Karnataka High Court
102 cases · page 3 of 4
Showing 61–89Kirloskar 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.
M/s. INPHASE POWER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED v.M/s. ABB INDIA LIMITED
The appeal was filed by the defendants (M/s Abb India Limited) challenging the trial court's order that allowed temporary injunctions against them regarding patent infringement and misappropriation of confidential information. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, dismissing the appeals.
Mr Pramod Hegde (M/S Meditek India) v.M/S Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to deny trademark registration. The dispute centered on whether 'Z-CAL' (Petitioner) was deceptively similar to 'ZECAL' (Respondent). Applying established tests for deceptive similarity, the court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were phonetically and visually similar, especially within the pharmaceutical industry where buyers rely heavily on pronunciation. Consequently, the court upheld the prior user's rights, preventing the registration of the petitioner's mark.
Union Of India v.Dr Ravindranath Pradhan
The Union of India appealed a single judge's order holding that the period of the petitioner's patent should be reckoned from 23.02.2001, not the original filing date of 19.06.1992. The dispute centered on whether procedural delays led to abandonment and how the commencement date should be determined under the Patents Act, 1970.
M/s.Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt., Ltd. v.Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga
The Karnataka High Court addressed multiple writ petitions filed by M/s Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga regarding the use of the 'Adigas' trademark. The petitioners sought an ad-interim injunction to prevent infringement, challenging a lower court order that allowed the respondent time to file objections. While the High Court did not grant the immediate injunction requested, it directed the trial court to expeditiously consider and dispose of the temporary injunction applications filed by the plaintiffs.
United Breweries Ltd v.Khodays Breweries Limited Industries Ltd
United Breweries Ltd appealed a trial court judgment that dismissed its suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against Khodays Breweries Limited. The suit alleged infringement and passing off based on the use of 'Hercules Black Label' by the respondent, which was deemed deceptively similar to the appellant's registered trade mark 'Kalyani Black Label'. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision.
The Institute Of Company Secretaries Of India v.Mangalore Institute Of Fire and Safety Engineering
The Institute of Company Secretaries of India (Petitioner) sought to quash a prospectus and direct respondents from imparting an MBA in Company Secretaryship course because they were using the trade mark 'CS', which the Petitioner claimed was protected under Section 15-B of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. The Court clarified that while respondents could impart similar courses, they must not use the specific trademark 'CS' to save the petitioner's logo and patent.
M/S South Thindis (Now known as South Veg Thindis) v.M/S Billion Smiles Hospitality Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S South Thindis, which sought to stay an ongoing trademark infringement suit based on its pending application for rectification. The court held that since the petitioner raised the plea of invalidity for the first time in the written statement and not before the suit was instituted, the mandate of Section 124(1)(b)(i) did not apply. Furthermore, the court noted the belated nature of the stay request, citing precedent against staying proceedings at a late stage.
M/S South Thindis (Now known as South Veg Thindis) v.M/S Billion Smiles Hospitality Pvt Ltd
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S South Thindis, which sought to stay an ongoing trademark infringement suit based on its pending application for rectification. The court held that since the petitioner raised the plea of invalidity for the first time in the written statement and not before the suit was instituted, the mandate of Section 124(1)(b)(i) did not apply. Furthermore, the court noted the belated nature of the stay request, citing precedent against staying proceedings at a late stage.
Sudarshan Karle v.Halasya Ramanathan
The appellants challenged an order that restrained them from transferring and commercializing technologies covered by several chemical patent applications. The appellants subsequently informed the court that the Patent Office found their claims did not constitute an invention, leading them to drop the patent pursuit. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal.
John Distilleries Limited v.Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd
John Distilleries Limited filed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter was manufacturing and selling liquor in bottles deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered bottle design (Design No. 214542). The High Court examined the matter and found that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
M/S S M K A Enterprises v.M/S Suchita Industries
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of M/S S M K A Enterprises, granting a permanent injunction against M/S Suchita Industries for infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Tiny Care'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks and products was deceptive, causing confusion among consumers. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting established brand goodwill in the competitive FMCG market.
M/S Metal Impacts Pvt Ltd v.M/S Impact Metals Pvt Ltd
The dispute involved a registered design for easy open end lids used in aluminum containers. The defendant challenged the registration, arguing that the design was not new or original, had been publicly disclosed globally long before the filing date, and was based on an invention by Mr. Ermal Fraze. The court found that the plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding the global prior art and lack of novelty/originality.
Natural Remedies Private Limited v.Indian Herbs Research & Supply Co Ltd
The plaintiff, Natural Remedies Pvt Ltd, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling 'Livoliv-250', alleging infringement of their protected Patent No. 186857 for 'A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Antihepatotoxic Composition' (Zigbir). The court found that the defendants did not follow the same patented process, and furthermore, the invention lacked an inventive step, leading to the patent being revoked.
Madhu Product v.Sundaram Files
Madhu Product, a manufacturer and seller of stationery goods since 1978, holds a registered trademark 'NANDI'. The petitioner filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents for infringement of this trade mark. The writ petitions were filed challenging the trial court's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim order.
Smt K Nirmala Raghava Rao v.N G Subbaraya Setty
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and royalty recovery related to perfumes. The petitioner sought to stay a subsequent suit, arguing that the issues were identical to an earlier case where the trademark was assigned to a bank. However, the court ruled that the two suits involved distinct legal claims—one concerning injunction/royalty prior to assignment, and the other regarding damages post-termination of the agreement. Consequently, the writ petition seeking a stay was dismissed.
United Breweries Ltd v.Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd
The Karnataka High Court addressed the complex interplay between design infringement and passing off in a dispute involving breweries. The court emphasized that while an action for design infringement is possible under specific conditions, the primary focus of the case involved establishing passing off. The judgment highlighted the distinct legal tests required for each claim, noting that passing off requires demonstrating deception by the public regarding the source of goods.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Mysore v.M/S Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed disputes arising from the dissolution and subsequent winding up of M/S Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works. The core issue revolved around how the value of goodwill, trade marks, copyright, and technical know-how acquired during the sale should be treated for tax purposes. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously directed that these intangible assets be capitalized and depreciated as plant and machinery. However, the High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside this direction.
Spr Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd v.John Distilliries Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Spr Group Holdings against an interim order that restrained its use of a specific label, cap, and bottle design. The court held that the initial approval granted by the Excise Commissioner was based on his discretionary power under excise rules, not necessarily confirming infringement or passing off. Since the matter primarily involved the scope of administrative discretion versus civil rights, the High Court found no error in the Trial Court's decision to grant temporary injunction against the plaintiff.
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.