Gujarat High Court
153 cases · page 2 of 6
Showing 31–59Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel v.Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel against the trial court's order granting an injunction to Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had established use of the 'SPG' trademark since 2007, noting that appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings made by the trial court. While dismissing the main appeal, the High Court granted a temporary stay on the order for three weeks.
Inox India Private Limited v.Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged the dismissal of a Commercial Trademark Suit, which had been rejected on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centered on whether proprietary engineering drawings used for commercial vehicles qualified as an artistic work under copyright law and if their protection lapsed after exceeding a production threshold of 50 units. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the Commercial Court to reconsider both the rejection and injunction applications simultaneously.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.Sanjay Rungta T/As M/S Bonsai Pharma
The Gujarat High Court directed the removal of the trademark 'TERCOREX' from the official registry website. The court noted that the trademark was likely to be removed due to non-filing of a renewal request within the prescribed time limit, citing precedents from other high courts. This order effectively cleared the mark from public record, allowing the petitioner liberty to file again should the mark eventually be renewed.
Piruz Khambatta Thro Poa Zubin Khambhatta v.Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Piruz Khambatta, who opposed the registration of the trademark 'RASANAND' in Class 32 (soft drinks). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of similarity to their marks like 'RASNA', there was no evidence of actual public confusion. Furthermore, the court held that the two marks were distinct in nature and appearance, allowing the registration process to continue.
Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel v.Husenali Anwarali Charaniya
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged a lower court's decision to reject a plaint filed by Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel against Husenali Anwarali Charaniya. The original suit sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement (KANTI KAKA) and copyright violation concerning Betel Nut products. The core legal issue revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, as the plaintiff failed to adequately explain why the suit was filed in Dahod when both parties operated primarily from Surat or Surendranagar.
Saint Gobain Construction Products Uk Limited v.Cyp Rock Industries
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK challenged the registration of 'GYP-ROCK INDUSTRIES' by Cyp Rock Industries, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their established trademark 'GYPROC'. The dispute centered on potential consumer confusion in the market. However, the court accepted the respondent's affidavit, wherein they voluntarily agreed to seek cancellation and cease using the mark. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed with the voluntary cancellation process before the Trademark Registry.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Trivigya Bioscience
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'KIND' family of marks, Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an undertaking from Trivigya Bioscience. The respondent acknowledged the propriety of Mankind's marks and voluntarily agreed to cease using the contested mark CDKIND in relation to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of as not pressed, resolving the conflict amicably.
M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. v.Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. challenging the rejection of its trademark renewal applications (No. 1502218 and 1502220). Instead of ruling on the merits of the initial rejection, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for renewal. The respondent authority agreed that if the petitioner submits a new request with all prescribed fees, it will be considered within four weeks.
Consitex S.A. v.Sharad Rampal Jain And Sudeep Gautamchand Dhing Trading As Siesta Pharmaceuticals & 1 other(s)
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the Rectification Application (C/RA/50/2022) filed by Consitex S.A. The application sought action regarding a trademark, but the petitioner subsequently informed the court that the trademark in question had already been removed by the Registry. Consequently, the court allowed the withdrawal of the application.
Jivraj Tea Limited v.Dayalji Vanravan Kotecha
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning tea brands. The plaintiff, Jivraj Tea Limited, argued that its registered mark 'JIVRAJ-9' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'DOUBLE HAATHI PREMIUM TEA NO.9'. However, given the introduction of additional pleadings and documents during the appeal process, the High Court found it necessary to remand the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the interim injunction application.
Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt. Ltd. v.N. Venkta Yayadri Rao
The Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal filed by Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt. Ltd., overturning a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'SCARY HOUSE' trademark and copyright in their dramatic work, successfully argued that the defendant was illegally adapting and reproducing their copyrighted material under a new name ('TERRIFIC DEVIL ZONE'). The Court emphasized that since the defendants failed to deny the allegations of adaptation during pleadings, the injunction should be granted to protect the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.
Symphony Limited v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
Symphony Limited filed a suit against Raj Cooling System Private Limited alleging infringement of its registered design (No. 288184) for air coolers. The dispute was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the suit.
Galatea Ltd. v.M. Kantilal Exports
This case involved multiple suits concerning patent and copyright infringement, where petitioners sought the appointment of a local commissioner to inspect infringing activities. The High Court found that the initial commission report was flawed because it did not follow mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically regarding issuing notice to respondents before inspection. Consequently, the court discarded the existing reports and directed the trial court to issue a fresh commission.
Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd v.Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court disposed of an Appeal from Order in a trademark dispute between Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd and Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Due to mutual consensus between both parties, the court quashed the previous order passed by the trial court regarding Exh.5 application. The case has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh, ensuring both sides are given an opportunity to present their arguments.
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited v.Galatea Limited
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited approached the Gujarat High Court seeking procedural directions concerning an ongoing Trademark Suit. The petitioner specifically relied upon Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, to influence the trial court's proceedings regarding a Counter Claim (Exhibit 28). After mutual consent from both parties, the High Court disposed of the petition while directing the Trial Court to decide Exhibit 28 within four weeks.
