Karnataka High Court
90 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited v.M/S. Rohm Gmbh
The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.
Plivo India Pvt Ltd v.Mr Arvind Eshwarlal
Plivo India Pvt Ltd appealed an order that set aside its attempt to challenge an arbitral award. The dispute arose from alleged violation of a Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement (NDA) by Mr Arvind Eshwarlal. The High Court overturned the lower court's findings, specifically regarding limitation and the scope of claims in arbitration.
Wacom Company Limited v.Cirel Systems Private Limited
Wacom Company Limited filed this Civil Petition seeking the appointment of a local commissioner to collect documents and testimony from Cirel Systems Private Limited. This evidence is required for pending patent infringement proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, 1970.
P V Anand Kishore v.M/S Bhatt Electronics (P) Ltd.
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order that held M/S Bhatt Electronics liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in damages for infringing registered designs and trademarks related to emergency lights. The original suit was filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Designs Act. While the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of manufacturing or sales linking them to the infringement, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding. The court concluded that since there was no denial by the defendant regarding the sale of the product, the liability for damages could be inferred from the facts and circumstances.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Uvw Extruder
Steer Engineering Private Limited appealed against a commercial court order that dismissed its application for temporary injunction. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Patent No. 318271, titled 'Stress Concentration Free Spline Profile', which protects components used in Twin Screw Extruders. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing the patent during the pendency of the suit.
Classic Legends Private Limited / Mr. Boman R. Irani v.The Official Liquidator of M/S Ideal Jawa Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court allowed appeals filed by Classic Legends Private Limited (and Mr. Boman R. Irani) against an earlier ruling concerning the trade marks of Ideal Jawa. The court ruled that since the company had not used or renewed its registered trade marks for decades, no goodwill would subsist, and the rights had dissipated due to non-use. This decision significantly impacts the value and enforceability of the brand in liquidation proceedings.
Surya Nataraj Sharma v.Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an order that allowed the trademark suit to proceed. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who was a booking agent, could maintain a trademark infringement and declaration suit despite alleged non-compliance with Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the question of trademark misuse is a matter for trial, and the plaintiff's right as a registered owner would not be negated by his status as an unregistered booking agent.
Sri. Manjappa Chatrad v.3M India Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 416744 ('Road Safety Device') held by Respondent No. 2 (3M Innovative Properties Company). The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that patent revocation is a civil remedy falling under the High Court's original civil jurisdiction and should be filed as a Civil Petition, not a Writ Petition.
Smt. B.K. Annapurnamma, Sri B.N.K. Sarathi, Smt. B.S. Nagarathna, and Sri B.S. Sapthagiri (Partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works) v.M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works
The plaintiffs, partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works for infringing their registered design (No. 203040) of a display box. The court found that the copyright subsisting in the design had expired in 2016, rendering the cause of action infructuous.
Dpac Ventures Llp v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between Dpac Ventures LLP and Exotic Mile Private Limited, modifying the Commercial Court's order that had granted an ex parte temporary injunction against 'GOBOULT'. Recognizing the defendant's significant business turnover (Rs. 188.94 Crores) and operational impact, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to dispense with pre-institution mediation while permitting the defendant to continue using its trademark subject to filing weekly accounts. This decision emphasizes balancing IP rights protection against commercial viability during litigation.
M/S Blinkit Private Limited / M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited v.M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited / The Registrar of Trade Marks Chennai
The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S Blinkit Private Limited and M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited. The petitions involved disputes over the validity and cancellation of specific trademark registrations (Nos. 3480206 and 3480207). Both parties submitted memos requesting the dismissal of their respective cases as withdrawn, leading to the court's order.
Taurus Powertronics Private Limited v.M.K Srinivasan
The Karnataka High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Commercial Court order that restrained the use of the trademark 'TAURUS'. The court clarified that the restriction on using the name 'TAURUS' remains in effect as directed by the lower court. However, it also ensured that all other rights and contentions between the parties remain open for adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal, providing a nuanced resolution to the dispute.
Innoviti Payment Solutions Private Limited v.Pine Labs Private Limited
The Original Suit filed under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, was listed for an interlocutory application. The plaintiff subsequently submitted that they were withdrawing the suit, which the court accepted and dismissed it as withdrawn. Additionally, the counter claim filed by the defendant was dismissed due to the prior revocation order.
Krish-V Facility Management Services Private Limited v.Krishvi Projects Private Limited
In a significant commercial appeal concerning trademark infringement and passing off, the Karnataka High Court overturned an earlier dismissal by the Trial Court. Krish-V Facility Management Services successfully argued that procedural errors led to them being placed ex-parte in the original suit filed by Krishvi Projects Private Limited. The High Court set aside the adverse order, allowing both parties a chance to present their full pleadings and evidence on the merits of the trademark dispute, while crucially maintaining the existing temporary injunction.
