condonation of delay and granted exemptions sought by the respondent.
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited v.Jindal Steel And Power Limited
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim protection against Jindal Steel And Power Limited regarding an ad film campaign titled 'Steel of India'. The petitioner claimed authorship and copyright over the creative works, arguing that the respondent terminated the contract without fulfilling payment obligations. The court addressed the dispute under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, while acknowledging the IP nature of the claim. The judgment mandated a deposit of Rs. 59 lakhs by the respondent and granted an interim injunction against distribution if the deposit was not made within two weeks.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the defendant was non-compliant with a prior court order by promoting or advertising the 'Present and Record' feature on its global website, potentially inviting Indian users to circumvent restrictions using VPNs. The Court found that while the feature is not available for download in India (which constitutes compliance), the defendant must take steps to ensure customer care does not suggest or exhort users to use VPNs to access the feature.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.
Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works v.Deluxeagriculture Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, overturning a rectification made by the Trademarks Registry that had transferred ownership of the 'Deluxe' trademark to Deluxe Agriculture Industries Private Limited. The court found that the purported Deed of Assignment was invalid because Respondent No. 2 denied executing it and alleged forged signatures. Consequently, the registration was restored to M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, affirming their original proprietorship.
Bp P.L.C. & Anr. v.Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.
Powerhouse Licensing LLC. v.Anand Rai
Powerhouse Licensing LLC successfully secured an interim injunction in the Bombay High Court against Respondent No. 1 regarding a conflicting trademark registration for 'POWERHOUSE GYM'. The court found that the Petitioner holds prior, famous, and well-known rights to the mark, making the impugned registration prima facie liable to be cancelled or rectified. This initial victory allows the Petitioners to prevent any misuse of their brand while the full legal proceedings continue.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (India) Ltd v.M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills against M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd. The case, which involved allegations of passing off regarding the 'JINDAL' mark, was resolved through mediation and a subsequent settlement agreement. The court upheld the compromise decree, ensuring that while the parties remain bound by the terms, the specific details of the confidential settlement will not be disclosed in the public record.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.ITC Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the validity of a registered design used on 'Good Day' Biscuits labels. The defendant, ITC Ltd, sought summary judgment arguing that the design was not registrable under Section 19(1)(d) and Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, citing prior public disclosure. Britannia Industries Ltd countered this by seeking to place additional documents on record, which they claimed would correct an error in their user claim date. The court adjourned the matter to determine the admissibility of these crucial documents.
Optimedica Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Optimedica Corporation appealed a rejection order dated 12.09.2012 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that the subject matter did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of The Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal to proceed by remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the amended claims.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed an order dated January 19, 2024, where its patent application (No. 201614010107) for 'Enhanced Aerosol Test for Assessing Filter Integrity' was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs due to lack of inventive step. The court issued notice and set a date for further hearing.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd v.Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute between Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd and Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd following a comprehensive settlement. The defendant agreed to exhaust all existing stock bearing the disputed mark 'SHYAMJI' by September 30, 2024, while simultaneously withdrawing opposition and registration applications related to that mark. Crucially, the plaintiff consented not to oppose the defendant's adoption of the new trademark, 'SHYAM RASS', effectively resolving the conflict amicably.
Punam Flutes v.Mahesh Chand Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Punam Flutes' petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration ('PUNAM'). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'PUNAM FLUTES,' used for musical instruments. Given the strong potential for consumer confusion and the Petitioner's established market reputation, the Court ruled that the Respondent's registration could not sustain under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P v.M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L.P seeking to remove an alleged infringing trademark, 'CLUB LINE BY CLASSIC POLO,' registered under No. 1236106 in Class 25. However, the court noted that the first respondent (M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited) had already filed a formal application (TM-P dated 22.04.2024) to cancel this specific trademark registration. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition, confirming that the objective of the petitioner was achieved through the action taken by the respondent.
Mayfair Lighting Llp v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Mayfair Lighting Llp, overturning an earlier decision that had deemed their trademark opposition abandoned. The court found that the original timeline for filing evidence was flawed due to issues with service of the counter-statement by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the registration of the mark 'LONDON MAY FAIR' in favor of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled, and the opposition proceedings were restored.
Cosmetic Warriors Limited v.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Cosmetic Warriors Limited against Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding the trademark 'BIOMIC SCIENCE'. The court accepted the argument that despite registering the mark in 2012, the first respondent had failed to put it to substantial use in commerce. Consequently, the registration entry was rectified and removed.
Baskar v.G. Raghu Babu
The plaintiff, who holds a registered industrial design for a 'Forklift Vehicle,' sought an injunction against the respondent, alleging imitation and infringement. The respondents contended that the design was not unique, as it involved attaching a forklift to a conventional tractor already used in agriculture, and their activities were merely assisting farmers. The High Court set aside the ad-interim injunction.
Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited v.M/S Savera Eats
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited against M/S Savera Eats. The Petitioner sought injunctions against the Respondent for continuing to use the registered 'BURGER SINGH' trademarks after a franchise agreement had been terminated. Given the alleged ongoing infringement and reputational damage, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of all infringing materials at the Respondent's premises.
Lt Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Ss Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Lt Foods Ltd & Anr. against Ss Enterprises regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to rice products. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, noting the defendant was distributing empty packaging filled with non-plaintiff's grains. This immediate relief prevents further damage while the main suit proceeds, underscoring the court's willingness to protect established brands against counterfeiting.
Mahyco Monsanto Biotech India Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of Telangana, Represented By ...
Mahyco Monsanto Biotech filed an appeal against a single judge's order regarding the fixation of reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds by the State of Telangana. The court heard arguments concerning potential prejudice to the petitioners if the impugned order was suspended. Ultimately, the court decided to suspend the challenged government order until the next hearing date.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v.Kana Ram Kalirana & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a rectification petition filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd. against Kana Ram Kalirana & Anr. The court noted that the parties had entered into a settlement in another suit, wherein Respondent No. 1 undertook to abandon the impugned trademark registration. Consequently, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of the withdrawal application filed by the respondent, effectively allowing the matter to be resolved through administrative action.
V.K.R.Venkatesan Trading as V.K.R. Prakash Modern Rice Mill v.M.Selvanambi Trading as Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mills
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against M. Selvanambi, alleging infringement of his 'SIVAJI BRAND' trademark and copyright violation concerning rice packaging. The original prayer sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of similar marks and labels. However, on April 16, 2024, the court noted that the plaintiff's counsel had requested withdrawal of the suit, leading to its dismissal.