Mixed Decisions
60 cases | Page 2 of 2
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Atotech Deutschland GmbH v.Grauer & Well (India) Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial appeal filed by Atotech Deutschland GmbH seeking urgent interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'TRICHROME' mark. The initial refusal of the injunction was based partly on procedural delays. However, the Appellate Bench clarified that under the statutory scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, immediate protection for registered trademarks should be prioritized over minor delays. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with directions allowing Atotech to request an early hearing and have its ad-interim relief application reconsidered on its merits.
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v.Dag Creative Media Pvt. Ltd.
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition in the Bombay High Court against Dag Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. The court initially granted leave for the petition. Furthermore, the petitioner sought permission to amend their plaint to accurately describe the nature of the commercial suit. The bench allowed this amendment, allowing the litigation to proceed with corrected pleadings.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited v.Ram Dev Industries And Anr.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to initiate a civil suit against Ram Dev Industries & Anr. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were infringing upon their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court examined the petition, noting the combined cause of action for infringement and passing off. Consequently, the court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, allowing the petitioner to proceed with the suit.
Kinjal Ramesh Savla v.Euphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit between Kinjal Ramesh Savla and Euphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd., recognizing the complexity arising from conflicting trademarks ('Buckaroo' vs 'Walkaroo'). The court granted both parties leave to apply for rectification of their respective trademarks before the Appellate Board, ensuring that the underlying validity issues are addressed first. Furthermore, the defendant's application regarding perjury was adjourned until the main suit hearing.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. And 2 Others v.Prashant Goenka And 11 Others
The Bombay High Court addressed a contempt petition alleging breach of an interim order concerning the use of 'INDIAN EXPRESS' trademarks and Ramnath Goenka's copyrighted photographs. After the respondents unconditionally apologized for the inadvertent breaches, the court directed digital platforms (YouTube and Facebook) to remove specified infringing URLs. The primary contempt petition was thus disposed of, while a separate application seeking rejection of the plaint against one defendant was remanded for further hearing.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited. v.Global India Entertainment Production
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application seeking a temporary injunction against the unauthorized use of 'Miss India' and 'Mr. India' by defendants organizing similar beauty pageants. The court found that while the words themselves are generic, their combination with other elements creates distinctiveness, supporting the plaintiffs' claim of trademark infringement and passing off. Although the initial relief was not granted immediately, the court allowed the defendants to propose concrete modifications to their titles for future consideration.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Modi Mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited
In this interim application, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sought clarification regarding a previous court order concerning the use of the trademark 'CANDID'. The Bombay High Court addressed the request by formalizing an undertaking from Defendant No. 1. This ruling reinforces the immediate injunctive relief against the defendant, requiring them to cease importing or distributing goods under the disputed mark while the main litigation proceeds.
Nippon Life Sciences Private Limited v.S. R. Life Science And Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'EPILIGHT'. While the court noted that previous orders needed extension, it confirmed that the existing restraining order against the defendants for using deceptively similar marks would continue to operate until November 18, 2019. The matter was subsequently scheduled for further hearing.
Corum Hospitality And Another v.Hotel Varuna And 3 Others
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed procedural matters in a commercial IP suit involving trademark disputes between Corum Hospitality and Hotel Varuna. The court accepted undertakings regarding the filing of Vakalatnamas and set out timelines for addressing office objections to the notice of motion. Furthermore, an intervener sought permission to join the proceedings concerning alleged infringement of the 'Bar Stock Exchange' trademark, which was granted procedural allowance.
Royal Dryfruit Range v.Royal Taste Dry Fruits
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IP Suit involving Royal Dryfruit Range versus Royal Taste Dry Fruits. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendant, Royal Taste Dry Fruits, to remove the disputed mark 'ROYAL' from its signage and packaging, as well as withdraw its trademark application. A short extension was granted for compliance, effectively settling the immediate dispute through mutual agreement and judicial acceptance of the undertakings.
Bytedance Ltd. v.Don Cinema
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed an urgent application filed by Bytedance Ltd., the registered proprietor of the 'Tiktok' trademark, against Don Cinema. The dispute arose from an alleged announcement by the defendant regarding a web series titled 'Tiktok House.' After the defendant provided an undertaking to the court denying any such release, the plaintiff withdrew its request for ad-interim relief. The court subsequently set out procedural directions for further pleadings and hearing.
Dongguan Tr Bearing Co. Ltd. v.M/s. Harman Overseas and Ors.
