Bombay High Court
637 cases · page 18 of 22
Showing 511–539Alaknanda Cement Private Limited & Raghav Cement v.Ultratech Cement Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Alaknanda Cement and Raghav Cement, upholding the single judge's order granting a temporary injunction to Ultratech Cement Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ULTRATUFF CEMENT,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ULTRATECH CEMENT.' Furthermore, the defendants were deemed not to have approached the court with clean hands due to presenting prima facie fabricated invoices.
Music Broadcast Private Limited v.Indian Performing Right Society Limited
Music Broadcast Private Limited challenged the right of Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) to demand royalties for broadcasts made by the plaintiff at its FM radio stations. The plaintiff argued that it was legally bound only to pay PPL and acted under a mistaken belief of law when paying IPRS. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the question of law.
Drums Food International Pvt. Ltd. v.Euro Ice Cream & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled against Drums Food International in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'HOKEY POKEY'. The court held that even if a plaintiff starts using a mark after a defendant has filed an application for registration, the plaintiff cannot succeed in a passing off or infringement action. The judgment strongly affirmed the priority given to registered marks under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that registration provides a robust legal shield against subsequent users.
Siddhant Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Thanco Enterprises
The Bombay High Court rejected the defendants' attempt to set aside a prior injunction restraining them from infringing the plaintiffs' registered mark 'NATURAL' and passing off their goods. The court found that the application was not bona fide, noting that the defendants sought to rely on documents they could have easily accessed earlier. Consequently, the original order protecting the plaintiff's trademark and copyright was upheld and made effective immediately, with the defendants ordered to deposit proceeds from sales during the restricted period.
Sergi Transformers Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited v.CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited
The applicant challenged the District Judge's order which prevented them from filing a counterclaim seeking revocation of a patent. The dispute involved an infringement suit filed by respondents against the applicant. The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, holding that the trial judge erred in interpreting Section 104 of the Patents Act.
M/s.Bade Miya v.Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s. Bade Miya against Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam, finding that the defendant's use of 'Wah Bademiyan' was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'BADEMIYA'. The court emphasized the strong goodwill and reputation established by the plaintiffs over decades. While granting the injunction, the court allowed a two-week grace period for the defendant to change its trade name.
Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Troikaa Pharma Limited
Neon Laboratories challenged the grant of Patent No.231479 held by Troikaa Pharma Limited, arguing that the company was prejudiced because it was not afforded an opportunity to oppose additional claims made during the examination process. The High Court set aside the patent grant and directed the Controller to conduct a fresh hearing on the original and amended claims.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd. v.Mehar Karan Singh
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd filed suit against its former Director, Mehar Karan Singh, alleging that he divulged confidential company information, specifically a customized software manual for real estate, to a competing entity. The core dispute centered on whether the disclosed material qualified as protected trade secrets under their employment contract and Code of Ethics. While the court found grounds for injunctive relief regarding specific documents like the Goa property MOU, it cautioned against broad injunctions concerning general business plans.
Camino De Vera S/N v.Union Of India Through The Secretary
The petitioner challenged the order by the Patent Office (Respondent No.3) that deemed its patent application abandoned and subsequently rejected a review petition. The petitioner argued that the Controller failed to provide adequate opportunities for being heard, especially when exercising quasi-judicial powers. The Bombay High Court found both orders without jurisdiction.
Rajesh Chheda (Prop. Of Sbhubham Plywood) v.Shubham Plywood Park
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for interim relief concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the registered mark 'SHUBHAM' was not being used in conjunction with the plaintiff's specific logo or on the product itself by the defendant. Furthermore, the judge noted that 'SHUBHAM' is a common word and household term, making it difficult to grant exclusivity against all users of the name. The court emphasized that merely adopting a common shop name is insufficient grounds for an injunction.
Meso Private Limited v.Hasanali Kamruddin
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and sought revocation of the leave granted under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The defendant argued that his export business in Pune did not warrant litigation in Mumbai. The court held that due to provisions in the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 62(2)) and Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Section 134), coupled with the fact that leave was granted after hearing the defendant, the Court had jurisdiction.
Glochem Industries Ltd. v.Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
Glochem Industries Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs that dismissed its representation by way of opposition against Cadila Healthcare Ltd.'s patent application for Clopidogrel Besylate. The Petitioners argued that the invention lacked enhancement in therapeutic efficacy, which was a core ground for opposition under the Patents Act. The Bombay High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the matter to be reconsidered afresh by the Patent Office.
The Scotch Whisky Association v.Khoday India Limited
The Scotch Whisky Association filed a suit against Khoday India Limited alleging passing off, claiming that the defendant was misleadingly using labels and descriptions evocative of Scotland (like 'SCOT') for whisky manufactured in India. The defendant sought to dismiss the suit via Chamber Summons, arguing that the matter was concluded by a prior Supreme Court judgment concerning rectification proceedings, invoking issue estoppel. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that the previous judgment operated only as a precedent and not as res judicata.
Jigar Vikamsey v.Bombay Stock Exchange Limited
This case involved a challenge to an arbitration award concerning the domain name 'sensex.in', which was claimed by Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE) as infringing its well-known trademark, SENSEX. The petitioner, Jigar Vikamsey, challenged the transfer order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no perversity or illegality in the original award. The court affirmed that the arbitration process was conducted fairly and legally, upholding BSE's claim over its trademarked domain.
