Defendant Favorable
6 defendant favorable decisions from Gauhati High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
6 cases | Page 1 of 1
Birendra Prasad Sah v.Debendra Jalewal
The Gauhati High Court set aside several ex-parte orders passed by the Civil Judge, Nalbari, concerning a trademark infringement dispute over 'Matar Mixture.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent failed to adhere to procedural mandates, including providing notice before search and seizure (Misc. J Case 27/2023) and granting an injunction without allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard (Misc. J Case 28/2023). While dismissing the revision petition on maintainability grounds, the court vacated the interim order, effectively protecting the petitioner's business operations pending further proceedings in the trial court.
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT LTD v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd
M/S Sumotek Innovation Pvt Ltd (Appellant No. 1) filed a suit seeking declaration of rights and permanent injunction against Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd (Respondent No. 2) for using their patented technology (Patent No. 208216). The appeal challenged the Trial Court's rejection of the interim injunction application, which was based on lack of locus standi. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant might have locus standi, they did not establish a prima facie case for an injunction due to the patent nearing its expiry.
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
The petitioner filed a writ appeal claiming that the respondent, APDCL, was infringing its patent rights related to a Prepaid/Postpaid Electricity Supply Machine. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the remedy for patent infringement is compensation or injunction under the Patents Act, 1970, the matter must be heard by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Dura Roof Private Limited v.Dyna Roof Private Limited
The Gauhati High Court allowed appeals filed by Dura Roof Private Limited, setting aside temporary injunction orders previously granted to Dyna Roof Private Limited. The court found that despite claims of similarity, the marks 'Dura Roof' and 'Dura Lume' were phonetically and visually dissimilar enough from 'Dyna Roof' and 'Dyna Lume' that there was no likelihood of public confusion. Consequently, the court held that a prima facie case for trademark infringement was absent, allowing the original title suits to proceed on their merits.
M/s.Vijay Industries v.Vijay Solvex Limited
M/s. Vijay Industries appealed against the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dimapur's order which returned their plaint. The suit alleged infringement of the 'SCOOTER' trademark and associated artwork by Respondent No. 1 (Vijay Solvex Limited) and its agent. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision regarding jurisdiction.
S.S. Associate v.M.S. Associate
The court examined whether a Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a Misc. First Appeal concerning relief under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The judgment reiterated established Apex Court precedents that Section 104(2) of the CPC prohibits further appeal from such orders. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
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.