Allahabad High Court
30 cases · page 1 of 1
Smt. Reena Paltani And 3 Others v.M/S K.K. Tobacco Co. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court set aside a Commercial Court's rejection of an interim injunction application in a trademark infringement suit involving tobacco products. The petitioners argued that the respondents were infringing their registered trademarks ('KK99'/'KK 99') despite having a different registration ('V99K'). The court allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation and directed the lower court to urgently decide on the interim injunction and receiver appointment, recognizing the urgency of preventing further infringement.
Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Jubilant Generics Ltd.
This appeal before the Allahabad High Court addressed challenges to a Commercial Court's injunction order. The plaintiff, Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, successfully argued that its comprehensive Product Dossiers—containing sensitive technical data for generic drugs like Losartan and Amlodipine—qualify as protected literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that the defendants misappropriated these confidential dossiers by transferring them from a Canadian subsidiary to their Indian affiliate, leading to unauthorized manufacturing and use in India. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the injunction.
Pankaj Yadav v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pankaj Yadav against the Union of India and others. The petitioner sought intervention regarding alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by a third respondent manufacturing a similar product. However, the court found that the petitioner lacked an individual grievance or public interest standing to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction, leading to the petition's dismissal.
Salik Mukhtar And 4 Others v.M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt Ltd, upholding a lower court's order granting a temporary injunction. The suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the product 'Musa Ka Gul Super'. The High Court found that the plaintiff-respondents had established a prima facie case of infringement based on their registered trademarks and copyrights, concluding there was no legal impediment to maintaining the injunction pending the final trial.
Iftikhar Alam v.M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal filed by Iftikhar Alam, setting aside a prior temporary injunction granted against him by the District Judge. The court found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider crucial evidence, including documents suggesting the plaintiff's rights might have been abandoned or that the defendant was a prior user of the product. Consequently, the case has been remanded back to the trial court for a fresh and detailed hearing on the injunction application.
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v.State Of U.P. And 11 Others
M/S M.M.I. Tobacco (P) Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking directions to state authorities to initiate proceedings against private respondents for alleged violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner sought mandatory action under both IP statutes. However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that if any violation exists, the petitioner must pursue remedies through an FIR or other permissible legal actions, rather than seeking enforcement via writ jurisdiction.
Uday Prakash v.Anand Pandit And Another
Uday Prakash appealed against the rejection of his application for a temporary injunction in a suit claiming infringement of his registered copyright ('Highway-39') by defendants who were producing a feature film titled 'Chehre'. The High Court found prima facie that there was no distinctive plagiarism, but directed the trial to be expedited and mandated an acknowledgment if the plaintiff succeeds.
Sandeep Pandey v.Union Of India And 4 Others
The petitioner filed a PIL seeking directions for the vaccination of citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, and also sought directions under the Patents Act, 1970, to acquire necessary patents for vaccine manufacturing. The court dismissed the petition as the issue was pending before the Apex Court.
Amit Kumar Mishra v.State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Mishra regarding alleged large-scale trademark violation. The petitioner sought an omnibus direction from the State authorities to prohibit unauthorized use of his trademark. However, the court held that such broad directives are inappropriate and directed the petitioner to identify specific violators and pursue civil or criminal proceedings against them.
Izhar Ali & Anr. v.M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar, Palri Bagh, Bahraich & Anr.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a civil revision filed by Izhar Ali & Anr. against M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar. The defendants argued that since 'Sikka Namkin' was not registered as a trademark, the suit seeking injunction was barred by law. However, the court clarified that under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a claim for passing off action can be maintained even in respect of an unregistered trademark. Consequently, the challenge to the lower court's rejection of the application failed.
M/S Jai Hind Chemicals And Another v.Union Of India And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Jai Hind Chemicals seeking an early decision on an application to rectify a trademark registration. The petitioners alleged that the respondent's registered trademark was similar to their trade name, necessitating rectification. However, after considering arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the Trademark Registry (Respondent No. 2) was actively processing the matter and not deliberately delaying it. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition while urging the Registry to expedite its decision.
Subhas Chand v.Mahesh Chandra Agrawal & Others
Subhas Chand, proprietor of M/s Panchhi Petha Store, filed a suit alleging that defendants were infringing his registered trademark and copyrighted labels by using 'New Panchhi Petha Store'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar colors, imagery (lady with umbrella), and trade name was intended to deceive consumers. Given the plaintiff's established reputation and goodwill in manufacturing quality sweets like Petha and Dalmoth, the appeal succeeded, upholding the finding of infringement.
R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. Jasola New Delhi v.M/S Action Construction Equipments Ltd. Dudhola & 3 Others
The appeal challenged an order from the Additional District Judge which granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from manufacturing and selling registered designs for tower cranes. The appellant argued that since a ground under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 was raised as a defense, the suit must be transferred to the High Court under Section 22(4).
Umesh Kumar Gupta And Another v.M/S Shree Girraj Food Products
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision filed by M/S Shree Girraj Food Products, which sought to stay an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that their application for rectification (cancellation) of the plaintiff's 'Chacha Chaudhary' trademark was pending before the Appellate Board. However, the court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act is inapplicable because the original suit was not for trademark infringement but rather a suit for injunction based on passing off. Consequently, the stay could not be granted.
