Mixed
10 mixed decisions from Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Mixed Decisions
10 cases | Page 1 of 1
Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi Trading As M/S PUSHKAR PAIN CLINIC AND PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTER SENIOR HOUSE v.Mr Tivender Kumar Kaushik
The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi against the rejection of his interim injunction application. The court recognized the appellant's claim that the respondent, a former employee, was infringing upon his established trademark, 'Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Center.' As an interim measure, the High Court granted a temporary restraint, allowing the respondent to continue operating their clinic but strictly prohibiting the use of the disputed name until further hearing.
Suresh Gulwani and Others v.M/S Dammani Brothers Through Partner Shri Rajendra Dammani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted a stay on an earlier Commercial Court order that had restricted the manufacturing, selling, and advertising activities under the 'SWAD GOLD' trademark. The petitioners argued that the restriction was causing immediate irreparable business loss, halting their entire operations and preventing them from selling existing stock. Given the prima facie case of injury, the High Court decided to stay the operation of the restrictive order until further hearing.
Jindal Steel And Power Limited v.Jp Structures Private Limited
In this ongoing trademark infringement dispute, Jindal Steel And Power Limited challenged the trial court's decision to delete Defendant No. 1 (Jp Structures Private Limited) from the case. The petitioner argued that Defendant No. 1 was a necessary party because they were the original user of the infringing goods and disclosed the names of subsequent suppliers. The High Court directed notice be issued, ensuring the matter would be heard on July 3rd, allowing the dispute over party status to continue.
Surindar Pal Singh v.Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi and New Ichhadhari and Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court listed the case involving Surindar Pal Singh and Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi. The court granted time to both parties to verify the outcome or status of a pending rectification application filed under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. This indicates that the dispute over the trademark's validity or registration is still active and awaiting further judicial determination.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a dispute over the artistic work 'ENERZY powder' between Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The core legal battle centered on whether the Commercial Court was correct in directing the plaintiff to amend their plaint based on an agreement dated 22.01.2015, specifically regarding valuation for court fees. The High Court examined the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution and ultimately ruled that the statutory copyright right should govern the suit's substance, not solely the contractual terms.
Deepak Singh v.Bunty Raghav (Producer) and others
Deepak Singh filed a petition seeking interim relief against producers (Respondents) who were making a film based on his book, 'Janhit Mein Jaari'. The core dispute revolved around copyright infringement. While the High Court noted that the civil suit was pending before the Trial Court and emphasized the need for evidence regarding similarity between the book and the film, it ultimately directed the parties to proceed with the trial court's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., ensuring the existing interim relief continued until a final decision.
M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.S.D. Containers
This judgment addresses a complex jurisdictional dispute arising from a civil suit filed by M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited against S.D. Containers regarding disputed designs. The core issue was whether the High Court had the authority to entertain the defendant's counterclaim seeking cancellation of the design registration, alongside the plaintiff's declaration and injunction suit. The court affirmed its jurisdiction, interpreting the Design Act, 2000, to allow a defendant to raise all grounds for cancellation (under Section 19) in their written statement/counterclaim.
M/S Emco Thr. v.Union Of India Thr.
M/S Emco Thr. approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking intervention against the Trade Marks Registry's inaction regarding a trademark correction application for 'MADHUVAN'. The petitioner argued that due to administrative errors, they were not recognized as the registered owner despite having exclusive rights via an assignment deed and continuous use since 1982. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to adjudicate the pending representation/appeal within a stipulated period of three months.
Mount Everest Breweries Limited v.State of Madhya Pradesh
Mount Everest Breweries Limited and United Breweries Limited filed a Writ Petition challenging the inaction of the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding the infringement of their IP rights. The petitioners alleged that unauthorized breweries were illegally using their registered trademarks, designs, and copyrighted artistic features on bottles, often replacing them with products from other manufacturers. This practice was causing significant losses and consumer risk due to faulty bottling. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the State authorities to take appropriate action and provide a reasoned response to the petitioners' prior representations within sixty days.
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.