Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 4 of 23
Showing 91–119M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA and Ors.
This Commercial IP Suit was filed by M/s. ARCEE Electronics alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and passing off against Defendants, who were operating a showroom named 'ARCEEIKA'. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite the Plaintiff arguing that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the court examined the evidence regarding sales and delivery locations. Ultimately, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action was sufficiently demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
Shoban Salim Thakur v.Chaitanya Arora & Ors.
This interim application before the Bombay High Court concerned a request by the Defendants to vacate an existing ad-interim injunction. The core dispute revolved around allegations of suppression by the Plaintiff regarding a specific condition attached to their trademark registration in Class 25 (footwear), which limited its exclusive use to Maharashtra. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the suppression allegation, it granted the Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Rejoinder before listing the matter for further consideration.
Energy Beverages Pvt Ltd v.Ekadanta Packaged Drinking Water and Others
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking to combine causes of action related to passing off and trademark infringement against the respondents. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the mark 'CLEAR' and proprietary rights over its artistic label and bottle shape, arguing that the defendant's use of 'CLEAR GOLD' amounted to infringement and passing off.
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited v.Miniso Life Style Private Limited
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited filed a suit against Miniso Life Style Private Limited for piracy of its registered design and passing-off concerning the 'Tranquility Neck Pillow'. The plaintiffs claimed that their distinctive neck pillow design, registered under number 281315, was being copied by the defendants in retail stores and online platforms. The court found a prima facie case based on the identical aesthetic appeal and visual similarity of the products, leading to the grant of interim relief.
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd v.Controller Of Patents and Designs and Another
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting their patent registration based on cited prior art. The court recognized the need for expert opinion to determine if the invention possessed inventive steps over the existing prior art documents.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited appealed the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently obtained registrations for ceiling fans that infringed upon Atomberg's registered design (No. 309694). The dispute also involved claims of passing off due to similarity in aesthetic features and market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan'. The dispute also involved claims of passing off, given Atomberg's established market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order that refused to grant an interim injunction against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied its registered ceiling fan design, 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan,' and committed passing off. The court examined the comparison between the two designs and found that prima facie differences existed in various aspects of the products and packaging. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed Atomberg's appeal, upholding the lower court's decision.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan.' The dispute involved claims of both design infringement and passing off, given the similarity between the products. The Bombay High Court examined the comparison table provided by both parties. Ultimately, the court found that Atomberg failed to demonstrate 'something more' than mere similarity required for a successful claim of passing off at the interim stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.
Mohun Nicholas D'Souza v.The Controller of Patents of Designs
The petitioner challenged the refusal of his patent application, titled "TAMPER EVIDENT TWIST SEAL WITH BREAKAWAY ANCHOR MECHANISM," which was rejected on grounds of lack of inventive steps/obviousness under Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the Controller failed to conduct a proper analysis regarding obviousness, specifically failing to consider the differences between the claimed invention and prior art as pointed out by the applicant.
Vikas Abhimanyu Gupta v.Dive Marketing Private Limited
In this interim application concerning a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court addressed the respondent's willingness to withdraw certain trademarks. The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit from its responsible officer within one week, indicating that the matter is proceeding through procedural steps rather than a final judgment on infringement or validity.
UTO Nederland B.V. v.Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Jai Shree Krishna Cement & Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed an interim application filed by UltraTech Cement, finding that the defendants were willfully disobeying a prior court order restraining them from using deceptively similar trademarks. To enforce compliance and stop the continuing wrong, the Court ordered the attachment of the bank accounts belonging to two defendant partners for a period of six months. This action underscores the judiciary's willingness to use stringent measures under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC to protect registered well-known trademarks against persistent infringement.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. v.Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd.
Saurer Technologies GmbH & Co. KG. filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that Jingwei Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. was infringing its patent related to textile machinery. The suit sought an injunction, based on products being imported and used in Pune, Maharashtra. However, the defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the cause of action arose outside the Bombay High Court's purview. Consequently, the court allowed the application for return of the plaint, dismissing the amendment request as well.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.The Controller of Patent and Designs
The Petitioners challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a 'Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal,' which was rejected under Section 25(1)(b) due to lack of novelty/inventive step. The court examined whether the seal provided a technical advancement over cited prior art documents, including US5419599.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that the respondents copied the entire content of his two Marathi language books, 'Hkkjrh; vFkZO;oLFkk' and 'Hkkjrh; jkT;?kVuk iz'kklu'. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale of these allegedly duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by the plaintiff, finding prima facie no merit in his case.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that defendants had infringed his copyrights by copying the content of two Marathi language books. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale and publication of these alleged duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal, finding prima facie no merit in the plaintiff's case regarding the grant of temporary relief.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Jyotiben Hareshbhai Chovatiya and Ors.
The Plaintiff sought permission to add several associated entities (Defendants No. 4 to 6) as party defendants, alleging they were involved in dealing with goods bearing an impugned trade mark 'NEUROGABA'. The Court found that these parties were necessary and proper for the adjudication of the matter.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v.Jagpin Brewerise Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Bombay High Court addressed motions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce a plea of invalidity. The court noted that since the defendants were uninterested in pursuing the current motions and had discharged their counsel twice, it was appropriate to dismiss the pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motion for now. Furthermore, the court reinforced established Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that while rectification applications exist, the Civil Court must first determine the prima facie validity of the trademark before granting a stay on the suit.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited for infringing registered trademarks 'HAYWARDS 5000' and 'FIVE THOUSAND'. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'COX 5001' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off in relation to beer. Furthermore, due to the Defendant's persistent non-appearance during the proceedings, the Plaintiff was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs.
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in favor of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) against Meta Platforms Inc. and other social media intermediaries. The court addressed urgent concerns regarding sophisticated AI-generated 'deepfake' videos impersonating the NSE's MD & CEO, which were used to promote fraudulent stock picking schemes. The order mandates that the platforms immediately remove these unauthorized deepfakes and infringing content, while also compelling them to disclose details of the unknown perpetrators involved in the misuse of the NSE trademark.
Fincraft Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar & Ors.
Fincraft Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to file a suit concerning copyright infringement related to the film 'Natyasamrat-Asa Nat hone Nahin.' The petitioner argued that while most transactions occurred in Mumbai, some agreements were executed in Hyderabad, potentially challenging the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Upl Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Upl Limited challenged an order dated February 8, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the order was cryptic and failed to consider all filed documents (D3 and D4) when rejecting amended claims under Section 2(1)(j)(a) of the Patents Act. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's submissions.
Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg. v.Saneet Gmbh and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg., leading to the removal of an identical trademark registration held by Saneet Gmbh and Anr. The court found that the Petitioner was the prior user and proprietor of the mark 'JACO,' which possessed extensive international reputation and goodwill spilling over into India. Given the Respondent's failure to contest the matter despite multiple opportunities, the Court ruled that the impugned registration was fraudulent and contrary to honest trade practices, thereby protecting the Petitioner's rights.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Astral Limited (Formerly known as Resinova Chemie Limited)
Pidilite Industries Limited filed an interim application alleging that Astral Limited was infringing its registered design for the M-SEAL PV SEAL container. The plaintiff claimed originality in the shape and configuration of the container, which is used for solvent cement products. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant's use of similar containers.
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.