Bombay High Court
653 cases · page 20 of 22
Showing 571–599Majid 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.
Smithkline Beecham Consumer v.Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr.
This appeal concerned a copyright infringement suit filed by Smithkline Beecham Consumer against Hindustan Lever Limited regarding toothbrushes. The plaintiffs claimed copyright over mould drawings and pilot moulds used in manufacturing the PEPSODENT POPULAR toothbrush. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC and constituted an abuse of process of law. The Bombay High Court overturned this decision, finding that the present suit involved a distinct cause of action—the importation of moulds in 1999—and thus did not amount to an abuse of process.
Hindustan Composites Ltd. v.Jasbir Singh Randhawa And Anr.
Hindustan Composites Ltd. filed a petition alleging that Respondent No. 1, an employee, used confidential information and processes to promote and run Respondent No. 2, which manufactured identical products. The court found that Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 committed contempt by continuing production despite prior injunctions, leading to fines and the striking off of their defense in the underlying suit.
Marico Industries Ltd. v.Sarfaraj Trading Company, Hyderabad
Marico Industries Ltd. appealed a single judge's order that refused to allow it to combine its copyright infringement suit with claims for trademark infringement and passing off against Sarfaraj Trading Company. The court examined whether this discretionary refusal was appealable, ultimately adopting the principle that an order putting an end to proceedings constitutes a judgment. Finding that granting leave would prevent multiplicity of litigation, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the single judge's order.
S.R. Thorat Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Sahyadri Dairy
The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal, granting S.R. Thorat Milk Products a temporary injunction against Sahyadri Dairy in a passing off suit. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'P.B. Thorat Milk,' coupled with highly similar packaging and trade dress (green diagonal lines, layout, font), was likely to deceive the public into believing their products were those of the Plaintiff. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting brand identity beyond just the name.
Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company v.The Rajasthan Navsagar Manufacturers & Others
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company, quashing a previous decision that had allowed the registration of 'Steamer Brand'. The court emphasized that the respondents could not claim honest concurrent use when they were aware of the petitioner's long-standing opposition and reputation. This judgment reinforces the principle that prior established goodwill and genuine objection outweigh subsequent claims of good faith usage.
Smithkline Beecham Consumer v.Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr.
Smithkline Beecham Consumer filed a suit alleging that Hindustan Lever Limited and others had infringed their copyright related to the drawings and precision moulds used for manufacturing specific models of toothbrushes. The plaintiffs claimed ownership over these designs, which were integral to the product's appearance and function. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs had attempted to file multiple suits in different courts without valid justification, thereby amounting to an abuse of process.
M/S. Rochem Separation Systems (I) Pvt. v.Tas Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, manufacturers of desalination plants under the trade mark 'DISK TUBE', filed a Notice of Motion alleging that the Defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'DISK & TUBE' to injure their reputation. The Defendants argued that the term is descriptive of the technology (Disc and Tube Reverse Osmosis) and that the Plaintiffs lacked exclusive rights over it. The Court ultimately held that the word was merely descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness, leading to the vacation of the injunction.
Jagdish Gandhi And Another v.Satish B. Vaidya And Others
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were the sole inventors and owners of an Ayurvedic formula (PV-150896) and claimed that the defendants had defrauded them. The court, while acknowledging the importance of the medicine for AIDS patients, dismissed the Notice of Motion at the interim stage due to the specialized nature of the dispute requiring extensive expert evidence.
M/S. Arte Indiana v.M/S. P. Mittulaul Lalah And Sons
This appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed a dispute involving allegations of copyright violation, trademark infringement, and passing off. The core legal issue was whether the court could grant leave to combine these diverse causes of action into a single suit, despite some actions occurring outside the court's immediate territorial jurisdiction. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that Clause 14 is intended to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Arte Indiana v.P. Mittulaul Lalah And Sons
The plaintiffs sought leave from the Bombay High Court to join causes of action related to copyright infringement and trademark violation, arguing that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act allowed them to sue where they resided or conducted business. The defendants contended that since the right to sue was conferred by a special statute (the Copyright Act), it did not fall under the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the court.
M/S. Arte Indiana v.M/S. P. Mittulaul Lalah & Sons
The plaintiffs sought leave from the Bombay High Court to join causes of action related to copyright and trademark infringement, arguing that Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act allowed them to sue where they resided. The defendants argued that since the right to sue was conferred by a special statute (the Copyright Act), it did not fall under the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of the Court. The court ultimately rejected the application for leave.
Mahesh Jayalal Dadhia & Another v.M/S. Thio Pharma & Others
The plaintiffs, members of the Dadhia family, sought an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or trading pharmaceutical products bearing specific trademarks (BROSMIN, ACTIZYME, etc.). The dispute centered on ownership rights following a family arrangement and subsequent agreements regarding the joint business. The court found no merit in the Notice of Motion seeking injunction.
Banwarilal H. Khaitan v.P.L.A. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the exclusive copyright holder of the film 'SARPHIRA' and an injunction against the defendants for infringing this copyright through telecasting. The dispute centered on contractual agreements regarding rights assignment, non-payment of consideration, and subsequent unauthorized exploitation by satellite channels.
M/S. Kemp & Company v.M/S. Prima Plastics Ltd.
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of plastic toys and chairs, filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered design for a Baby chair with a human face and passing off by the defendants. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling similar products.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Anand Traders And Others
Reliance Industries Ltd. challenged the Assistant Registrar's order which dismissed its opposition against Anand Traders' application for the label mark 'SONAL'. The petitioner argued that 'SONAL' was deceptively similar to their registered trade mark 'VIMAL', leading to potential confusion among consumers of textile goods.
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.