Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 20 of 23
Showing 571–599Goenkarancho 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.
Jhaveri Industries v.Majethia Masala
The Bombay High Court ruled against Jhaveri Industries, finding that the use of 'Rajwadi' by Majethia Masala did not constitute trademark infringement or passing off. The court emphasized that since only 'Badshah' was registered and 'Rajwadi' had a disclaimer, the term is considered descriptive and generic for a type of masala. Consequently, the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief.
Bharati Cellular Ltd. v.Jai Distillers P. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Bharati Cellular Ltd., finding that Jai Distillers P. Ltd. was engaging in passing off and copyright infringement. The court determined that the defendant's use of the identical word mark 'AirTel,' combined with an absolutely identical artistic label design and color scheme, constituted dishonest copying. Despite the goods being different (telecom services vs. alcoholic beverages), the similarity led to a clear likelihood of consumer confusion, warranting an injunction.
International Association Of Lions v.National Association Of Indian Lions
The International Association Of Lions filed a suit against the National Association Of Indian Lions seeking injunctions based on trademark, passing off, and copyright infringement related to the use of 'LION' or 'LEOS'. The primary dispute centered on whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction over the defendant, whose activities were primarily restricted to Rajasthan. The court ultimately held that it possessed jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Veegee Products v.Sou. Nayan Bharat Davda
The Bombay High Court quashed an interlocutory injunction granted by the lower court, allowing Veegee Products (the appellant) to continue manufacturing and marketing its disinfectant powder under the trademark 'Carbo-dust'. The court found that a prima facie comparison of the marks, logos, color schemes, and packaging did not suggest a deceptive similarity. Furthermore, it noted that the primary purchasers were local governmental authorities who follow formal procurement processes, making consumer confusion unlikely at this stage.
Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion seeking an interim injunction in a passing off suit. The court found that the trade marks, including those with the prefix 'CEF,' are commonly used across the pharmaceutical industry. Given the prevalence of similar prefixes and suffixes derived from chemical compounds like Cefixime, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish exclusivity or reputation for their mark, thus denying the injunction.
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v.Zaverchand Liladhar Shah And Ors.
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. filed a petition seeking cancellation of a registered design (No. 164949) held by Respondent No. 1, claiming that their own prior innovation was copied. The court examined the registration certificate and found that it covered the entire Tava along with its handle, not just the innovative part. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding no case for infringement.
Novartis Ag And Anr. v.Mehar Pharma And Anr.
Novartis sought an interim injunction restraining Mehar Pharma from manufacturing, selling, or exporting its anti-cancer drug 'VEENAT', which was alleged to infringe Novartis's Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) for 'B-crystalline form of imatinib Mesyiate salt'. The court ultimately denied the temporary injunction, citing concerns about disrupting the supply of this life-saving drug in India.
Vidarbha Distillers v.Vidarbha Bottlers Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vidarbha Distillers challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction application in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the respondent was deceptively imitating their 'Santri 5000' label, but the appellate court found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Instead, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the main trade mark suit on its merits.
Majid A. Oomerbhoy v.Rashi S. Oomerbhoy And Ors.
This contempt petition was filed by Majid A. Oomerbhoy against Rashi S. Oomerbhoy and others, alleging that they violated a prior court order dated July 30, 2001, which prohibited partners of M/s Ahmed Omerbhoy from using the firm's trade marks (MASTAAN and POSTMAN). The petitioner claimed the respondents continued manufacturing and distributing products under similar names. However, the Court ultimately found that there was insufficient certainty to prove willful contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the infringement suit itself was still pending.
Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate v.Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant challenged a trial court judgment that granted permanent injunctions in favor of the respondents regarding the alleged infringement of their copyrighted artistic label, 'PRINCE SANTRA', by using similar labels like 'No. 1 TANGO SANTRA'. The Bombay High Court heard an application for interim stay of the decree.
International Standards Certification (South Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v.International Standards Certifications Pty. Ltd.
This appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed a dispute over the use of the phrase 'International Standards Certifications.' The core issue was whether the Indian entity, Appellant No. 1 (a joint venture), was passing off its services as those provided by Respondent No. 1, an Australian company. The court upheld the lower court's order restraining the appellants from using the specific name and logo, finding that the reputation acquired did not automatically transfer to the original rights holder.
