Bombay High Court
653 cases · page 18 of 22
Showing 511–539Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.South Konkan Distilleries
The Plaintiff, holding a registered trademark 'TANGO PUNCH', filed suit alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling country liquor in bottles embossed with the Plaintiff's trade mark. The Plaintiff claimed this constituted infringement and passing off. The Court found that the Defendant's use fell squarely within Section 29(3) of the Act, leading to the grant of injunctions.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v.MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted temporary relief in favor of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited against MNM Marketing Pvt. Ltd., finding that the abbreviation 'M & M' enjoys protection as a registered trademark. The court issued a comprehensive injunction preventing the defendants from using the impugned marks, similar domain names (like www.mandmstores.in), or passing off their goods and services as those of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was mandated to delete 'MNM' from its corporate name within four weeks.
Bayer Corporation v.Union of India Through The Secretary; The Controller of Patents; Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Corporation challenged the order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which upheld the Controller's decision to grant a Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited. The license was granted for Bayer's patented drug, Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar), used in treating various cancers.
Whirlpool Of India Ltd v.Videocon Industries Ltd
Whirlpool, a manufacturer of washing machines, sued Videocon Industries for infringing its two valid design registrations (Nos. 223833 and 223835) through the 'Videocon Pebble' brand, alleging that the Defendant's product was visually indistinguishable from theirs. The dispute also involved whether infringement or passing off actions could be maintained against a party who held a registered design.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain patents belong to Defendant No. 1 and requesting Defendant No. 2 to assign them without compensation. The applicants, who hold shares in Defendant No. 1, sought impleadment as party defendants, arguing the suit was a derivative action benefiting minority shareholders. The court dismissed the Chamber Summons, finding that the interests of the plaintiff and the applicants were not common or rival.
Teijin Limited v.Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Industry, Ministry of Industry and Commerce
Teijin Limited filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders that declared its Patent No. 207883 as ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees (annuities). The Petitioner argued that payments for various annuities, including the 3rd to 9th and 10th year, were made but incorrectly recorded by the Patent Office. The Court found in favor of the Petitioner, directing the restoration of the patent.
Kuber Khaini Private Limited v.Sopariwala Exports And Another
The Bombay High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Kuber Khaini Private Limited had adopted a deceptively similar trade-dress and label design to that of Sopariwala Exports. Although the Appellant used a different word mark ('Kuber' vs 'Afzal'), the court ruled that the adoption of the entire color scheme, get up, and descriptive elements constituted an attempt to trade on the Respondent's reputation. The judgment clarified that while a trademark disclaimer limits statutory infringement claims, it does not prevent a claim for passing off based on deceptive similarity.
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited v.Union of India
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited challenged an order directing it to change its corporate name due to perceived resemblance with another entity. The dispute centered on whether the similarity in names, particularly involving the 'VOV' mark used in cosmetics, mandated rectification under the Companies Act. The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing that mere similarity is not sufficient grounds for mandatory rectification and directing a fresh hearing.
Adai Mehra Production Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sumeet P. Mehra and Mr Puneet P. Mehra
This case before the Bombay High Court involved Adai Mehra Production Pvt. Ltd. challenging an interim order passed by an arbitrator concerning the remake rights of the classic film 'Zanjeer'. The dispute centered on the ownership and licensing of the original film's intellectual property, specifically its copyright in the screenplay. The court ultimately set aside the restrictive interim measures while allowing the petitioner to proceed with the film's production, provided certain financial conditions were met and subject to the final arbitration outcome.
Ramesh Sippy v.Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh and others (Defendant Nos. 1 to 9)
Ramesh Sippy filed a suit claiming to be the author and first owner of the copyright and Author's Special Rights in the film 'Sholay' and related films. He sought a temporary injunction against defendants who were dealing with or disposing of rights related to 'Sholay', including its 3D version. The court ultimately denied the ad-interim relief, finding that the Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case.
