Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 8 of 23
Showing 211–239Pidilite Industries Limited v.Laziq Trading Company
The Plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, filed an interim application seeking relief against Laziq Trading Company for alleged infringement of its well-known trademarks and copyrights associated with the DR. FIXIT silicone sealant range. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling goods bearing similar marks or infringing the artistic work on the packaging.
Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Aryan Sharma & Anr.
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. against Aryan Sharma & Anr. was settled between the parties via Consent Terms dated 02.05.2022. The court accepted these terms, permitted amendments to the case title, and subsequently disposed of the suit.
Unilever IP Holdings B.V. v.Ruchi Ice Cream
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against Ruchi Ice Cream regarding an impugned mark was ultimately settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
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.
M/s. Varkey Overseas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v.Official Liquidator Of Sumeet Machines ...
The Bombay High Court issued an ad-interim order in a company petition dispute involving the liquidation assets of Sumeet Machines. The court found that certain agreements produced late by one party lacked credibility, leading it to grant relief to the Official Liquidator. The ruling mandates that Sumeet Appliances Pvt. Ltd. must provide a full Affidavit of Disclosure detailing how they have used the trademarks and copyrights associated with the company's artistic works, along with all related income and actions taken.
Chitali Bottling Limited v.Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chitali Bottling Limited seeking a temporary injunction against Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited. The core dispute revolved around the right to use specific country liquor brand names and labels. The court found that the Appellant's claim of an 'oral license' was a sham plea, especially given the existence of a written License Agreement from 2014. Furthermore, the court ruled that under the Trade Marks Act, perpetual oral assignment is not legally possible, concluding that the Appellant had no prima facie case.
Unilever Plc v.Mukesh
The applicants filed an interim application seeking the extension and granting of ad-interim injunctions against the defendants. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods in the FMCG industry using counterfeit marks, pirated artwork, or trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (VIM) and prior used trademarks (U-Logo, SURF/SURF EXCEL).
Unilever Plc. v.Aman Chauhan
In this interim application concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Unilever Plc. sought a short adjournment to continue identifying the true parties involved in the counterfeiting operation. The court noted that amendments had been made to implead the party found at the premises during the execution of an earlier ad-interim order. Given that Unilever was still actively tracing the ultimate owner of the infringing premises, the High Court granted the request for adjournment until May 4, 2022, ensuring the existing protective orders remained in force.
Mody Pumps Inc v.Sovereign Pumping Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that defendants, former employees, colluded to steal copyrighted engineering drawings and confidential data relating to water pumps. The plaintiffs sought a restraining order against the defendants for manufacturing and marketing identical products. The court granted an interim injunction but stayed its operation for one week.
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.PhonePe Private Limited
This appeal challenged an order that allowed the plaintiff (PhonePe Private Limited) to withdraw its initial commercial IP suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off, while retaining the liberty to file a fresh suit. The appellant (Resilient Innovations Private Limited) argued this order was erroneous and not maintainable for appeal. The Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the Impugned Order did not qualify as a 'decree' under the CPC, thereby ruling on the issue of maintainability.
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.Phonepe Private Limited
Resilient Innovations Private Limited challenged an order passed by the lower court that allowed Phonepe Private Limited to withdraw its trademark infringement suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Appellant argued this grant constituted a jurisdictional error and should be appealable. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on the grounds of maintainability, holding that the Impugned Order was not a 'decree' under the CPC. While avoiding comment on the merits of the IP dispute, the court provided clarity on the legal effect of such withdrawal orders.
Lyka Labs Limited v.Lyka Biotech Private Limited
The petitioner, Lyka Labs Limited, filed an Interim Application against Lyka Biotech Private Limited for infringement of its trademark 'LYKA' and passing off. The court accepted the defendant's statement that it had discontinued using the impugned mark and domain name. Consequently, the court passed a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from using similar marks in relation to pharmaceutical products.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Ginodia Agro And Anr.
Everest Food Products Private Limited filed a petition seeking leave to institute a suit against Ginodia Agro and others, alleging infringement of copyright, trademark, and passing off. The court examined the jurisdictional requirements for such an IP dispute in Mumbai. The judge held that since the plaintiff operates within the court's jurisdiction, obtaining leave under Clause XII was unnecessary, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited v.Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'JUPITER' (Registration No. 1675980). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using similar marks, such as "StayGo Jupiter Multispecialty Hospital," in relation to running hospitals and providing medical services. The court found a strong prima facie case for infringement and granted the interim injunction.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors. v.Venkata Siva Suhas Kumar Bommisetty & Ors.
