Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 7 of 23
Showing 181–209Corona 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 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 Bombay 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.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vim Industries Ltd
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an interim application seeking continuation and reinforcement of an exparte ad-interim order. The court found that a case for passing off was made out, specifically concerning the use of marks VIM, SURF, and the Splat device in relation to cleaning products.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc against Ashok Kumar. The plaintiffs sought permission to amend their pleadings to identify and join another party involved in manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit cosmetic preparations. The court allowed the amendment and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.New Parle Ice Cream
The suit was filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against New Parle Ice Cream concerning an IP matter. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was formally recorded and accepted by the Bombay High Court on September 28, 2022.
Unilever Plc. v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc. seeking amendments to its suit plaint and related petitions. The Plaintiffs sought to incorporate additional impugned marks and parties into the case title based on new information received from a Court Receiver's Report. The court allowed the amendments and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Great White Global Private Limited v.S. S. Cable Mfg. Co.
In this trademark dispute, Great White Global Private Limited sought resolution against S.S. Cable Mfg. Co. The court noted that the defendants had communicated their intent to settle amicably and provided an undertaking not to use the disputed marks (SS GRAND WHITE or GRAND WHITE) in the future. Consequently, the matter was directed towards a formal settlement hearing, indicating a potential amicable resolution of the trademark conflict.
Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited v.Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited against Pinaki Chunilal Bhattacharya. The suit involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the pharmaceutical brand 'GLIMET'. The court found that the impugned mark 'DLYMET' was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered mark, especially since both were intended for medicinal preparations. Given the strong prima facie case and the risk of irreparable injury, the court ordered a temporary restraint on the defendant's use of the disputed mark.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Charulbhai Patel Prop. Business under name of Pacific Paints Industries.
The applicant (Asian Paints Ltd.) filed an interim application seeking further ad-interim relief in a commercial IP suit against the defendants. The court noted that previous ad-interim relief had been granted, and since the defendant was served, the matter was placed on the board for 'further ad-interim relief' on a subsequent date.
Sanjay Soya Private Limited v.Lokeshwari Traders And Anr.
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 362 of 2022 after confirming that all undertakings stipulated in the parties' Consent Terms had been duly complied with. The defendants confirmed they had applied to withdraw their trademark application and declared non-use of the mark, while also providing evidence that the impugned products had been destroyed. This order formally concluded the litigation based on mutual agreement.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Vatave Health Care And Anr.
The Bombay High Court extended the existing ex-parte ad-interim orders in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Vatave Health Care. The court noted that despite being served, Defendants 1 and 2 continued to remain absent from the proceedings. Consequently, the interim relief granted for trademark infringement and passing off was maintained until further orders, allowing the Plaintiff time to proceed with their case.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd appealed against two lower court orders concerning a commercial IP suit alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product copied the plaintiff's unique artistic work and brand elements, and whether the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the alleged infringement. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where the Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and passing off against the Respondent. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the Defendant's impugned goods, which was central to the initial injunction granted by the lower court. The Bombay High Court upheld the previous orders, finding no infirmity in the single judges' discretion regarding the interlocutory applications.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd alleged copyright infringement and passing off against Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin and Anr. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had knowledge of the Defendant's allegedly infringing goods earlier than they claimed in their plaint. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding no evidence to suggest that the Plaintiffs were misled or delayed in seeking relief.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the use of an artistic design on a medicinal oil, 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil.' The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and passing off against the defendant. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's similar artwork constituted blatant copying and if the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge to pursue legal action promptly. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the defendant did not infringe upon the plaintiffs' rights.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Saurashtra Chemicals And 4 Others
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Limited and Saurashtra Chemicals & Ors. on August 26, 2022. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized in Consent Minutes of Order.
Asian Paints Limited v.B. N. Ravi Prakash
The court heard arguments regarding the service of process in an ongoing IPR suit. After confirming that the defendant had been duly served, the Leave Petition was made absolute. The court granted the defendant one more opportunity to appear before considering the main prayer for passing off.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Vikas
This interim application sought to continue and grant further ad-interim relief against the defendant, Vikas. The court reviewed the findings of the Court Receiver regarding additional infringing goods and permitted amendments to the plaint. Consequently, the court ordered the continuation of the exparte ad-interim injunctions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ashok Kumar
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an interim application seeking permission to amend its suit plaint and interim application. The plaintiff sought to implead Mr. Kuldeep Singh, who was identified as the owner manufacturing counterfeit detergent preparations based on a Court Receiver's report. The court permitted the amendments and continued the existing ad-interim injunction.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.Pacific Paints & Anr.
The court heard an interim application filed by Asian Paints Ltd. against Pacific Paints & Anr. The court noted that the initial exparte ad-interim order was in place, and subsequent amendments were permitted based on a Court Receiver's report regarding additional infringing goods. The court decided to continue the existing ad-interim relief for a further period.
Hachette Filipacchi Presse v.Aerolite Industries And 5 Ors
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 55 of 2010 after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The Consent Terms mandated that the defendants agree to use and register the trademark 'elle' in lowercase lettering while restricting its use in specific classes, and crucially, they committed not to adopt an identical or similar font to the plaintiff's registered mark 'ELLE'. This resolution provides clarity on brand usage rights through mutual agreement.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Dlvk Cement Private Limited
The suit filed by UltraTech Cement Limited against Dlvk Cement Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, disposed of the suit and interim application, and decreed the matter in accordance with the settlement terms.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Surjit Dairy Products
The commercial IP suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Surjit Dairy Products was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Apple Hair And Beauty Services Private Ltd. v.Kavita Ankush Borude
This appeal before the Bombay High Court challenges a trial court order that restrained Apple Hair and Beauty Services from using the trade mark 'Apple Unisex Salon.' The appellant raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the suit should have been filed in the Commercial Court due to its valuation and nature (trade mark infringement/passing off). The court granted time for the respondent-plaintiff to address this issue before proceeding with the appeal.
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.