Bombay High Court
653 cases · page 17 of 22
Showing 481–509Kleenage Products (India) Pvt.Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Kleenage Products, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew the trademark 'KLITOLIN'. The core issue was whether the mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been issued before the mark's removal. Since the respondents could not provide documentary evidence proving the issuance of this critical notice, the Court held that the removal was illegal and allowed the petitioner to renew the trademark.
Ansari Bilal Ahmadlal Mohd. (Appellant) v.Shafeeque Ahmed Mohammad Sayeed (Respondent-Plaintiff)
The Bombay High Court dismissed the defendant's commercial appeal, upholding the original plaintiff's claim of passing off. The court found that a strong prima-facie case existed for passing off, despite differences in calligraphy and design elements. Considering the target audience—laborers with imperfect recollection—the court ruled that the defendant's use of 'SUKOON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, thereby protecting the plaintiff's proprietary rights.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v.Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd filed a quia timet copyright infringement and passing off action against Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd, alleging that Sony illegally copied the format and concept of Zee's popular talent hunt show, 'India's Best Dramebaaz'. The court heard the Notice of Motion regarding the dispute.
Cello Household Products v.Modware India
Cello Household Products filed suit against Modware India alleging design infringement and passing off regarding their PURO brand plastic water bottle. Cello claimed its unique, registered design was illicitly copied by Modware's product, KUDOZ. The court addressed the prima facie case for interim relief.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning an action in passing off brought by Torrent Pharmaceuticals against Wockhardt. The court analyzed the 'classical trinity' of passing off, focusing on misrepresentation and reputation. Ultimately, the judge found that Torrent failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off due to the long co-existence of the rival products without any demonstrated confusion or deception. Consequently, the interim injunction sought by Torrent was dismissed.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Lupin Ltd And Anr
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals against the refusal of interim relief. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning the medicinal preparation DEXORANGE, whose packaging and trade mark were copied by the respondents (Lupin Ltd And Anr). Despite strong claims regarding identical artistic work and deceptive similarity, the court found no immediate case for injunction after an 11-year delay in seeking relief. However, the court directed that the original suit be expedited, keeping all core issues of infringement and passing off open for future adjudication.
Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd v.Kalpesh R. Jain And 2 Ors
The Plaintiff, Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd., sought protection for its registered design (No. 224751) concerning copper tubes, alleging that the Defendants infringed this design and engaged in passing off. The Plaintiff claimed the design was novel and original, featuring an expanded bell shape at one end of the tube.
Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd v.Ishaan Overseas
The Plaintiff, Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ishaan Overseas for using the mark 'EDMODA' on leather goods. The Plaintiff claimed its mark 'ESBEDA' was deceptively similar. However, the court found that the marks were sufficiently distinct visually and phonetically, leading to the dismissal of the motion.
People Interactive (India) Private Limited v.Vivek Pahwa And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court ruled against People Interactive in its suit seeking to restrain the defendants from using the domain name 'secondshaadi.com' and passing off their services as those of Shaadi.com. Despite the Plaintiff holding registered trademarks and substantial goodwill, the court found that the Plaintiff was estopped by acquiescence. The judgment emphasizes that a trademark owner who is aware of an infringing use but remains silent while the competitor grows cannot later claim exclusivity.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
This case involved disputes arising from a license agreement between The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (a Copyright Society) and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (an FM radio station operator). The core dispute centered on whether the claimant needed a license to broadcast copyrighted musical works, and subsequent claims regarding royalty payments and refunds. The Bombay High Court reviewed the arbitral award, ultimately setting aside one part of it due to lack of jurisdiction while allowing the petition filed by the Copyright Society.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
This case involved disputes between The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (a Copyright Society) and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. concerning the use of copyrighted musical and literary works on FM radio stations. Both parties challenged an arbitral award dated December 6, 2011, before the Bombay High Court. The core legal battle centered on whether the claims regarding licensing and royalty refunds were arbitrable or required adjudication by a Civil Court. The court ultimately set aside part of the original award concerning the claimant's right to broadcast due to lack of jurisdiction, while dismissing the petitioner's (claimant's) arbitration petition.
Akashaditya Harishchandra Lama v.Ashutosh Gowarikar And 4 Ors
The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion alleging that his creative work had been plagiarized. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient prima facie case due to an ever-shifting stand on what was infringed. Furthermore, the court criticized the plaintiff's conduct for publicizing the litigation in the media.
