Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 6 of 23
Showing 151–179Mineral 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.
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.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled on July 12, 2023. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Terms on the date of judgment, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Resintech Inc v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark application dispute, setting aside the Senior Examiner's refusal based on the mark being descriptive. The Petitioner argued that the Examiner failed to consider prior submissions regarding the distinctiveness of 'RESINTECH,' including its use by the applicant globally and its combination nature. Consequently, the court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, ensuring all petitioner arguments are reviewed before a final decision is made.
Kilitch Drugs (India) Limited v.Zee Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiff, Kilitch Drugs, sought an interim injunction and relief for passing off against the Defendant, Zee Laboratories. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks (KILITCH and KILITCH SRO) in pharmaceutical preparations by the use of the impugned mark KILITH/KILITH SRO.
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.
UltraTech Cement Ltd. v.Ultratech Paints and Allied Products
The plaintiffs filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants. The court allowed the application, granting an interim order restraining the defendants from using the impugned name 'ULTRATECH' and associated domain names to infringe upon or pass off goods related to the well-known trade mark 'UltraTech'.
I Am The Ocean, LLC v.Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Bombay High Court ruling, the petitioner successfully challenged an Examiner's refusal to register their trademark. The court found that the original rejection was not a 'reasoned order' because it failed to consider detailed arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness and its unique visual structure. Consequently, the high court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, ensuring all petitioner submissions are properly addressed.
I Am The Ocean, LLC v.Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Bombay High Court ruling, the petitioner successfully challenged an Examiner's refusal to register their trademark. The court found that the original rejection was not a 'reasoned order' because it failed to consider detailed arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness and its unique visual structure. Consequently, the high court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, ensuring all petitioner submissions are properly addressed.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Ajanta Pharma Limited against Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court passed an order accepting the Consent Minutes, disposing of the suit and interim applications accordingly.
Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa, setting aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to register a subject mark. The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider crucial material on record, including evidence of opposition and abandonment status of cited marks, as well as a NoC obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for the Respondent to conduct a fresh hearing based on all submitted facts.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Beiersdorf Ag successfully challenged an administrative order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its international registration. The Bombay High Court found that the original order was arbitrary, lacking independent reasons or consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, mandating a reasoned decision within eight weeks.
Unilever Plc. v.Anurag Tiwari
The Commercial IPR Suit No. 481 of 2022, filed by Unilever Plc. against Anurag Tiwari and others, was settled by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, permitted amendments to the cause title, and disposed of the suit.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the suit filed by Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited against Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar and others. The court found that since the disputed trademark was successfully removed from the register via a rectification petition, and the defendant provided affidavits confirming no commercial use of the mark had ever occurred, all prayers in the original suit were rendered infructuous. This decision effectively closed the infringement proceedings.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the suit filed by Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited against Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar and others. The court found that since the disputed trademark was successfully removed from the register via a rectification petition, and the defendant provided affidavits confirming no commercial use of the mark had ever occurred, all prayers in the original suit were rendered infructuous. This decision effectively closed the infringement proceedings.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Madhuri Singh
The Bombay High Court addressed an application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the 'Jawed Habib' trademark and associated copyright in hair salon services. The court denied the plaintiff's request for immediate relief, primarily because the defendant asserted that she had ceased using the marks as of September 17, 2022, and there was no prima facie evidence to the contrary. Crucially, the court allowed the defendant to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, effectively directing the dispute towards arbitration.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit after noting that the disputed mark had already been removed from the register by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court accepted the defendant's affidavit stating that the trademark was never put into commercial operation, rendering all remaining claims for injunction and damages moot. This decision highlights how prior administrative actions (like rectification) can fundamentally alter the trajectory of a civil IP suit.
Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa, setting aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to register a subject mark. The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider crucial material on record, including evidence of opposition and abandonment status of cited marks, as well as a NoC obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for the Respondent to conduct a fresh hearing based on all submitted facts.
Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited
This commercial appeal challenged an interim order that restrained Tri-Parulex (appellant) from infringing the Plaintiff's Patent No. 202302, which relates to a fire protection system for electrical transformers. The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, finding no prima facie case of infringement and noting that the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the appellant.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy & Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a court-supervised licensing process for proprietary edible oil trademarks, citing concerns over the integrity of the bidding. The Judge found that media reports suggesting bias had compromised the neutrality of the auction, leading to only two bidders remaining (the Plaintiff and one Defendant). Consequently, the Court Receiver was directed to halt the current proceedings, return all existing deposits, and reissue advertisements under strict conditions of silence from all parties.
Neha Overseas v.Khushi Impex
The Bombay High Court rejected Khushi Impex's application to vacate an ex-parte interim order that had seized their alleged infringing goods. The court found that the defendant admitted infringement by copying the plaintiff's 'CROWN' trademark and packaging, noting that reliance on a rectification application before the Registrar was insufficient grounds for vacating the stay. Consequently, the relief sought for the release of the goods was also denied.
Corona Remedies Private Limited v.Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Bombay High Court quashed an interim injunction that prevented Corona Remedies from using its trademark 'STIMULET' in pharmaceutical products. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals had alleged trade mark infringement and passing off based on their registered mark 'STIMULIV'. The court found that despite the similarity, Corona was a registered proprietor of its own mark, and crucially, the two marks were used for distinct product types (allopathic vs. ayurvedic) and different medical conditions, thus failing to establish likelihood of confusion or passing off.
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. v.Lupin Limited
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. filed a suit alleging that Lupin Limited infringed its proprietary technology, NONS (a Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray), by developing and marketing a competing product called NOXGUARD, in breach of a Confidentiality Agreement. The appeal challenged the dismissal of SaNOtize's interim application seeking an injunction against NOXGUARD.
John Cockerill India Limited v.Sanjay Kamalakar Navare
John Cockerill India Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Petition seeking urgent ex-parte relief against its former employee, Sanjay Kamalakar Navare. The Petitioner alleged that Mr. Navare, who had access to highly confidential designs, proprietary technical know-how, and customer data during his tenure, transferred sensitive information onto external storage devices before leaving the company. Based on a forensic analysis of the company laptop, the court recognized the gravity of the breach. Consequently, the Bombay High Court appointed a Receiver with powers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC to seize and examine all digital devices belonging to the Respondent to secure the evidence.
Lakme Lever Private Limited v.Shyama Mai Enterprises And Anr.
This Bombay High Court judgment addresses a commercial arbitration application concerning the alleged misuse of the LAKME trademark. The court reviewed an affidavit from one respondent, who stated she was operating a salon under a different name ('8 to 8 Salon') and was not using the LAKME brand after her husband's death and the expiry of the franchise agreement. Given these new facts, the Court directed both parties to confer and provide instructions on whether the applicant still wishes to proceed with invoking Section 11 (likely related to trademark rights) and if the respondent is willing to remit past franchise fees.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Safex Chemical India Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Safex Chemical India Ltd. challenged the Controller's decision to grant a patent for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition,' arguing that the Petitioner was denied natural justice because they were not informed about the allowance of Respondent No. 2's amendments before the pre-grant opposition hearing. The petitioner contended this procedural lapse rendered the granted patent invalid. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately disposed of the Writ Petition, noting that the petitioner had already availed and was actively pursuing the alternate remedy under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act.
Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another v.Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd
This Commercial Appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed challenges raised by the original defendants against a time-limited, ad-interim injunction and court receiver appointed by the plaintiff. The suit itself was a trademark infringement action combined with passing off. The bench focused primarily on clarifying legal principles regarding applications made without notice to the opposing party.
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.