Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 2 of 23
Showing 31–59Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) with respect to land at Kurla, Mumbai, originally notified for acquisition for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that their land was not included in the original 1986 award, and the SLAO's attempt to include it through a corrigendum after 31 years was without legal authority. The Bombay High Court held the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be illegal and void, directing the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894 within three months.
Zarina Dada And Others v.The State of Maharashtra And Others
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued after 31 years, which sought to include the petitioners' land at Kurla, Mumbai within the purview of the original award for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that the corrigendum was without legal authority and that the mandatory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not complied with. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, declaring the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) as illegal and void, and directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation at current market value within three months.
Dr. Badri Prasad and Others v.Furnace Fabrica (India) Limited and Anr.
This was a Leave Petition filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking permission to institute a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court against defendants, two of whom were outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The proposed suit sought a declaration that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st March 2014, along with its addenda dated 9th September 2014 and 9th November 2020, were valid, binding, subsisting, and enforceable with retrospective effect. The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and perusing the relevant paragraphs of the petition and plaint, granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) filed a Leave Petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking leave to institute a commercial suit against Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of amounts under an agreement dated 25th May 2018. The respondent, situated outside the Court's jurisdiction, was required to supply air-conditioned buses to the petitioner from Mumbai and across Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court granted leave, holding that although part of the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction, a material part arose within Mumbai, and the agreement itself stipulated that breaches would be tried by Courts in Mumbai.
Ultratech Cement Ltd And Anr v.Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd
This is an interim order in a commercial IP suit filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd and another against Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement. The plaintiff's witness was examined, affidavit of evidence was recorded, and documentary evidence was marked as exhibits. Given that the suit was undefended, the Court Receiver was directed to destroy the seized goods, and the matter was adjourned for final hearing.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear or file any reply, leading the Court to treat the Plaintiff's contentions as uncontroverted. The Bombay High Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, including the appointment of a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear before the Bombay High Court. The Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, appointing a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to search, seize, and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trademark at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The plaintiff, John Cockerill Hamon SA, filed a suit for infringement and passing off of its registered 'HAMON' trademarks against Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited, which was using 'HAMON COOLING' and 'HCS HAMON COOLING' as marks and as part of its corporate name. The plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the HAMON mark. The Bombay High Court allowed the interim application, holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the defendants were derivative users whose authority to use the marks had expired, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored the plaintiff.
Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v.Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.
This is an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed by Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited against the refusal of its application to register the word mark 'ANAAR' in Class 25. The Registrar had rejected the application outright without advertisement, citing similarity with an earlier registered mark under Section 11(1). The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to cause the application to be advertised under the proviso to Section 20(1), enabling consideration of any objections from third parties.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
This case involves Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Petitioner) challenging the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' (Registration No. 2473300 in Class 5) registered in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark registration. The court directed that the Commercial Miscellaneous Petition be tagged with the connected Commercial IP Suit and listed for directions on July 15, 2026.
Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenged an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which allowed the rectification applicant to file an evidence affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 despite a delay of over three years. The core legal issue was whether the deadline stipulated in Rule 45 for filing an evidence affidavit is mandatory or directory. The Bombay High Court held that the deadline is directory and not mandatory, disagreeing with the Delhi High Court's decisions in Sun Pharma and Mahesh Gupta, and instead endorsing the view expressed by the IPAB in Sahil Kohli. The petition was dismissed and the Impugned Order was upheld, with no costs awarded.
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Integrace Private Limited sued Mas Pharmachem for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant's mark 'BON K2 FORTE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'BON-K2', both used for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants failed to appear or file a written statement, and the suit proceeded as an undefended suit. The Bombay High Court found the defendants had adopted the impugned mark in a dishonest and mala fide manner to ride upon the plaintiff's goodwill, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with injunctive relief and costs, though damages were denied for lack of evidence.
Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India v.Le Shark Apparel Limited
The Bombay High Court overruled a preliminary objection and allowed an appeal against an order directing the removal of a trademark from the register. The appellant, Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India, had challenged the order passed by a single judge in a commercial miscellaneous petition filed by Le Shark Apparel Limited. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Meghmani Lifesciences Limited
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a commercial suit against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited for infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT'. The court found that the defendant's mark 'ESIRAFT' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and granted an injunction. The court applied the test of phonetic similarity and first impression to determine the likelihood of confusion. The decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
Laser Shaving India Private Limited v.Rkrm International Products Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Commercial Appeal filed by Laser Shaving India Private Limited against Rkrm International Products Private Limited, upholding the lower court's order refusing a temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed relevant material and was estopped from seeking relief due to its previous stand before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The defendant had commenced selling impugned products after the plaintiff's representation to Galactic, and the court concluded that the elements of estoppel were satisfied.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Vijayawada Distilleries Private Limited & Another
The plaintiff filed an interim application alleging infringement of its well-known trade mark, "OFFICER'S CHOICE," and related labels by the defendants who adopted deceptively similar marks like "EXECUTIVE CHOICE" and "OLD CROWN". The court examined the proprietary rights, noting that the Plaintiff had secured registrations for these marks and variants. Based on a prima facie comparison of the rival marks and evidence of deceptive similarity, the court granted ad-interim relief.
Universal Test Solutions Llp v.Punam Kumari Singh and Others
The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Saurabh Arora v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents which dismissed a post-grant opposition filed against Patent No. IN 283059. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned, failing to assess the technical merits of the prior art (D1) cited under Section 25(2)(c).
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.Controller of Patent and Designs
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke challenged the refusal of his patent application (No. 879/MUM/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, which was upheld in a prior appeal. The present Commercial Appeal sought to challenge this order further under Section 13 of the CCA, but the Court found that the statutory provisions did not permit such an appeal.
Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v.Tata Play Limited and Others
The plaintiff, Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, sought an interim injunction restraining Tata Play Limited and others from using the mark 'ASTRO DUNIYA', alleging trademark infringement and passing-off. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the coined mark used for astrological services since 2005. However, the court found that no prima facie case was made out for either infringement or passing off, dismissing the interim application.
AIC246 AG & Co. KG v.The Patent Office of India and Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.
Asian Paints Limited v.Smt. Manju Rani Jindal And Ors.
Asian Paints Limited filed a suit against Smt. Manju Rani Jindal and others alleging infringement and passing off concerning its trade marks (ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN). The dispute centered on the Defendants' use of the mark 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' on paint-related goods like wall putty and cement paints. Given the Defendants' failure to contest the suit, the court decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Merchint Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Samtani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to institute a suit against the respondent. The petitioner argued that despite the respondents residing outside the court's jurisdiction, the transactions and effects of trademark infringement and passing off were felt within Mumbai. The Court granted leave for the proposed suit.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Jfe Steel Corporation challenged an order from The Controller of Patents & Designs that refused its patent application (No. 115/MUMNP/2015). The petitioner argued that the rejection was based solely on non-compliance with Section 10(4) without examining novelty or inventive step. The High Court agreed, finding the rejection legally flawed.
Trackon Couriers Private Limited v.B N Srinivas
The Plaintiff, a courier service company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendant for using marks containing 'TRACK-ON' or 'TRACK-ON EXPRESS', which are confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted temporary relief.
M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v.Pyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep
The applicant (M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a revision application challenging an order that rejected its application for rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit. The dispute centered on allegations of infringement of the plaintiff's industrial oven design by the respondent. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application, finding no grounds for rejection.
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited
The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.
Trutech Machinery v.Controller of Patents & Anr.
Trutech Machinery challenged the Assistant Controller's order allowing a patent application for an improved round corner cutting machine. The Petitioner raised objections under Section 25, including anticipation and lack of inventive step. The Court found no legal error in the summary inquiry conducted by the Controller and directed the Petitioner to seek revocation under Section 64.
Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v.Lyka Bdr International Limited
The applicant filed an Interim Application in aid of Execution Application seeking the execution of an award dated November 15, 2023. The court granted directions requiring the respondent to disclose all particulars of their assets, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks), within four weeks.
People Interactive India Private Limited v.Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani And 3 Ors.
The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known matrimonial platform 'Shaadi.com', filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against the Defendants who used the similar mark and domain name 'getshaadi.com'. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and awarding substantial costs due to the Defendants' non-participation.
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.