Mita Ashok Kapoor Through Poa Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed civil suits alleging that the defendant was infringing their registered design for an air-cooler grill. The plaintiff holds registrations (No. 324986-017 and No. 233559) covering the unique shape and configuration of the grill. The court examined the claims, noting a striking similarity between the designs and finding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for protection.
Trupti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust Through Bilkis M Mir
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an interim injunction granted to the original plaintiff (the Trust). The dispute centered on the use of the name and logo 'ANANT' in the educational sector. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had established prior use of the mark since 2018, thus preventing irreparable injury from occurring to them. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the identical or deceptively similar brand name.
Mohalla Tech Priavte Limited v.Lagdhir Jugaldip Bharatkumar
The Gujarat High Court heard an appeal challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in a trademark suit. While the appellant argued the initial order failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the court chose not to interfere with the interim order at that stage. Instead, it directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with hearing the Injunction Application on its merits, ensuring both parties are given a full opportunity to be heard.
Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation v.Sarine Technologies Limited
This writ petition challenged a Case Management Order passed by the Commercial Court, which fixed the trial schedule and mandated proceedings through Video Conferencing. The original suit involved allegations of copyright infringement concerning advisory software. The High Court upheld the lower court's order, noting that it appropriately considered guidelines from the Supreme Court regarding expeditious trials during the pandemic, thereby dismissing the petition.
Good Life Industries v.J R J Foods Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by J R J Foods Pvt Ltd against an earlier order that granted interim injunction to Good Life Industries. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off, where Good Life claimed its mark 'MICHI'S' was being imitated by J R J Foods' mark 'MISHI'S'. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that in a passing-off action, the likelihood of confusion among an ordinary purchaser is key, regardless of actual damage or intent.
Vimal Dairy Limited v.Gujarat Tea Depot Company
The Gujarat High Court upheld the interim injunction granted in favor of Gujarat Tea Depot Company against Vimal Dairy Limited. The court found that allowing Vimal Dairy to market its product could cause confusion among the public due to substantial similarities between the brands and labels, despite differences in trade products. This decision reinforces the principle that courts must look at prima facie similarity to prevent consumer deception in trademark and copyright disputes.
M/S. Vipul v.Akshar Sweets And Namkeen
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal concerning the non-granting of ad-interim injunction by a lower civil court in a trademark infringement dispute. The appellants, M/S. Vipul, argued that their prima facie case for trademark infringement was strong and continued prejudice was occurring due to the respondent's unauthorized use of a similar brand name after contract termination. Recognizing the urgency and the merits presented, the High Court disposed of the appeal while directing the trial court to expedite the decision on the injunction application within three months, ensuring the existing restraining order remains in effect until then.
Carneige Institute Of Washington v.Fenix Diamonds Llc
The application sought to execute a Letter Rogatory from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York, requesting deposition testimony, facility inspection, and document production related to patent infringement litigation concerning CVD diamonds. The court partially granted the request by appointing a Principal District Judge in Surat to record witness evidence.
Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan v.Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic
The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order in this trademark dispute, allowing the matter to proceed toward final disposal. The petitioner secured a stay on the previous trial court's injunction order, while simultaneously receiving assurances from the defendant that they would comply with the interim injunction and cease using the disputed trademark during the pendency of the case.
Trulines Technologies Through Ashish Kuashikbhai Patel v.State Of Gujarat
Trulines Technologies challenged the investigation process, arguing that the machines were not analyzed by a government-recognized expert qualified under the Patent Act. The court examined the validity of the existing report and the expertise of the person who conducted the examination.
Galatea Ltd. v.Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited
Galatea Ltd. filed an application arguing that the trial court failed to appoint a local commissioner to inspect premises and inventory alleged infringing evidence related to patent infringement. The petitioners contended that notice alone risked the destruction or removal of evidence. The High Court agreed, granting the application for the appointment of seven commissioners.
Galatea Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Saira Rana v.M. Kantilal Exports
Galatea Ltd. filed an application seeking the appointment of a court commissioner for local inspection and inventory regarding alleged patent infringement, arguing that issuing notice would lead to the removal or destruction of evidence. The Court agreed with the petitioners' apprehension and granted the application.
Tripti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust
The Gujarat High Court rejected a Civil Revision Application filed by Tripti Grover, upholding the dismissal of her application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The court clarified that an application under O.7 R.11 must be decided based solely on the averments and documents presented in the plaint, without considering external claims or pleas from related parties (like a daughter claiming rights). The judgment affirmed that multiple parties can have competing claims to a trademark, and one party's claim of prior use cannot be precluded by another claimant.
Alfa Ica (India) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Alfa Ica (India) Limited challenged the removal of its trademark registration from the register before The Registrar of Trade Marks in the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner argued that the ten-year renewal period should commence from November 2009, not March 2009, based on when they were communicated the certificate. Furthermore, they contended that the procedure for removal was flawed and unreasoned. The court granted interim relief while setting a date for further hearing.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
The suit was filed under the Patent Act, 1970, seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for alleged infringement. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' applications (Exh.167 and Exh.169) requesting the court to decide objections regarding document admissibility during evidence recording could be entertained after the evidence was completed.
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.