Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 19 of 23
Showing 541–569Jer 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.
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.
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.