M/S Applesoft v.The Director General, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Director, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing & The Secretary to Government, Department of Information Technology
M/S Applesoft filed a Regular First Appeal challenging a trial court judgment that dismissed its suit seeking permanent injunction and damages. The plaintiff claimed breach of an implied contract by Defendant No. 1 (C-DAC) related to free distribution of Tamil language software. The High Court upheld the dismissal, primarily finding that the Bengaluru Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed whether Rainbow Health Care was infringing upon or passing off against the registered trademarks of Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to maintain an injunction against deceptive use of its brand name. The trial court had previously dismissed these interim applications and vacated existing injunction orders. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned orders, reviving the ad-interim injunctions until the final decision of the suit.
M/S Sukh Sagar v.Mr Dhanraj Poojari
M/S Sukh Sagar appealed the dismissal of its temporary injunction application against Mr Dhanraj Poojari, which sought to restrain infringement of their established trademark in the food and accommodation sector. The Karnataka High Court, while acknowledging the contentious issues requiring a full trial, chose to dispose of the appeal without ruling on the merits. Instead, the court directed the trial court to proceed with the main suit expeditiously, keeping all aspects of the dispute open.
M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd v.M/S Kaveri Polymers
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.
Klf Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Johnson Varghese
The appellant filed a commercial appeal challenging the refusal by the lower court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction and appoint a local commissioner regarding alleged copyright infringement and passing off. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It held that since the order refusing the injunction was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, the appeal was not maintainable and consequently dismissed.
M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries v.M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar Saroja Hangaraki Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries, quashing an earlier order that had dismissed their application for staying civil suit proceedings. The petitioners sought to halt the ongoing litigation (O.S.No.3/2012) while their trademark rectification application was pending before the Madras High Court. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act mandates a stay on civil proceedings when a rectification application is pending, thereby granting relief and directing the petitioners to expedite the process.
Srinivas S. Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S. Devathi challenged the Union of India's refusal to provide a consent letter required under Section 86 of the CPC to initiate legal action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner alleged that USPTO committed fraud by issuing a fabricated International Search Report (ISR) for his PCT application, thereby jeopardizing his global patent rights. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order of the Ministry of External Affairs and directing the Union of India to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned decision within six months.
Srinivas S Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S Devathi filed a writ petition alleging that the USPTO, acting as an International Search Authority (ISA), fabricated an International Search Report (ISR) for his patent application (US Patent No. 8910998 B1). He claimed this fraud led to the rejection of his patent rights globally. The petitioner sought directions from the Union of India to initiate legal action against USPTO and WIPO. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the claims required extensive evidence and were outside writ jurisdiction, and given the prior requirement for consent under Section 86 of the CPC, the present petition was premature and not maintainable at this stage.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents
Micro Labs Limited filed this Commercial Suit seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 and an injunction against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH Co. KG. The court noted that the same parties were involved in related proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the application to withdraw the suit was allowed.
M/S Lavos Performance v.M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Trial Court that dismissed its application to stay proceedings in an infringement suit, arguing that a revocation petition against the respondent's patent was pending before the competent authority. The Karnataka High Court ruled that while evidence relating to alleged infringement could be recorded, the final arguments on the merits of the suit must wait until the outcome of the patent revocation application.
M/s Meenu Electric Co. v.M/s Dynamic Electricals; M/s Golden Cab Industries; M/s Vijay Cable Co.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside a trial court's order that had stayed an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the defendants could invoke Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to halt proceedings pending rectification before the IPAB. The Court ruled that merely having rectification applications filed during the pendency of the suit is insufficient; the plea of invalidity must be raised specifically and before the commencement of trial, otherwise, it is deemed abandoned.
Quikr India Private Limited v.Sellquikr Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the writ petition based on a joint compromise memo between Quikr India Private Limited and Sellquikr Private Limited. The core agreement stipulated that Sellquikr acknowledged having no rights over Quikr's registered trademarks and copyrighted material. Furthermore, Sellquikr committed to immediately changing its corporate name by removing 'QUIKR,' taking down all associated websites and applications, transferring the domain name sellquikr.in/ to Quikr, and ceasing any use of Quikr's intellectual property.
Sprng Marketing Consulting Llp v.Union Of India
The Karnataka High Court allowed Sprng Marketing Consulting Llp's petition, setting aside an earlier rejection of its trademark application 'Spring.' The court found that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to present further arguments after a technical glitch during a virtual hearing. Consequently, the matter has been remitted back to the Trademark Registry for fresh disposal, with a specific date set for the petitioner's appearance.
Body Cupid Private Limited v.Mr Gaurav Bhadani
Body Cupid Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the lower court's refusal to grant an ex-parte temporary injunction against Mr. Gaurav Bhadani. The core dispute revolved around alleged infringement of Body Cupid's 'WOW SKIN SCIENCE' trademark, trade dress, and registered design by the respondent using similar marks like 'WAW SKIN COSMO'. The Karnataka High Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition but extended the interim restraining order until the Trial Court could dispose of the underlying injunction application.
M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd v.M/S Gokuldas Intimatewear Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an Original Suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their granted patent (IN 306901) related to 'Fab-Shield Period Panty'. The dispute, which also involved challenges to the patent's validity, was subsequently settled by both parties. A Patent License Agreement was entered into on January 01, 2023, and the suit was disposed of accordingly.
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.