Bombay High Court
653 cases · page 4 of 22
Showing 91–119Reliance 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.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v.Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and removal of the trademark registration 'MAZELO' held by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, permitted the petitioner to amend their petition to include the Registrar of Trademarks as Respondent No. 2. This procedural step moves the case forward toward challenging the validity of the existing trademark.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals against Corona Remedies concerning the marks STIMULIV and STIMULET. The core dispute involved the validity of the Defendant's trademark registration, which the Plaintiff challenged. Satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity was prima facie tenable, the court framed an issue on this matter and adjourned the suit for further proceedings.
Powerhouse Licensing LLC. v.Anand Rai
Powerhouse Licensing LLC successfully secured an interim injunction in the Bombay High Court against Respondent No. 1 regarding a conflicting trademark registration for 'POWERHOUSE GYM'. The court found that the Petitioner holds prior, famous, and well-known rights to the mark, making the impugned registration prima facie liable to be cancelled or rectified. This initial victory allows the Petitioners to prevent any misuse of their brand while the full legal proceedings continue.
Electronica India Ltd. v.Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Electronica India Ltd., setting aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' communications that allowed a subsequent proprietor (Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.) to record ownership via Form TM-24. The court found significant procedural flaws, including the lack of a speaking order and discrepancies in official records. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner is given a full opportunity to be heard before any decision is made.
Mastery Logistics Systems, Inc. v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition seeking to quash an earlier trademark registration granted by the Senior Examiner. The Petitioner argued that their submissions regarding opposition were ignored in the original decision. Recognizing the need for a thorough review, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trademark Authority for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties' contentions are taken into account.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ishfaq Chemical Industries & Anr.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Ishfaq Chemical Industries for infringement of its trademarks and copyrights, including passing off. The parties reached a settlement agreement on March 28, 2024.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Fabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited v.Mr.Bean Trampoline Park/Mr.Been Trampoline Park
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited successfully obtained leave from the Bombay High Court to proceed with a commercial IP suit against Mr.Bean Trampoline Park. The petitioner, owner of the 'Mr.Bean' character and associated trademarks/copyrights, alleged infringement by the respondent operating under similar names and marks. The court granted permission, finding that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within Mumbai, thereby establishing jurisdiction despite the park being located elsewhere.
Motwane 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.
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.