The Bombay High Court addressed a Commercial IP Suit filed by Dongguan Tr Bearing Co. Ltd. against M/s. Harman Overseas and Ors. The court noted that both parties had initiated applications before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) seeking the rectification of each other's trademarks. Consequently, the judge stayed the ongoing suit until the outcomes of these parallel IPAB proceedings are determined.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
Noor Hospital Trust And 7 Ors v.Sajid Ali Khan
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial IP suit concerning the alleged passing off of a hospital's trademark. The Plaintiffs, Noor Hospital Trust, sought to restrain the Defendant from using 'NEW NOOR HOSPITAL,' claiming deceptive similarity to their established mark 'NOOR HOSPITAL.' The court framed multiple issues covering passing off, descriptiveness of the term 'NOOR,' and claims for damages and injunctions, setting a clear path for the evidence phase.
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.
Riyaz Chowdhary v.Parfums Parour And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark rectification dispute concerning the mark 'LOMANI'. The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to remove the trademark, arguing that he was denied natural justice because the application for rectification was not served upon him until seven years after it was filed. Recognizing this procedural lapse, the Court set aside the IPAB's order and mandated a fresh hearing, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to contest the removal of his registered mark.
Powerhouse Licensing LLC v.Ashok Banwarilal Gupta Trading As Qs
In this Bombay High Court matter concerning alleged trademark infringement, the court accepted an undertaking from the defendants. The defendants committed to refraining from using the trademark or trade name 'POWERHOUSE' across all platforms, including websites and social media. This interim order allows the case to proceed while securing immediate protection for the petitioner's brand.
Vocco Consultants And 2 Ors. v.Vicco Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'VICCO'. While the original suit was stayed pending a rectification application before the IPAB, the court took proactive steps to address the core dispute. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court framed an additional issue specifically questioning whether the Defendant's registration of the mark 'VICCO' is bad in law and liable for invalidation.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
This case involved disputes arising from a license agreement between The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (a Copyright Society) and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (an FM radio station operator). The core dispute centered on whether the claimant needed a license to broadcast copyrighted musical works, and subsequent claims regarding royalty payments and refunds. The Bombay High Court reviewed the arbitral award, ultimately setting aside one part of it due to lack of jurisdiction while allowing the petition filed by the Copyright Society.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
This case involved disputes between The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (a Copyright Society) and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. concerning the use of copyrighted musical and literary works on FM radio stations. Both parties challenged an arbitral award dated December 6, 2011, before the Bombay High Court. The core legal battle centered on whether the claims regarding licensing and royalty refunds were arbitrable or required adjudication by a Civil Court. The court ultimately set aside part of the original award concerning the claimant's right to broadcast due to lack of jurisdiction, while dismissing the petitioner's (claimant's) arbitration petition.
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited v.Union of India
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited challenged an order directing it to change its corporate name due to perceived resemblance with another entity. The dispute centered on whether the similarity in names, particularly involving the 'VOV' mark used in cosmetics, mandated rectification under the Companies Act. The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing that mere similarity is not sufficient grounds for mandatory rectification and directing a fresh hearing.
Adai Mehra Production Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sumeet P. Mehra and Mr Puneet P. Mehra
This case before the Bombay High Court involved Adai Mehra Production Pvt. Ltd. challenging an interim order passed by an arbitrator concerning the remake rights of the classic film 'Zanjeer'. The dispute centered on the ownership and licensing of the original film's intellectual property, specifically its copyright in the screenplay. The court ultimately set aside the restrictive interim measures while allowing the petitioner to proceed with the film's production, provided certain financial conditions were met and subject to the final arbitration outcome.
Enercon (India) Ltd. v.Enercon GmbH
This case involved disputes between Enercon (India) Ltd. and Enercon GmbH concerning a joint venture business manufacturing Wind Turbine Generators (WTG's). The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of their Intellectual Property License Agreement (IPLA), which covered technical know-how for producing these generators. The petitions challenged previous court orders regarding arbitration and an anti-suit injunction, leading the Bombay High Court to clarify jurisdictional issues.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd. v.Mehar Karan Singh
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd filed suit against its former Director, Mehar Karan Singh, alleging that he divulged confidential company information, specifically a customized software manual for real estate, to a competing entity. The core dispute centered on whether the disclosed material qualified as protected trade secrets under their employment contract and Code of Ethics. While the court found grounds for injunctive relief regarding specific documents like the Goa property MOU, it cautioned against broad injunctions concerning general business plans.
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.