Outcome Category

Interim Order

at Bombay High Court

158 interim order decisions from Bombay High Court.

Interim Order Decisions

158 cases | Page 6 of 6

patent interim order · Aug 11, 2008

The International Association of Lions Clubs v.The Association of Lions India

Bombay High Court · Suit No.1213 of 2007 (Notice of Motion No.1599 of 2007)

The International Association of Lions Clubs filed a suit against The Association of Lions India, alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were wrongfully adopting their registered trademarks, specifically 'LION', and engaging in acts of passing off by using similar names. Furthermore, they alleged copyright infringement through the adoption of insignia and substantial copying of the Plaintiffs' Constitution and By-Laws. The suit also included claims regarding defamation due to negative reports published by the defendants.

copyright interim order · Oct 8, 2007

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v.Mr. Gajendra Singh And Ors.

Bombay High Court

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction and damages against defendants for infringing its copyright in the television game show "Titan Antakshari" and passing off its competing show, "Antakshari - The Great Challenge," as associated with Zee's program. The court addressed the interim relief sought by the Plaintiff.

copyright interim order · Jun 7, 2007

Urmi Juvekar Chiang v.Global Broadcast News Limited

Bombay High Court · null

The Plaintiff, a script-writer, claimed that the Defendants were infringing her copyright and breaching confidentiality by broadcasting a program titled 'Summer Showdown'. The Plaintiff asserted that this program was based on her original literary work, the concept note for 'Work in Progress', which she had shared with the Defendants. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from further infringement or breach of confidence.

patent interim order · Sep 1, 2004

Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate v.Meher Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Appeal from Order No. 196 of 2003

The appellant challenged a trial court judgment that granted permanent injunctions in favor of the respondents regarding the alleged infringement of their copyrighted artistic label, 'PRINCE SANTRA', by using similar labels like 'No. 1 TANGO SANTRA'. The Bombay High Court heard an application for interim stay of the decree.

design interim order · Feb 13, 2004

Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft v.Pikpen (P.) Ltd.

Bombay High Court · 285/03

The plaintiffs, who manufacture and market textmarkers under the 'Faber-Castell' brand with a registered distinctive design, filed a motion alleging that the defendant was breaching an existing injunction by continuing to sell deceptively similar products despite cosmetic alterations. The court examined the changes made by the defendant and accepted their undertaking to make further distinguishable changes.

patent interim order · Jul 4, 1997

Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. & Another

Bombay High Court · null

The plaintiffs, owners of the trademark "Septran" and copyright in its carton, sued the defendants for infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using a deceptively similar mark ("Simptran") and an identical or substantially similar carton design for their product Simptran Tablets. The court passed an interim order restraining the defendant from continuing these infringing activities pending final disposal of the suit.

patent interim order · Jul 3, 1997

Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. And Another

Bombay High Court · null

The plaintiffs, owners of the trademark 'Septran' and copyrights in its carton design, sued the defendants for infringing these rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively imitating their product ('Simptran Tablets') using a similar carton and mark since 1993.

design interim order · Dec 5, 1940

Dwarkadas Dhanji Sha v.Chhotalal Ravicarandas And Co.

Bombay High Court · null

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a registered textile design and sued for infringement. The defendants argued that the design was previously published and therefore invalid. The court addressed whether the registration certificate is conclusive proof of originality or if prior publication could be raised as a defense.

1 •••456
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →