Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
15 cases · page 1 of 1
M/s Hotel Swagath v.M/s Hotel Swagath East Court
The appellant, M/s Hotel Swagath (registered partnership firm), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s Hotel Swagath East Court for infringing its registered trademark and passing off. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application, which was subsequently challenged in this appeal.
M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v.M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Patent No.265920 in the Commercial Court. Due to the defendant filing a counter-claim for revocation, the suit was transferred to the High Court. The core issue before the court was whether this transferred patent dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
M/S Impact Metals Ltd., Bollaram v.M/S Msr India Ltd., Hyderabad
The Civil Revision Petition arose from a lower court's dismissal of an application seeking arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents sought permanent injunction and damages based on alleged infringement of proprietary technology, designs, trade secrets, and trademarks. The Court held that the entire dispute was arbitrable under the Manufacturing Agreement.
Rohini Seeds Private Limited v.Reshma Chemicals Private Limited
The appeal challenged an order that granted a temporary injunction restraining Rohini Seeds Private Limited from using numbers 2222 on its seed packings, based on Reshma Chemicals Private Limited's claim of trademark infringement (R.S.2222). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of confusion or irreparable injury.
Reliability Engineering Industries v.Aesseal India Private Limited
The appeal arose from interlocutory applications filed regarding the alleged theft and misuse of proprietary rights, technical know-how, and confidential information related to mechanical seals. The plaintiffs sought various injunctions against defendants who were allegedly using their designs and trade secrets.
Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited v.United Phosphorus Limited And Anr.
The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking revocation and interim suspension of Patent No. 185229. The respondent argued that since a related suit was already pending before the District Court, Indore, and a restraint order had been obtained there, conflicting orders could not be passed. The court ultimately dismissed the application for interim suspension.
Ambadas Vittal Gajul v.S.R. Bootla
Both textile manufacturers, Ambadas Vittal Gajul and S.R. Bootla, were involved in disputes over the use of a similar trademark on dyed casement cloth. The appeals sought temporary injunctions against each other based on claims of passing off. The court found that both parties had rights but ruled to protect their interests by mandating specific modifications to the marks.
Ravikanth Shinde v.Managing Director, Gujarat Heavy ...
The petitioner filed a writ petition against respondents for manufacturing and marketing 'kitchen salt' under the trade mark Dandi, which included a pictorial representation suggesting an association with Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi March. The petitioner argued this violated the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The court found that both the name and the picture created an impression related to Mahatma Gandhi and thus violated the Act.
Ushodaya Enterprises Limited v.T.V. Venugopal And Another
The plaintiff, Ushodaya Enterprises Limited (publisher of Eenadu newspaper and television channel), filed a suit alleging that the defendants were fraudulently using its trademark 'Eenadu' and infringing the copyright of its unique artistic script on their Agarbathis business. The appeal addressed the trial court's restriction of the permanent injunction to Andhra Pradesh only.
Sri Sai Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v.Chintala Rama Rao
The defendant appealed an injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff, who claimed his established trade mark 'Mathura Ghee' was being infringed upon by the defendant using 'Mathurag Ghee'. The court held that despite both parties using Lord Krishna's image, the prior use and distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark established a prima facie case for injunction against unfair competition.
Dr. M. Karunanidhi v.T.N. Seshan
Multiple political parties filed suits seeking permanent injunction against T.N. Seshan and Konark Publishers regarding the book 'Seshan - an Intimate Story', alleging defamatory content about prominent figures like C.N. Annadurai and MGR. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction, given that the defendants resided in Delhi.
Pillalamarri Lakshmikantham And Ors. v.Ramakrishna Pictures And Ors.
The Publishers sued Ramakrishna Pictures for infringing their copyright in the book 'Tara-sasankam', which was adapted into a film. The trial court found in favor of the publishers, granting injunction and awarding damages. Subsequent appeals were filed by the publishers seeking accounts of profits, but the High Court dismissed these appeals based on established legal principles that preclude claiming both damages and accounts.
Ampro Food Products v.Ashoka Biscuit Works And Ors.
Ampro Food Products filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ashoka Biscuit Works for piracy of its registered biscuit design ('AF'). The lower court refused the temporary injunction, arguing that the design was not new or original and that it should be treated as a trademark. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the defense of non-originality is precluded when an express remedy for cancellation exists under the Designs Act, and clarified the difference between design rights and trademark rights.
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v.Vendra Venkanna, Proprietor Of Jai Bharathi Cement Works
The appellant, Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., filed suits alleging that defendants were infringing its trade marks ('Hume Pipes') and patent (No. 20709) related to cement concrete pipes. The court affirmed the injunction against trademark infringement but remanded the matter for a Commissioner to assess damages due to disputes over injury quantification.
Mohd. Abdul Kereem v.M. Agaiah
The dispute originated from a trade mark infringement suit where the plaintiff's case was dismissed for default. The plaintiff sought review, which the trial judge allowed. The defendant appealed this decision to the High Court. The court ultimately held that an appeal against a review order granted on grounds outside the scope of Order 47 is incompetent.
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.