Bombay High Court
637 cases · page 4 of 22
Showing 91–119Motwane Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Union of India
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Motwane Private Limited, holding that the petitioner's right to renew its trademarks was not extinguished despite a significant delay. The court emphasized that since the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, any automatic rejection based on time limits is invalid. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness and due process must be followed by the Registry before removing marks from the register.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Azizur Rahaman And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd's petition to combine its claims for passing off with those for trademark and copyright infringement. This strategic move aims to streamline litigation by consolidating multiple causes of action into a single proceeding. Consequently, the court expanded the existing ad-interim injunction, reinforcing the restraint on defendants from manufacturing or trading goods that deceptively resemble HUL's distinctive brands like Lakme and its associated artistic works.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Balaji Soap Factory
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Balaji Soap Factory regarding the infringement of its artistic work, specifically the VIM label. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the court on February 1, 2024.
Vidli Restaurants Limited v.Alok Sovind Chandewar
Vidli Restaurants Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Application seeking dispute resolution related to its Franchise Agreement with Alok Sovind Chandewar. The core of the dispute involved Vidli alleging that the Respondent was using a deceptively similar mark, constituting trademark infringement post-termination of the agreement. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application, ruling that since Vidli was merely a licensee and not the owner of the trademarks, it lacked the legal standing to initiate arbitration over the alleged infringement.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Riddhi Siddhi Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark suit against Riddhi Siddhi Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai. The court examined the jurisdiction clause and confirmed that Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, grants this court jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business location. Consequently, the court held that no special leave was required and made the petition absolute.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.C.K. Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Kamal Electricals And Sanitary
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a suit against Kamal Electricals and Sanitary regarding trademark infringement. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai, while the defendants were operating outside the court's jurisdiction in Telangana. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v.Extra Tech World and Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to file a Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit against the respondents. The core issue was establishing the court's jurisdiction, given that the infringing websites were accessible across India.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application sought to determine the method of inquiry regarding whether certain moulds/dyes were infringing material, considering the original patent had expired. The court considered the request for an independent scientific adviser under Section 115 but proceeded by allowing the parties to file their respective expert affidavits.
Atos India Pvt. Ltd v.The State of Maharashtra
Atos India Pvt. Ltd challenged an order from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, arguing that its work providing bug fixing and maintenance services on QAD Inc.'s ERP software was a service contract, not a sale of goods or developed software. The core dispute revolved around whether modifying existing proprietary code constituted 'development' leading to a taxable supply under the MVAT Act. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Atos India, holding that the transaction was fundamentally an indivisible contract for services.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application concerns whether certain moulds/dyes are infringing material, despite the original patent having expired. The court considered the need for expert determination on this factual question.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Jogaram Sirvi And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement. Crucially, the court affirmed that the 'ATOMBERG' brand qualifies as a well-known trademark across all classes of goods and services. This landmark decision reinforces the high level of protection afforded to coined and inherently distinctive marks with established national reputation.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant, Manya Vejju, from publishing statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent, Sapna Bhog. The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism between their respective romance genre literary works. The core legal question was whether the threat of infringement action fell under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The High Court found that the trial court's inquiry into the merits of the copyright claim exceeded its remit and consequently quashed the impugned order, remitting the matter back for a fresh determination.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant (Manya Vejju) from making statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent (Sapna Bhog). The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism and unauthorized copying between their respective literary works in the romance genre. The court held that determining whether actual infringement exists is beyond the scope of a suit under Section 60, as it risks prejudging an action for infringement. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the District Judge for fresh determination after considering the underlying infringement suit.
Crc Industries Europe Besloten v.Bhalaria Corporation
The Bombay High Court granted the plaintiff permission to de-seal seized 'impugned products' from the premises of certain defendants. The core issue was determining whether these seized goods were counterfeit or legitimately procured through authorized distributors. The court allowed the plaintiff to take two samples for investigation, ensuring the entire process would be conducted transparently in the presence of all parties and videographed.
The Chocolate Spoon Company Private Limited v.Oceanleaf Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted leave for a plaintiff to combine claims of passing off with an existing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that they lacked territorial jurisdiction as their outlets were located outside Mumbai, but the court prioritized the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation. This decision allows the combined action to proceed while keeping the jurisdictional issue open for later determination.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Shree Dev Colour And Hardware and Ors.
The Bombay High Court disposed of a portion of the IPR suit after the parties reached a settlement via Consent Terms dated 31st October, 2023. Specifically, the suit against Defendant No.2 was disposed of based on these terms, which included undertakings to cease using infringing marks and destroy counterfeit materials.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Ayur Gen Herbals
The parties, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Ayur Gen Herbals, settled their disputes in the Bombay High Court. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
Mitsu Chem Plast Limited v.Abs Mediequip And Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a suit concerning the infringement of design rights and passing off related to hospital beds. Despite previous undertakings by the defendant acknowledging Mitsu Chem Plast Limited's rights and promising cessation of use, the plaintiff alleged continued infringement. The court found sufficient grounds to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from adopting or using designs identical or deceptively similar to the registered design and trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Sardesai Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This case before the Bombay High Court addressed a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of a specific court after the transfer of civil suits. The petitioner argued that since the suit involved intellectual property (trademarks) and was valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-, it should fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Court ruled that because the valuation fell below the minimum threshold prescribed by the notification under the Act, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the jurisdiction rested with the District Judge-1 as per the Trademarks Act, 1958.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
The suit concerning alleged trademark infringement was settled between Unilever Global IP Ltd. and Rajender Prasad Bandaru. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
Unilever Global IP Limited filed a Commercial IP suit against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding the use of the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently arrived at a comprehensive settlement, which was accepted by the court.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
The suit was filed by Unilever Global IP Ltd. against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding infringement related to the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was accepted and taken on record by the court.
Pranay Satyendrakumar Goyal v.Muza Hospitality Private Limied
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application concerning alleged trademark infringement. The Plaintiff accused the Defendants of breaching a prior undertaking by continuing to use the impugned mark 'DIVE' on their website and selling services under the similar name 'DEEPDOWN DIVE'. While the court did not rule on the merits, it granted the Plaintiff leave to file an Affidavit in Rejoinder and simultaneously granted the Defendants liberty to file an Affidavit in Sur Rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for further consideration.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Tri Parulex Fire Protection System & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking an injunction against the Defendants for allegedly infringing Patent No.202302, which covers a specific operational sequence involving differential relay, Buchholz relay, and circuit breaker in fire prevention systems (NIFPS). The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants not to use this specific patented sequence but directed both parties to file affidavits addressing the technical scope of the patent.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Mritunjay Kumar
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Mritunjay Kumar was settled between the parties. The Court accepted the Consent Terms, which were signed by both sides, and consequently disposed of and decreed the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Pradeep Dhidaria
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an Interim Application against Pradeep Dhidaria alleging that the latter had slavishly copied the original artistic work featured on the Plaintiff's product packaging. The court examined the resemblance, noting similarities in elements like the starburst and globe depiction used on the rival product's trademark 'MASTER'. Based on this prima facie finding of copying and subsisting copyright, the court continued the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons regarding alleged trademark infringement was settled between both parties. The Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The suit between Unilever Global Ip Limited and Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after the parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in a decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons was settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which included a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and mutual undertakings regarding the destruction of seized 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.