Karnataka High Court
90 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. v.Svn Prestige Garden
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. against a lower court's decision to return its trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply because they had simultaneously sought urgent ad-interim injunction relief. The High Court agreed, holding that suits seeking urgent interim relief are exempt from this mandate, thereby setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the main suit to proceed.
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care India Private Limited v.M/S Excel Tech A Partnership Firm
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care filed a Writ Petition to challenge an ex parte temporary injunction order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The trial court had restrained the petitioners from manufacturing/marketing products using the respondents' intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trademarks). The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications expeditiously while allowing the interim order to continue until disposal.
Varun Chopra & Jagdaman Kumar Chopra v.Shyam Sunder Chopra And Sons, Sampan Chopra, Vaibhav Chopra, Samvitee Foods Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning a lower court's decision to reject their trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether Section 20 of the CPC (territorial jurisdiction) was applicable despite provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that the special provisions of the Trademark Act do not oust the general principles of territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the plaint rejection application.
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v.Union Of India
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited challenged the constitutional validity of Section 37A of FEMA, arguing it violated fundamental rights. The dispute centered on royalty payments made by Xiaomi to foreign entities like Qualcomm for Standard Essential Patents used in its mobile phones.
M/S Map Systems v.M/S Informatic Publishing Limited
M/S Map Systems appealed against an interim order passed by the Commercial Court that confirmed an ex-parte temporary injunction against them. The plaintiff, M/S Informatic Publishing Limited, claimed that the defendants had misappropriated its proprietary remote access solution, 'RemotLog,' to create a competing product called 'MapMyAccess.' The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court's order was vague and lacked proper reasoning regarding the grant of injunction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the temporary injunction and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
M/S Bharath Chemical Industries v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Bharath Chemical Industries seeking the rectification of a trademark register. The petitioner had sought to expunge the name of another party from the registration of the mark 'BCI-BHARATHA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES' (TM No. 2835990). However, during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner voluntarily submitted that the petition was withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn, while reserving all rights for the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited v.M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited appealed against an order passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, which allowed temporary injunctions sought by the plaintiff. The appeal challenged the misuse and misrepresentation of the plaintiff's logo, channel name, and assets by the defendants. The High Court dismissed the appeals but held that the impugned order was subject to the trial court's determination of jurisdiction.
Mr. Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar @ Kumar G.M v.M/S. Eaglesight Media Private Limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged a lower court's dismissal of an intellectual property suit filed by M/S. Eaglesight Media Private Limited. The core dispute revolved around whether the trial court had jurisdiction, given that the suit related to trademarks and other assets but was valued low due to seeking only injunction. The High Court addressed this jurisdictional conflict, emphasizing that for commercial IP disputes, the 'Specified Value' under the Commercial Courts Act must be determined based on the market value of the intangible right, not merely the nature of the prayer.
Milaap Social Ventures India Pvt Ltd v.Google India Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court allowed Milaap Social Ventures to amend its original suit, which was initially based on common law passing off. The petitioners sought to incorporate a statutory claim for trademark infringement after their mark ('MILAAP') was registered. The court overturned the trial judge's rejection, emphasizing that amendments should be liberally granted if they do not cause prejudice and are not mutually destructive with existing reliefs. This ruling allows parties to consolidate related IP claims under one suit.
Smt Supriya Shrinate v.M/S Mrt Music Ors.
This Commercial Appeal challenged an ex-parte order passed by the trial court, which directed the removal of links and blocking of social media handles belonging to political parties and associated entities. The plaintiff, M/S MRT Music, alleged copyright infringement when videos from a national political party's yatra used music similar to their film soundtrack (KGF Chapter-2). The Karnataka High Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the restrictive injunction orders but mandating that all involved parties remove the offending content from social media platforms. The matter was then remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
M/S Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited v.Trademarks Registry
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition filed by M/S Geographical Indications Tagged World Premium Products Private Limited against the Trademarks Registry. The court found that the registry's impugned order, which sought to cancel the registered trademark 'GITAGGED', lacked proper adjudication and failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for fresh disposal.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.Arrow Coated Products Ltd. (Acpl)
Shilpa Medicare Limited appealed an order that returned its plaint filed in Raichur. The suit sought a declaration that their manufacturing process was not covered by Patent IN 200301, which Arrow Coated Products Ltd. held. The appeal challenged the Trial Court's decision regarding territorial jurisdiction.
M/S M K Enterprises v.M/S Jems Engineering
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S M K Enterprises against an interim injunction favoring M/S Jems Engineering. The dispute centered on trademark infringement and passing off concerning submersible pumps, where both parties used similar marks (JAMES vs. JEMS). The court found that the respondent-plaintiff successfully established prima facie evidence of prior use dating back to 2004, outweighing the appellant's claims of later registration and business commencement in 2013. Consequently, the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, upholding the injunction.
M/S Rishabh Agencies v.P Kantilal
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Rishabh Agencies against a trial court order that denied an interim injunction. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar trademark 'preethi' for household goods, claiming prior common law rights in 'preeti'. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that while the plaintiff claimed prior use, the defendant had been operating since 2004. The court concluded that the balance of convenience lay with the defendant and that the core issues required a full trial.
M/S Sureka Forbes (Pvt) Limited v.M/S Eureka Forbes Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Sureka Forbes against M/S Eureka Forbes. The petitioner had challenged the trial court's acceptance of a Court Commissioner's report in an ongoing suit for permanent injunction concerning trademark and copyright infringement. The court ultimately found that accepting or rejecting the commissioner's report is a discretionary function of the trial court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.
