Karnataka High Court
90 cases · page 3 of 3
Showing 61–89M/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.
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 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.
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.
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.
M/S Fiorano Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (Amd)
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the appeal filed by M/S Fiorano Software Technologies against a trial court order that refused a temporary injunction. The dispute centered on whether AMD's use of 'Fiorano' in its server platform infringed upon Fiorano's registered trademarks, including 'Fiorano SOA Platform.' While the appellant argued for trademark infringement and passing off, the High Court declined to rule on the merits of the appeal, directing the Trial Court to proceed with a full adjudication.
M/S Shivam Industries v.Mohanlal U Jain (and others)
This Karnataka High Court judgment addresses an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit involving the brand 'RALLY' used for home appliances. The court reviewed the initial trial court order, which had allowed a defendant's application to vacate an interim injunction. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claim of goodwill and long-standing use of the mark, the appellate court deferred a final decision on irreparable injury or balance of convenience until the merits of the case are fully heard.
The Academy Of General Education v.Smt. B. Malini Mallya D/O Late Sri B.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff, who inherited copyrights from Dr. Karanth via a will, sued for infringement after the Yakshagana Ballet was staged without permission. The core issue was whether Dr. Karanth had created copyright in his modified form of Yakshagana ('Yaksha Ranga') and its seven associated prasangas. The court ultimately sustained the declaration of exclusive copyright in the seven prasangas vesting with the plaintiff.
Eureka Forbes Ltd. v.Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes Ltd. (Eureka Forbes) against Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., granting an interim injunction to protect its brand, Aquaguard. The court found that Pentair's advertisement was disparaging and maligning towards Eureka Forbes' UV purifier technology, despite the trial court's initial dismissal of the plea. This decision underscores the importance of protecting established market leaders from false or damaging comparative advertising.
V.V. Sivaram And Ors. v.Foseco India Limited
The plaintiff, holding patents for 'Turbostop,' a specialized contoured impact pad used in steel plants, sought an injunction against the defendants (former employees and associated entities). The dispute centered on whether the defendants were manufacturing and marketing a product identical to Turbostop using confidential know-how obtained during their employment.
Prestige Housewares (India) Ltd. v.Prestige Estates And Properties Cooperatives
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order from the Copyright Board regarding the revocation of a copyright registration held by Prestige Estates And Properties Cooperatives. The petitioners, Prestige Housewares (India) Ltd., alleged that the respondent was infringing their artistic work and Trade Mark 'PRESTIGE', causing confusion in the market. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the contention that the respondent's use of the mark constituted infringement or passing off.
Prestige Housewares (India) Limited v.Prestige Estates And Properties And ...
This appeal challenged the revocation of a copyright registration held by Prestige Estates And Properties. The petitioners argued that the respondent infringed their artistic work and trademark 'Prestige,' causing confusion in the market. However, the court found that the parties operated in completely different fields—kitchenware versus real estate—and the adoption was not deceptively similar for the purpose of passing off. Consequently, the appeal seeking revocation was dismissed.
Lahari Recording Company Private Limited v.Sourabh Marketing And Agencies Private Limited
The dispute arose from a contract where the plaintiff (copyright owner) assigned universal rights to certain film and non-film titles to the defendant. The suit was filed by the defendant seeking relief related to this assignment. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 19-A of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Giridhari Balaram Radhakrishnani And ... v.M/S Mahisa Electronics And Others
The appellants, claiming rights as inventors/licensees of a UMHT patent, filed suits against respondents for infringement. The trial court granted an ex parte temporary injunction. On appeal, this injunction was vacated by the single Judge. The High Court set aside the order vacating the injunction, restoring the status quo ante, and directing parties to proceed with expeditious trial.
Sushil Vasudev v.Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, operating under the trade name and trademark 'Kwality Ice-Cream Company', filed a suit for passing off against Kwality Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., who was using the similar mark. The appeal challenged the lower court's order vacating the temporary injunction. The High Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie right to goodwill, and granted an interim injunction.
M/S. Kamath Atul & Co. v.M/S. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Kamath Atul & Co., filed a passing off action against the defendant, M/s. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd., alleging that the latter was marketing an Ayurvedic herbal skin ointment under the name 'HERBINOL', which infringed upon the plaintiff's established trade mark 'HURBINOL'. The High Court dismissed the appeal but modified the temporary injunction order to restrict the defendants from marketing their product in five specific states until the suit's disposal.
V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim v.Alfred Schafraneck And Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages and injunction against defendants for manufacturing flower design chair seats, claiming patent rights. The court held that since the plaintiff was not registered as a patentee and had not followed the statutory procedure to register his title, he lacked the legal standing to file an infringement suit under Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act. Furthermore, the court found that the actual invention was attributable only to defendants 1 and 2.
Eternal Limited v.Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Eternal Limited against an order granting an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction in favor of Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited, restraining Eternal Limited from using the mark 'Eternal' or any other mark deceptively similar to Eternl Resilinttech Private Limited's registered trademark. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable and that the remedy available to the appellant/defendant was to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. The court also directed the Trial Court to consider any such application within four weeks and pass appropriate orders on its merits.
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.