I Plus Inc. v.Consim Info Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed I Plus Inc.'s Notice of Motion seeking an injunction against Consim Info Private Limited regarding similar domain names, IndiaProperties.com and IndiaProperty.com. The court held that the terms 'India' and 'Property' are generic and descriptive words, incapable of trademark protection. Furthermore, considering the extensive use and established goodwill of the defendant, the balance of convenience tilted in their favor, leading to the denial of interim relief.
M/S.Goldgem Overseas v.Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted an injunction in favor of M/S.Goldgem Overseas against Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd. regarding the use of the trademark 'AUM' for diamond jewellery. The court found that despite minor stylistic differences, the marks were visually and phonetically identical, constituting infringement under the Trademark Act. The judgment emphasized that when essential features are adopted by a defendant, infringement is established, regardless of packaging or other superficial distinctions.
Garware - Wall Ropes Ltd. v.M/s. A.I. Chopra, Engineers & Contractors
Garware - Wall Ropes Ltd. filed a suit claiming infringement of its patents (GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems) by M/s. A.I. Chopra. The appeal challenged the rejection of the temporary injunction application. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and issued a temporary injunction against the respondent.
Deccan Bottling & Distilling Industries Private Limited v.Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Deccan Bottling & Distilling Industries Private Limited against a temporary injunction granted in favor of Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited. The dispute centered on alleged passing off and trademark infringement related to country liquor labels ('Paru Santra' vs 'Sakhu Santra'). While the trial court had found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity, the High Court upheld this finding, confirming that the plaintiff (respondent) had established a sufficient case for injunction based on the visual impression of the competing marks.
The International Association of Lions Clubs v.The Association of Lions India
The International Association of Lions Clubs filed a suit against The Association of Lions India, alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were wrongfully adopting their registered trademarks, specifically 'LION', and engaging in acts of passing off by using similar names. Furthermore, they alleged copyright infringement through the adoption of insignia and substantial copying of the Plaintiffs' Constitution and By-Laws. The suit also included claims regarding defamation due to negative reports published by the defendants.
Ravi Kamal Bali v.Kala Tech And Ors.
The Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendants for manufacturing and selling tamper-proof locks/seals that allegedly infringed his patents. The court examined the infringement claims, noting the similarity between the parties' products. However, the court ultimately denied the injunction due to the Plaintiff's significant delay in bringing the matter before the court.
I.T.C. Limited v.G.T.C. Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court set aside a previous decision that allowed the registration of the trademark 'MAGNUM' for tobacco products. The court ruled that 'MAGNUM,' being a laudatory and descriptive term meaning 'great,' served as an indication of the quality or value of the goods. Given that the primary purchasers are common people, the court held that such descriptive marks cannot be registered under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.A.I. Chopra And Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to manufacture or sell products patented by the plaintiff (GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems), along with a perpetual injunction. The dispute centered on whether the defendant's actions constituted patent infringement despite contractual stipulations regarding royalty and indemnity.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v.Mr. Gajendra Singh And Ors.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction and damages against defendants for infringing its copyright in the television game show "Titan Antakshari" and passing off its competing show, "Antakshari - The Great Challenge," as associated with Zee's program. The court addressed the interim relief sought by the Plaintiff.
Goenkarancho Ekvot, A Society v.Union Of India (Uoi)
The petitioner society filed a writ petition seeking to enforce the Emblems And Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, against the use of the name 'Goa' in relation to Gutka and Pan Masala products. The core dispute involved whether the trade mark "Goa 1000 Gutka" infringed state emblems or suggested government patronage.
Urmi Juvekar Chiang v.Global Broadcast News Limited
The Plaintiff, a script-writer, claimed that the Defendants were infringing her copyright and breaching confidentiality by broadcasting a program titled 'Summer Showdown'. The Plaintiff asserted that this program was based on her original literary work, the concept note for 'Work in Progress', which she had shared with the Defendants. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from further infringement or breach of confidence.
R.K. Patel And Co., Tobacco ... v.Shri Rajdhar Kalu Patil @ Patel And Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (R.K. Patel And Co., Tobacco) against the defendants, finding that the defendant's actions constituted trade mark infringement and passing off. The judgment affirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief based on prima facie evidence. Furthermore, the Court directed the expeditious disposal of the underlying suit, recognizing its age.
Contests2Win.Com India Private v.Cell Cast Interactive India Private
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant committed passing off by using the mark 'Bid2Win'. The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using similar marks. The court examined the claims, noting that the word '2win' is common worldwide and the defendant was using it bona fide.
Encore Electronics Ltd., A Limited v.Anchor Electronics And Electricals
The Bombay High Court upheld an earlier injunction, ruling in favor of the plaintiff regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark 'Encore' was deceptively similar to the established plaintiff mark 'Anchor,' particularly when considered phonetically and visually in Indian languages like Gujarati and Devanagari scripts. Given the plaintiff's extensive reputation and investment, the court determined that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
Speaking Roses International Inc. v.Controller-General Of Patents And Anr.
The Petitioners applied for a patent for a method of providing an image on organic products (flowers). The Controller-General rejected the application, citing Section 3(j) exclusion and lack of inventive step. The Bombay High Court overturned this rejection, finding that the mechanical process was outside the scope of biological exclusions and demonstrated sufficient novelty compared to prior art.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Cipla Limited
The Bombay High Court rejected Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's application for an interim injunction against Cipla Limited regarding the use of the trade mark 'Graniset'. Despite the similarity in marks and their use in treating nausea related to chemotherapy, the court found that the plaintiff lacked a prima facie proprietary right in the mark. The judgment highlighted the importance of prior user rights versus registration, while also noting the plaintiff's failure to provide supporting medical evidence for potential consumer confusion.
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.