Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 21 of 23
Showing 601–629Smithkline 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.
Aktiebolaget Volvo Of Sweden v.Volvo Steels Ltd. Of Gujarat (India)
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Aktiebolaget Volvo Of Sweden, granting an interim injunction against Volvo Steels Ltd. of Gujarat (India). The court found that the defendant was dishonestly adopting the globally recognized 'Volvo' brand name to trade on the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. Despite arguments regarding delay or product differences, the court prioritized protecting the dilution and debasement of the strong trademark, setting aside the lower court's dismissal order.
Winthrop Products Inc. v.Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants for infringing their registered trade mark, PANADOL, and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs were the rightful proprietors of the trade mark and that the defendants lacked any vested right to use the name. Consequently, the defendants were prevented from using or passing off the trade mark.
Emco Lenze Pvt. Ltd. v.Emco Precima Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a perpetual injunction and damages, alleging that the defendants were passing off their goods by using the word 'Emco' in their corporate name or trading style. The court examined the facts, noting that both companies included 'Lenze' and 'Precima' in their names, and found no prima facie case of passing off.
Aasia Industrial Technologies Ltd. v.Ambience Space Sellers Ltd.
The plaintiffs, exclusive licensees of programs on Zee TV Channel, challenged the defendants (cable network operators) for blanking out/interrupting the signal and substituting local advertisements. The core issue was whether these actions violated their rights under copyright and passing off.
Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. & Another
The plaintiffs, owners of the trademark "Septran" and copyright in its carton, sued the defendants for infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using a deceptively similar mark ("Simptran") and an identical or substantially similar carton design for their product Simptran Tablets. The court passed an interim order restraining the defendant from continuing these infringing activities pending final disposal of the suit.
Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The plaintiffs, owners of the trademark 'Septran' and copyrights in its carton design, sued the defendants for infringing these rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively imitating their product ('Simptran Tablets') using a similar carton and mark since 1993.
Arun Digamber Varangaonkar v.M/S. Kharpe Gruh Udyog And 2 Others
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement regarding his spices preparation under the mark 'GHARKUL' against the defendants. The court was asked by the defendants to revoke the ex parte leave granted to the plaintiff. After considering jurisdiction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored trying the case in Amravati, where both parties resided and manufactured goods.
Arun Digamber Varangaonkar v.M/S. Kharpe Gruth Udyog And Others
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against the defendants concerning their masala products. The core dispute revolved around whether the Bombay High Court had proper jurisdiction to hear the case, given that both parties primarily resided and conducted business in Amravati. After considering the facts, including the residence of the plaintiff and manufacturing location of goods, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored a trial in Amravati. Consequently, the ex parte leave previously granted was revoked, allowing the defendants to proceed with their chamber summons.
Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. v.Brighto Chemical Industrial
The plaintiff, Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., sued Brighto Chemical Industrial for infringing its registered trade mark 'ODOPIC' and causing consumer confusion due to the defendant selling a similar product under the name 'magnet' with an identical label design. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted prima facie dishonest infringement of the plaintiff's trademark, rejecting the defense of delay or lack of jurisdiction.
American Home Products Corporation v.Lupin Laboratories Ltd.
The plaintiff filed an infringement action alleging that the defendant was using the deceptively similar trade mark "TOROLAC" for analgesic tablets, infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trade mark "ROLAC". The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and satisfied that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed applications for interim injunctions filed by members of the Kirloskar Group against other entities. The core dispute revolved around the unauthorized use of the word 'Kirloskar' in corporate names and trading styles. The court upheld the lower court's order, finding that the appellants were likely to deceive or confuse the public by adopting the name without proper affiliation with the established group.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved multiple civil suits filed by Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. (respondent/plaintiff) against various companies (appellants/defendants). The core issue was whether the appellants, despite not belonging to the 'Kirloskar Group of Companies', could use the word 'Kirloskar' in their corporate names and trading styles without infringing on the goodwill and reputation established by Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. The Bombay High Court upheld the interim injunction, finding a likelihood of deception or confusion.
Carew Phipson Limited v.Deejay Distilleries Pvt. Limited
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of spirituous liquors, claimed that the defendants were deceptively using similar bottle labels and marks ('English Duet Gin N Lime', 'Duet Gin N Orange') for their competing alcoholic preparations. The plaintiffs sought interim relief for passing off and copyright infringement.
Gold Seal Engineering Product Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Manufacturers And Others
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for alleged infringement of their registered trademarks ('Gold Star', 'Seal') and copyright. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the natural forum was Calcutta, as the defendants operated there.
Astra-Idl Limited v.Ttk Pharma Limited
Astra-Idl Limited filed a suit against Ttk Pharma Limited alleging infringement and passing off of its registered trade mark 'Betaloc' (used for pharmaceutical preparations) by the defendant using the similar trade mark 'Betalong'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case for interlocutory relief, despite arguments regarding delay.
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.