Defendant Favorable
11 defendant favorable decisions from Bangalore District Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
11 cases | Page 1 of 1
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. v.Rehan Talat Khan and N.S. Sangolli
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. filed an application to set aside an arbitration award dated 10-01-2012. The dispute arose from a partnership in M/s Gambaz Foods International, involving allegations of breach of trust, financial misappropriation, and trademark disputes related to the brand 'Prawnto'.
M/s. Indo Mim Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Pabitra Kumar Swain
The plaintiff, a company specializing in MIM products, filed a suit against its former employee (Defendant No. 1) and his new employer (Defendant No. 2), alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement by soliciting employees and customers after resignation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding solicitation and loss, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Sri.A.J.Shashank S/O A.N.Jagadish v.Aiplex Software Private Limited
The plaintiff, who runs a YouTube channel uploading film clips from 'Encounter Dayanayak', sued Aiplex Software and others seeking mandatory injunction to withdraw copyright strikes and damages. The defendants argued that they were acting as an authorized antipiracy service provider for M/s Kasturi Media, which held the absolute rights over the movie.
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) v.Mc. GAN's Ooty School of Architecture
NIFT filed an arbitration petition challenging an award that favored Mc. Gan's Ooty School of Architecture (Respondent No.1). The dispute centered on Respondent No.1 allegedly violating the MOU by using NIFT's name and logo to solicit students, leading to termination. The court upheld the arbitrator's award, dismissing NIFT's petition.
Sri.Aswin Naidu v.Amaresh K J
The complainant, Sri. Aswin Naidu (representing Elehem Technik Private Limited), filed a private complaint alleging that the accused illegally took confidential information and infringed the copyright of their Electro Chemical Deburring machine (Burrgon 25 V 3) in 2007. The case was tried under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, but the court acquitted the accused.
Vikram A Sreerama v.U. Galeppa Reddy
The plaintiff filed an arbitration suit challenging an arbitral award related to a partnership firm that developed 'Amvicube PA 2.0', a machine for detecting broken rice grains. The plaintiff alleged misappropriation of IP rights and assets by the defendant, but the court upheld the original arbitral award.
M/s.Avinashi Ads v.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railways
M/s. Avinashi Ads filed an arbitration suit challenging an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator concerning advertising rights and license fees with South Western Railways. The plaintiff sought damages amounting to ₹11,75,99,996/-. However, the court set aside the original arbitral award in its entirety.
Slk Software Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Universal Test Solutions LLP
The petitioner, a software development company, challenged an arbitration award (AC No.92/2018) passed by Respondent No. 2 (the Arbitrator). The dispute arose from a Business Alliance Agreement regarding the perpetual licensing of 'Test Magic' software. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited v.Rallis India Ltdl.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited challenged an Arbitral Award dated 30.3.2009 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute centered on a contract for developing transgenic cotton lines ('Suraksha') and the failure to deliver specific genes (Cry-IC standalone). Nuziveedu Seeds sought to set aside parts of the award regarding damages and deliverables.
Achira Labs Private Limited v.Dr.Lokanathan R.Arcot
Achira Labs Private Limited filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking temporary injunctions to restrain Dr. Lokanathan R. Arcot from working with competitors or divulging confidential information after his resignation. The court dismissed the petitioner's petition, finding that it did not meet the criteria for granting interim relief, and also dismissed the respondent's counter claim.
Laila Nutraceuticals v.Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF)
Laila Nutraceuticals challenged an arbitral award requiring it to pay Rs. 84,00,000/- to Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF). The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's patent claims lacked novelty and that the license agreement was invalid because it was not registered with the Patent Office. The court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the arbitral award.
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.