Defendant Favorable
115 defendant favorable decisions from Bombay High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
115 cases | Page 2 of 4
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd v.Achla Sabharwal
The dispute concerns the ownership of the copyright in the 1987 Hindi film 'Sheela' between Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd and Achla Sabharwal. Both parties claim to be the true assignee of the rights from the original producer, Dwarakish. Goldmines sought an interim injunction preventing Sabharwal from exploiting or claiming ownership of the copyright.
Cutis Biotech Thr.Its Sole Prop. v.Serum Institute of India Private
This Bombay High Court appeal addressed a dispute over the trademark 'Covishield' between Cutis Biotech and Serum Institute of India. Although both parties had pending applications for the mark, Cutis Biotech sought an interim injunction based on passing off. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the balance of convenience did not favor the appellant, especially given the critical public health role of the 'Covishield' vaccine in ongoing vaccination drives.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
This interim application sought relief concerning the alleged infringement of a trademark (STIMULIV) by the defendant (Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd), which was using the mark IMMULIV. The defendant, through its director, provided assurances that they would cease manufacturing and using the impugned marks.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
This interim application was filed regarding a trademark dispute between Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and Nutramarck Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The defendant, through its director Mr Abhinav, stated that they had stopped manufacturing products with the impugned mark IMMULIV and would remove them from e-commerce websites within two weeks.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.BRD Medilabs & Anr
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against BRD Medilabs & Anr regarding trademark infringement. The court decreed the suit in specific terms, requiring the defendants to apply for the cancellation of their registered mark 'Sanaret Labs' and withdraw their service mark application within four weeks.
Unilever Plc v.Sovereign Chemicals And Cosmetics
The dispute involved allegations that the Defendant was illicitly using the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, including trademarks, trade dress, and copyright in label artwork. The Defendant claimed a license from a proprietor in Saudi Arabia.
Unilever PLC v.Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics
Unilever PLC filed an IP suit against Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics alleging infringement of its trademark, copyright, and common law rights related to product labeling and trade dress. The defendant claimed they were operating under a license in Saudi Arabia. The court found the use illicit but allowed the defendant to proceed by accepting their submission regarding the prayer clause.
Browns and More India Pvt. Ltd. v.Brown Wall Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The applicant/plaintiff filed an interim application against the defendants. The court heard arguments and accepted a statement from the counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 3 that the FIR registered on their behalf, which formed the basis of the suit invoking Section 60 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 read with 106 of Patents Act, would not be pursued.
Essdee Industries Through Proprietor v.Esbee Electrotech LLP
This writ petition challenged an order by the District Court that allowed the plaintiff to withdraw a composite suit involving claims of trademark/passing-off infringement and registered design infringement. The defendant argued that raising a defense under Section 19 of the Designs Act mandated the transfer of the entire suit to the High Court. However, the Bombay High Court held that since the plaintiff sought withdrawal—not further prosecution—the District Court retained its jurisdiction to permit the split. The court clarified that while Section 22(4) governs the continuation of the suit upon raising a cancellation defense, it does not prevent the court from allowing the plaintiff to withdraw and file separate suits for distinct causes of action.
Dhaval Diyora v.Union of India And Ors
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had directed the Controller to issue a patent to Pfizer Products Inc. The petitioner argued that this order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard regarding his pre-grant opposition. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioner's conduct questionable and holding that the pre-grant opposition was not maintainable in law.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This case involved multiple Commercial Arbitration Petitions challenging arbitral awards related to a licensing agreement for transgenic Bt. cotton seeds. The petitioner claimed rights to royalty fees and technology transfer, while the respondent defended the award which allowed monetary claims made by them. The Court dismissed all arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality in the impugned award.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioners challenged several arbitral awards related to licensing agreements for Bt. cotton seeds, arguing that the respondent failed to transfer technology and was liable to pay royalties. The Bombay High Court dismissed all commercial arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.