Tapria Tools Limited v.Eastman Cast And Forge Limited
Tapria Tools Limited filed a notice of motion seeking an injunction against Eastman Cast And Forge Limited for pirating and infringing its registered designs (Nos. 167097 and 178415) related to adjustable wrenches and plier sleeves. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's products were fraudulent imitations, while the defendants claimed lack of novelty and common usage. The court found a strong prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft v.Pikpen (P.) Ltd.
The plaintiffs, who manufacture and market textmarkers under the 'Faber-Castell' brand with a registered distinctive design, filed a motion alleging that the defendant was breaching an existing injunction by continuing to sell deceptively similar products despite cosmetic alterations. The court examined the changes made by the defendant and accepted their undertaking to make further distinguishable changes.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Wyeth Holdings Corporation And Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited against an interim order favoring Wyeth Holdings Corporation. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off, where Wyeth held the registered trademark 'Pacitane' for anti-spasmodic preparations, and Sun used 'Parkitane'. The court found that due to the identical field of activity, common composition (Trihexylphenidyl), and high likelihood of consumer confusion, the appellants' use was fraudulent. Consequently, the court upheld the protective order granted to Wyeth.
Faber-Castell v.Pikpen Private Limited
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendants for infringing their registered design and passing off their product using the identical trade mark "TEXTLINER". The court found that there was a deceptive similarity in the shape, configuration, color scheme, and get-up of the products. After establishing the plaintiffs' ownership rights, the court allowed the motion for an injunction.
Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Lever Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for injunction in a passing-off suit against Hindustan Lever Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark 'AYUSH' was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'AYUSHAKTI,' and crucially, it held that mere possibility of confusion is insufficient; actual misrepresentation must be demonstrated. Furthermore, the court presumed the plaintiffs had knowledge of pre-existing marks, but ultimately concluded there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, a television programming company, filed suit against the defendants for breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information regarding their original work titled 'Krish Kanhaiyya'. The dispute centered on the unauthorized production and broadcasting of a serial based on the plaintiffs' concept by the defendants. The court found that there was unlawful copying and infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.S.M. Associates And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Pidilite Industries Ltd., granting an injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'M-Seal' and copyright. Despite the defense arguing that the assignment deed excluded the rights related to the stylized mark, the court found that the defendant was fully aware of the plaintiff's established rights. The judgment confirms the initial ad-interim order, restricting the infringement injunction to specific parts of the packaging.
Allied Auto Accesories Ltd. v.Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The appellant challenged an order by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks which directed the expungement of its registered mark 'Allied' based on the finding that the goods did not fall in Class 12. The respondent argued that the mark should be rectified due to lack of use or fraudulent misrepresentation. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Assistant Registrar erred by relying solely on classification and failing to consider documentary evidence.
Star India Private Limited v.Leo Burnett (India) Private Limited
Star India Private Limited sued Leo Burnett (India) Private Limited, alleging that the latter was infringing on the copyright and goodwill of its immensely popular television serial, 'KYUN KI SAAS BHI KABHI BAHU THI'. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's commercial for 'Tide Detergent' substantially copied the serial's characters and theme, leading viewers to mistakenly believe the product was endorsed by Star India. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case or demonstrate a real likelihood of damage, ultimately dismissing the motion.
Asian Paints (I) Ltd. v.Jaikishan Paints & Allied Products
Asian Paints filed a suit seeking an injunction against Jaikishan Paints for infringing its copyrighted label 'Utsav' with the impugned label 'Utkarsh'. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction. The court ruled that since the plaintiff carries on business in Mumbai, it has jurisdiction to hear the copyright infringement case.
Hydroclave System Corporation And Ors. v.Jain Hydraulic Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The appeal challenged the lower court's decision to vacate a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from passing off their goods as those of the appellants. The appellants argued that 'HYDROCLAVE' was their brand name for a machine used in sterilizing bio-medical waste, and the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('HYDRAULIC HYDROCLAVE') to cash on the goodwill.
Ipca Laboratories Ltd. v.Savita Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from infringing its copyright in cartons/labels and passing off goods under the trade mark 'APPETONE'. The dispute centered on whether the Plaintiff, as a prior user, was entitled to relief despite the Defendant manufacturing similar products. The court dismissed the Notice of Motion.
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.