Enercon (India) Ltd. v.Enercon GmbH
This case involved disputes between Enercon (India) Ltd. and Enercon GmbH concerning a joint venture business manufacturing Wind Turbine Generators (WTG's). The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of their Intellectual Property License Agreement (IPLA), which covered technical know-how for producing these generators. The petitions challenged previous court orders regarding arbitration and an anti-suit injunction, leading the Bombay High Court to clarify jurisdictional issues.
United Spirits Ltd. v.Invincible Entertainment Pvt.Ltd.
United Spirits Ltd. sought an urgent injunction against Invincible Entertainment Pvt.Ltd., alleging that the film 'Kismat Love Paisa Dilli' disparaged its registered trademark 'Black Dog' whisky. The Plaintiff argued that the use of the phrase in promotional clips infringed upon their brand reputation. However, the Bombay High Court refused the ad-interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the Defendants, especially since they had already agreed to delete the objected scenes and dialogues.
Sopariwala Exports & Anr v.Kuber Khaini Private Limited
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of tobacco under the trademark 'AFZAL', filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed their registered trademarks and copyrights by using a deceptively similar label. The court found that the defendant's label was a deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's established mark and granted interim injunctions.
M/s.Whirpool Of India Ltd. v.M/s.Videocon Industries Ltd.
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of consumer goods, sought an interim injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered washing machine designs (Nos. 223833 and 223835) and for passing off its products as the plaintiff's. The court found that a prima facie case was made out for infringement and passing off, leading to the grant of ad-interim relief.
M/s.Whirpool Of India Ltd. v.M/s.Videocon Industries Ltd.
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of consumer products including washing machines, sought an interim injunction against the defendant for infringing two registered designs (Nos. 223833 and 223835) and for passing off its product. The court found that the defendant's product was a deceptive imitation based on the 'judged solely by eye' test, making a prima facie case for infringement.
Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawhar Thadani v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declarations regarding patent ownership, transfer orders, injunctions against both parties, disclosure of transactions, and payment of profits earned by the 2nd Defendant from the patents. The Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court based on the valuation of the suit for court fees. The Court ultimately held that it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited
The appeal challenged orders passed by the District Court regarding a patent infringement suit concerning fire systems. The plaintiff claimed its method patent was superior to Defendant No. 1's mechanical device and alleged infringement of its patent by 'SERGI 3000'.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited
The plaintiff (CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited) filed a patent infringement suit against Defendant No. 1 (Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited) concerning fire systems patents. The appeals challenged interim orders passed by the District Court, particularly regarding injunctions and sales restrictions. The Bombay High Court quashed these impugned orders, holding them to be ad-interim and subsisting, allowing the original suit to proceed.
Asian Rubber Industries v.Jasco Rubbers, Manpasand Footwear (Original Plaintiff)
Asian Rubber Industries challenged an interim injunction granted against them for passing off, while Jasco Rubbers sought to overturn a refusal to grant an injunction based on design infringement. The court found that the defendants' footwear was identical/deceptive to the plaintiff's registered designs and allowed the appeal challenging the ad-interim injunction.
Shree Siayaram Fab Private Limited v.Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd.
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's orders regarding a suit for infringement and passing off. The core issue was whether the plaintiff could file an infringement suit despite the defendant having a registered trademark, which the appellant argued barred the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
M/s.Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.M/s.Shree Siyaram Fab Private Limited
The defendants filed a notice of motion seeking rejection of the plaintiff's plaint, arguing that since their mark was also registered, the suit for infringement was not maintainable. The court rejected this contention, holding that while sections like 29 and 30(2)(e) provide defenses to an infringement action, they do not bar the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Sun Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTEN') and Emcure Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTINEX'). Although the plaintiff was the prior user, the court ultimately found that 'SUSTINEX' was not deceptively similar to 'SUSTEN'. The judgment emphasized phonetic distinctiveness, noting a clear audible divide in 'SUSTINEX', leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's notice of motion.
Alaknanda 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.
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.