Anand S/o Nanabhau Embadwar v.Union of India, Through Ministry of Agricultural & Farmers Welfare
This case involved a Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petition challenging the manufacturing and marketing of Soil Testing Fertilizer Recommendation (STFR) technology developed by ICAR and IARI. The petitioner, Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., sought to restrain its marketing while simultaneously benefiting from the technology. The court found the litigation frivolous and vexatious.
Speciality Restaurants Limited v.Deepika Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd.
Speciality Restaurants Limited filed a suit against Deepika Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court disposed of the suit and notice of motion based on minutes of order, accepting undertakings from the defendants.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Union of India and others
Panacea Biotec Ltd. challenged the grant of its vaccine patent (IN'351) after the Opposition Board provided a recommendation that the Petitioner deemed 'flawed.' The Petitioner sought the High Court to reconstitute a new Opposition Board. The court rejected the petition, holding that the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for expert adjudication and judicial interference is unwarranted at this stage.
Benden Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a commercial IP suit filed by Benden Limited against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The dismissal occurred because the Plaintif had previously received an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) directing the cancellation of its trademark registration, 'Perfect Radiance.' Since the mark was removed from the register, the court found that the Plaintiff was no longer interested in pursuing the suit, leading to its dismissal for want of prosecution.
Sopariwala Exports And Anr. v.Satyapal Shivkumar
The Bombay High Court vacated an earlier ex-parte order that had recognized the Plaintiff's prior use of the trademark 'PAN RAAS'. The court found that the statement claiming the Plaintiffs conceived and adopted the distinctive mark in 2008 was incorrect, noting that the word 'RAAS' was adopted after a compromise with Rasana Private Limited. This decision significantly impacts the Plaintiff's claim regarding the originality and priority of their trademark rights.
Kalpesh R Jain And 2 Ors v.Mandev Tubes Private Limited
Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit alleging that Hariom Metals & Tubes (the appellants) infringed its registered design for copper tubes, specifically claiming imitation of the unique bell-shaped ending. The plaintiff asserted substantial goodwill and market presence under trademarks like 'MT ECO SELF CONNECT'. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, upholding the single judge's finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning an action in passing off brought by Torrent Pharmaceuticals against Wockhardt. The court analyzed the 'classical trinity' of passing off, focusing on misrepresentation and reputation. Ultimately, the judge found that Torrent failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off due to the long co-existence of the rival products without any demonstrated confusion or deception. Consequently, the interim injunction sought by Torrent was dismissed.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Lupin Ltd And Anr
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals against the refusal of interim relief. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning the medicinal preparation DEXORANGE, whose packaging and trade mark were copied by the respondents (Lupin Ltd And Anr). Despite strong claims regarding identical artistic work and deceptive similarity, the court found no immediate case for injunction after an 11-year delay in seeking relief. However, the court directed that the original suit be expedited, keeping all core issues of infringement and passing off open for future adjudication.
Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd v.Ishaan Overseas
The Plaintiff, Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ishaan Overseas for using the mark 'EDMODA' on leather goods. The Plaintiff claimed its mark 'ESBEDA' was deceptively similar. However, the court found that the marks were sufficiently distinct visually and phonetically, leading to the dismissal of the motion.
People Interactive (India) Private Limited v.Vivek Pahwa And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court ruled against People Interactive in its suit seeking to restrain the defendants from using the domain name 'secondshaadi.com' and passing off their services as those of Shaadi.com. Despite the Plaintiff holding registered trademarks and substantial goodwill, the court found that the Plaintiff was estopped by acquiescence. The judgment emphasizes that a trademark owner who is aware of an infringing use but remains silent while the competitor grows cannot later claim exclusivity.
Akashaditya Harishchandra Lama v.Ashutosh Gowarikar And 4 Ors
The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion alleging that his creative work had been plagiarized. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient prima facie case due to an ever-shifting stand on what was infringed. Furthermore, the court criticized the plaintiff's conduct for publicizing the litigation in the media.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders issued in a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent for explosion and fire detection technology.
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.