Dr. B. Sahu v.State Of U.P. & Ors.
The petitioner, an Executive Director, challenged a complaint case alleging that selected candidates had stolen secret formulas and information from the respondent company. The petitioner argued that any violation of contracts or IP rights was a civil matter, not criminal. The court agreed, holding that allegations of secrecy theft are subject to civil suit.
Starlinger And Co. Ges.M.B.H. v.Lohia Starlinger Limited
The appeal concerned a dispute over the continued use of the name 'Starlinger' and associated know-how by Lohia Starlinger Ltd. after the original joint venture agreement concluded. The High Court found that the right to use the name was intrinsically linked to the contract, and allowed the appeal.
Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research v.Goodman Drug House (P.) Ltd.
The dispute arose from an agreement between C.S.I.R./I.I.P. and Goodman Drug House for converting Menthone to Menthol using proprietary technology. When the project failed to yield results, Goodman sought damages through arbitration. The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal against the arbitral award.
Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works Through Its ... v.District Judge, Munsif City And Shri ...
This Allahabad High Court judgment addressed a dispute where a bidi manufacturer was restrained from using its registered trademark featuring 'Lord Ganesh' due to religious objections raised in a civil suit. The petitioner successfully challenged this restraint, arguing that their statutory rights under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act were being infringed upon by subjective religious claims. The court ultimately quashed the restraining order, affirming that the use of the registered mark was lawful and not prohibited by law or religion.
Sahana Soap Works And Ors. v.Kanpur Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. And ...
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a trial court's interim injunction. The case involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off concerning soap wrappers, where the plaintiff argued their 'GHARI' mark was being copied by defendants using identical designs. Based on evidence showing the plaintiffs had significantly larger business volume and were prior users, the court upheld the initial restraint order against the defendants.
Dodha House v.Surendra Kumar Maingi
The appeal was filed by Dodha House against an injunction order restraining them from infringing the plaintiff's copyright and passing off goods under the trademark 'Maingi's Todha'. The court ultimately held that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for trade mark infringement under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, thereby setting aside the injunction.
Fabcon, Corporation Incorporated v.Industrial Engineering Corporation
Fabcon Corporation challenged an order rejecting its application to transfer a suit to the High Court. Fabcon claimed infringement of Patent No. 140164 and sought permanent injunctions. The defendant argued that the patent was invalid, leading Fabcon to argue this constituted a counterclaim for revocation under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.The District Judge, Ghaziabad And Ors.
The petitioner, Victory Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent and temporary injunction against defendants for using a deceptively identical trade name ('Victory Goods Transport Company'). The courts below dismissed the application for temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case or establish balance of convenience. The High Court upheld this decision.
Shining Industries And Anr. v.Shri Krishna Industries
Shri Krishna Industries sued Shining Industries for infringing its patented lock design (Patent No. 99371). The appellants countered by challenging the validity of the patent, arguing that the respondent was not the true inventor and the mechanism was not novel. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, revoking the patent.
Laxmi Dutt Roop Chand v.Nankau And Ors.
The plaintiff, a partnership firm that purchased Patent No. 42514 of 1950 from the original patentee, sued the defendants for infringing the patented process for manufacturing hollow wares. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent on grounds including lack of inventive step and prior use. The court ultimately found that the patent was not novel or useful, establishing the defendant's counterclaim.
S.K. Dutt v.Law Book Co. And Ors.
S.K. Dutt sued Law Book Co. and others, alleging that their publication contained numerous passages pirated from his copyrighted work, 'The Indian Partnership Act'. The plaintiff claimed infringement and sought damages and an injunction.
Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mahammad Yasin
The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (Design No. 43516). The defendants claimed that the design lacked novelty and that the plaintiff was not the true proprietor or author of the design, having learned it from others.
Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mohammad Yasin And Anr.
The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages against the defendants, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (No. 43516). The defense argued that the design was common knowledge and the plaintiff was not the true author or proprietor. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove proprietary rights.
Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd. v.Juggi Lal, Kamlapat Cotton Spinning And ...
The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd., finding that the plaintiffs had successfully established a reputation for their cotton goods under the trade name 'kamalchap' through continuous use of specific lotus flower designs and impressions. The court granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using colorable imitations of the marks. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to remove all infringing marks from their stock and pay substantial damages to the plaintiffs.
Jwala Prasad v.Raghubir Prasad
The appeal concerned questions arising from a partnership dispute involving patent rights to locks named "Kartoos" and "Impervis." The court addressed the scope of judicial power concerning patent ownership when it arises within a winding-up of a partnership, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Kheshtra Pal Sharama v.Pancham Singh Varma
This 1915 Allahabad High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement concerning medicinal products. The applicant, selling 'Sudha Sindhu,' sued the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered trademark through advertisements in Muttra. The court ruled that if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true—specifically, that the advertisement was calculated to induce confusion—then the trademark has been infringed within the jurisdiction of the local court. Consequently, the lower courts' decision to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds was set aside, allowing the case to proceed.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.