M/S Slv Enterprises v.M/S Sree Nandi Upachar; M/S Hotel Sree Saravana Bhavan
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Slv Enterprises seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged trademark infringement. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the lower trial court to decide on its interim application promptly. However, the High Court declined to interfere in the trial court's discretionary power, noting that the respondents were granted time to file their written statements and objections. The judgment emphasizes allowing the trial court to manage the proceedings while encouraging the petitioner to pursue matters there.
Indus Tmt Industries Ltd v.M/S Mega Steel Industries
This case involved Indus Tmt Industries Ltd filing Original Suits against M/S Mega Steel Industries alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks and design. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for the unauthorized use of similar marks like 'Index Gold'. During the proceedings, the court permitted the plaintiff to delete the prayer pertaining to the Designs Act, 2000, leading to the suits being remanded back to the Trial Court to resolve the remaining disputes.
M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited (Madura F and L Division)
M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd filed an Original Suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against M/S. Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited for allegedly infringing the plaintiffs' granted patent (No. 306901) related to 'Stay Dry Period Panty'. However, the plaintiffs subsequently moved to withdraw the suit.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited v.Deepali Company Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by C Krishniah Chetty And Sons Private Limited, which sought to overturn a trial court's rejection of interim injunctions. The core issue was whether the appellant had established a prima facie case for trademark protection in the ongoing family dispute. The court held that because the suit/appeal lacked proper authorization (Board Resolution) and involved conflicting interests among equal shareholders, no prima facie case could be made out, thus justifying the trial court's refusal of temporary injunctions.
N Dinesh Kumar v.Shweta Khandelwal
This appeal challenged a lower court's temporary injunction that restrained the appellant from using his trademark 'Matruveda' due to alleged deceptive similarity with the respondent's registered mark, 'Matru Ayurveda'. The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal test—considering the marks through the eyes of the 'quintessential common man.' Consequently, the High Court set aside the injunction order and directed the lower court to rehear the matter afresh.
M/S Sami -Sabinsa Group Limited v.Union Of India
M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited filed a writ petition seeking an interim order to stay the execution of a notice and requesting that respondents refrain from opposing their pending patent applications. The court subsequently granted leave for the petitioners to withdraw the petition.
Adj Utility Apps Private Limited & Kyte Technologies Inc. v.Mr. Sumit Rajendra Shaha, Growthpond Technologies Private Limited, Risemetric Inc., & Rankz Inc.
This Karnataka High Court judgment records an amicable settlement between the parties involved in a copyright dispute concerning the 'Dukaan' application source code. The complex litigation, which included interim injunctions and technical evaluations by the Indian Institute of Science, was resolved through a Joint Compromise Memo. Key terms include a payment of USD 80,000 to Petitioner No. 2, an allotment of 1% common stock in Respondent No. 2-Company to one of the Petitioners, and mutual waivers of claims regarding both 'Disputed' and 'New Sourcecode'.
Mr Imran Aman Sharieff (IAS Enterprises) v.M/s Sathwika Traders; M/s Sri Tarakarama Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court remanded an appeal concerning a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement. The appellant, Mr. Imran Aman Sharieff, sought to overturn the trial court's rejection of his application for a temporary injunction. Crucially, he introduced a new document—an order rejecting the respondents' trade mark registration application—at the appellate stage. The High Court ruled that since this new evidence was not available during the initial proceedings, it could only be used by directing the trial court to reconsider its decision based on the newly produced material.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) IP Limited; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) Trading Limited; Smithkline Beecham Limited
Steer Engineering Private Limited (appellant) filed a commercial appeal seeking an interim injunction against Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (respondents). The appellant claimed infringement of its copyright and trade secrets related to proprietary extrusion technology used for nutritional beverages. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for granting temporary relief.
M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan v.M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte injunction in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, M/s. Vidyarthi Bhavan, argued they had a strong prima facie case against the respondent for using a deceptively similar name ('Vidyarthi Bhavana Dose House') for their restaurant business. While the High Court did not rule on the merits of the infringement claim itself, it intervened by directing the lower court to expedite the proceedings and pass necessary orders within 30 days.
Somashekar P Patil (Appellant) v.D V G Patil (Respondent)
This Karnataka High Court appeal addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between two parties sharing the surname 'Patil'. The appellant sought to maintain an interim injunction against the respondent for using 'Patil Fragrances', claiming it infringed his registered mark. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that the respondent's use of the name was bona fide. The judgment emphasized that Section 35 of the Trademarks Act protects a person's right to use their own surname in business, especially when their specific product brands are distinct.
Manyavar Fashion Private Limited v.Manyavar Creations Private Limited
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed writ petitions filed by Manyavar Fashion Private Limited challenging a lower court's decision to issue only an emergent notice instead of granting immediate temporary injunctions. The petitioners sought protection for their registered trademark 'Manyavar' and copyrighted artistic work against alleged infringement and passing off by the defendants. The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, directed the trial court to expedite the hearing on all interim applications and pass appropriate orders promptly.
M/S Adiga Sweets v.M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court upheld a prior injunction decree in favor of M/S Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd against M/S Adiga Sweets. The core issue was whether the use of 'ADIGA'S SWEETS' by the appellant constituted passing off against the respondent, who had established goodwill using variations of 'ADIGA'S' since 1993. The court found that due to the common food industry context and phonetic similarity, an average consumer is likely to confuse the two businesses, thus affirming the finding of passing off.
M/S All Well Formulations v.M/S Swathi And Co.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal, upholding the trial court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of M/S All Well Formulations. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Turky Plus Olive Oil' and its unique tin design by the defendant. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar, noting that the plaintiff's current suit was based on a registered mark, unlike a previous unsuccessful attempt concerning an unregistered mark. Consequently, the trial court was directed to expedite the final decision of the underlying infringement suit.
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.