The Plaintiffs, Siddhant Icecreams LLP and Ors., filed an interim application seeking relief against the Defendants for infringement of their registered 'NATURAL' family marks and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordering them to remove related online advertisements.
Ageless Clinic Private Limited v.Am Ageless Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted further interim relief in favor of Ageless Clinic Private Limited against Am Ageless Private Limited. Despite previous orders, the Defendant failed to comply by continuing to use infringing business names on signage, maintaining deceptive domain names (like i-am-ageless-aesthetic-and-dental-centre.business), and active social media accounts. The Court made absolute the Leave Petition for Letters of Patent and issued a strong injunction restraining the defendant from using any mark or handle containing 'AGELESS' that could lead to passing off.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Walpar Healthcare And Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed an Interim Application against Walpar Healthcare & Anr. alleging passing off and trademark infringement concerning their respective marks, DUZELA and DIZELA. The court found a case made out for granting ad-interim relief based on the findings of the previous order.
Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. v.Amit Saini & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Hygienic Research Institute Private Ltd. against Amit Saini & Ors. The court found sufficient grounds, based on prior ex-parte findings, to establish a case for passing off and trademark infringement. This interim order prohibits the defendants from copying or counterfeiting the plaintiff's 'STREAX PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPER' products or using deceptively similar marks like 'STREAX,' thereby preventing them from misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiff.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Sharmila Lalit Vyas And Anr.
Louis Vuitton Malletier filed an Interim Application seeking an injunction against the Defendants to prevent them from manufacturing, selling, or distributing products featuring the impugned LV mark or deceptively similar marks. The court directed the Applicant/Plaintiff to serve the proceedings on the Defendants before considering any ad-interim relief.
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd v.VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd
Growthpond Technology Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking leave to initiate a lawsuit against VGD Technologies Pvt Ltd concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The petitioner argued that no such leave was required under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, as the main suit addressed these IP violations. Furthermore, counsel established the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction based on the Petitioner's Mumbai registration. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Maruti Air Couriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. v.Ram Singh Rathore & 9 Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that their former franchisees (Defendants nos. 1 to 9) and a newly incorporated entity (Defendant no. 10) were continuing to use the original artistic label and name of 'Maruti Air Couriers' on consignment notes and trade documents after the termination of their franchise agreements. The plaintiffs claimed this constituted copyright infringement and passing off.
Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd v.Cratus Pharma Limited
Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Cratus Pharma Limited alleging infringement of its registered trade marks ("CRATUS" and "CRATUS LIFE CARE"). The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was accepted by the court.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Muhammed Rafi
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Muhammed Rafi alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'SPLAT LOGO', used for detergent goods. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Unilever Plc. v.Malti Ice Cream Industries
The Bombay High Court disposed of the Commercial IP Suit after the defendants volunteered to submit to a decree. The court allowed the petition for leave and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, while permitting the defendants to destroy the wrappers bearing the offending marks under specific conditions.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vedansh Industries
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Vedansh Industries. The proprietor of the Defendant agreed to submit to a decree in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the Court decreed the suit, ordering the destruction of seized goods by the Defendants.
AMPM Designs Thr. Partner Akash Mehta v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Mumbai Bench)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by AMPM Designs, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its registered trade mark 'AMPM Designs' from the register. The court found that the IPAB erred in law and fact, specifically by failing to consider binding Supreme Court precedents regarding rectification applications. Crucially, the High Court determined that the petitioner's business (interior design services) was materially distinct from the respondent's primary business (fashion apparels), thus negating any likelihood of consumer confusion.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Babbar
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 19 of 2021 after both the Plaintiff (Hindustan Unilever Ltd) and Defendant (Babbar) reached a settlement. The suit was decreed in terms of specific prayer clauses, with the Plaintiff agreeing not to press for damages.
Galpha Laboratories Limited v.Shivansh Shrivastava
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, filed an opposition against the Defendant's application for the trade mark BFOLIN. The court examined the similarity between the established mark B-COLEN and the proposed mark BFOLIN. Satisfied that there is a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
SaNotize Research and Development v.Lupin Limited
The court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, specifically regarding the separation of pure copyright material into a new exhibit. Given the sensitive nature of both parties' confidential information, the court ordered a controlled inspection meeting between limited representatives of both sides to facilitate further proceedings.
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.