M/S. Selvel Industries v.M/S. Om Plast (India)
The plaintiffs, M/S. Selvel Industries and M/S. Sears Industries, filed a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief in an infringement action against M/S. Om Plast (India). The dispute centered on whether the defendant's plastic container infringed upon the registered designs held by the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to and infringed the plaintiffs' design.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders issued in a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent for explosion and fire detection technology.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four notices of motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit concerning explosion and fire detection technology for transformers. The court examined these 'contempt motions' but ultimately dismissed all four applications.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner, CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd., filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent, Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited, was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt motions,' noting they were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding the original infringement finding.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent on explosion and fire detection technology for transformers.
Manugraph India Limited v.Simarq Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors.
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed preliminary issues concerning jurisdiction in two separate suits involving intellectual property rights. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action arose outside its local limits, citing precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court clarified the jurisdictional regimes under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, emphasizing that while plaintiffs have options to file suit, they cannot abuse these provisions by filing in a remote location lacking both defendants and a cause of action. Consequently, the court held that it possessed jurisdiction over both suits.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.
Wind World (India) Limited v.Enercon GmbH
Wind World (India) Limited challenged an arbitral tribunal's order that directed them to produce documents and granted interim measures. The dispute arose from various agreements, including the Intellectual Property Licensing Agreement. The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it contrary to law.
Essel Propack Ltd. v.Essel Kitchenware Ltd. And Anr
Essel Propack Ltd. filed a suit seeking injunctions for trade mark infringement and passing off against Essel Kitchenware Ltd. The court considered the convoluted litigation history and arguments regarding sufficient cause for interim relief. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, finding that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient cause.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd filed an action alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd.'s SERGI 3000 infringes upon CTR's Indian Patent No. 202302, which covers explosion and fire detection technology for electrical transformers. Sergi denies infringement, claiming its product uses different technology, and also challenges the validity of CTR's patent based on prior art.
Inception Media LLP v.Star India Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiff, Inception Media LLP, filed a Notice of Motion alleging copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality against Star India Pvt. Ltd., claiming ownership over a concept note for a TV serial titled "Ye Tera Ghar Ye Mera Ghar". The Plaintiff asserted that this confidential material was disclosed to Star India, which subsequently produced a similar promotional video. However, the Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case regarding copyright and confidentiality.
Jyoti Kapoor v.Kunal Kohli
The Plaintiffs, claiming to be the author and first owner of the copyright in the original screenplay 'R.S.V.P', filed suit alleging infringement of copyright and breach of confidence against the Defendants for producing a film titled 'Phir Se' using their script without consent. The court found that the Plaintiffs had a strong case and granted an ad-interim injunction to prevent the release of 'Phir Se'.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
This appeal involved a minority shareholder, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, challenging Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and its Managing Director (Defendant No. 2). The core grievance was that Defendant No. 2 had obtained several patents in his individual name despite using the company's substantial research and development infrastructure and investment. The plaintiff argued these patents belonged to the company, asserting a fiduciary duty breach by the MD. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief, finding no compelling reason to grant protection based solely on apprehension.
Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.
Plaintiffs, a production house, filed suit alleging that their concept notes and literary works for a TV series titled 'Badki Bahu' were shared with Defendant No.1 under confidence. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants subsequently produced a serial, 'Badi Devrani', based on this confidential material and infringed their copyright. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction to protect the Plaintiffs' material.
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd.
The petitioners, registered proprietors of trade marks containing 'UltraTech' or 'Ultra', sought leave to combine their cause of action for infringement with a cause of action for passing off against the defendant. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that it possessed original jurisdiction and allowed the combination of both causes of action.
Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v.RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Blue Cross Laboratories, granting an interim injunction against RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the marks 'CEDON' and 'CEFDON' were deceptively similar, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to combine both causes of action into the suit, dismissing the defendant's attempt to reject the plaint.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder, filed a derivative action alleging that Defendant No.2 (Chairman/MD) obtained and applied for several patents in his individual name instead of in the name of Defendant No.1 (the company). The court examined whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the company.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v.Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favor of Neon Laboratories Ltd. against Themis Medicare Ltd. and Ciron Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the Defendants' use of the 'XYLOX Family' marks was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established 'LOX Family' marks, despite the addition of the prefix 'XY'. Consequently, the Court issued an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the rival marks and ordered the appointment of a Court Receiver over the infringing goods.
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.