Madras High Court
1345 cases · page 28 of 45
Showing 811–839Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
Umai Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited v.Government of India
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to call for the records of the Government of India concerning two specific patent applications (Nos. 211904 and 196432) and quash the related order dated 04.12.2017. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the prayer had become infructuous.
P.Periyasamy v.M/S.Jaya Jeya Agro Mills
The plaintiff filed civil suits alleging that the defendants infringed his registered copyright concerning the artistic and literary work detailing a precast concrete chimney. The court addressed multiple suits, ultimately dismissing C.S.No.102/2018 as not pressed for against one defendant, while granting relief in C.S.No.96/2018.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd v.M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd against M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises concerning trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The dispute involved the use of the 'OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY' mark across various classes and digital platforms. Crucially, the court accepted a Memo of Compromise and Trademark Assignment Deed signed by both parties, leading to the suit being settled and decreed without costs.
Green Cross Holdings Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Green Cross Holdings Corporation appealed the order dated 02.02.2023 by the Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application for a method of preparing Plasma-derived Hepatitis B Human Immunoglobulin Agent. The appellant argued that all objections were addressed, but the rejection was arbitrary. The High Court found that the respondent failed to discuss the prior arts or provide justifiable reasons for rejecting the inventive step.
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited v.M.P.Beer Products Private Limited
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against M.P.Beer Products Private Limited, seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for infringement of its registered trademarks, designs, and copyright related to beer bottles. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was passing off their products as those of Mohan Breweries. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case effectively before the court, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit.
P.Ponnuchamy v.M/s.UTV Motion Pictures
This appeal challenged an order that disallowed the plaintiff from amending his plaint to include claims for royalty and account of profits related to the movie 'Thandavam'. The court dismissed the appeal, finding merit in the respondent's argument regarding the significant delay (nine years) in seeking these amendments. The judgment emphasized that courts must consider all facts and circumstances when exercising discretion on amendment applications.
The Managing Director and Appellate Authority, Tasmac v.M.Loganathan
Tasmac appealed an interim order from the Single Judge, which directed them to provide certain commercially sensitive information regarding liquor purchasing rates in a sealed cover. Tasmac argued that this information constituted trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co., alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their respective snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials based on the similarity of marks and artistic designs used on packaging. Ultimately, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co., alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their respective snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials based on the similarity of marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution and entered into a Memorandum of Compromise.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Jaya Sai Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against M/s.Jaya Sai Traders for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'DHEEPAM' and copyright violation related to the packaging of lamp oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('PANCHA DEEPAM OIL') and trade dress, leading to passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the IP infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a challenge by Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against an order directing it to change its corporate name. The dispute centered on the use of 'Raymond,' which was claimed by another entity (Respondent 3) to be protected under trademark rights and prior incorporation dates. The court upheld the administrative decision, finding no illegality in requiring the petitioner to alter its name.
Cavinkare Pvt. Limited-Trends Division v.P & P Associates
Cavinkare Pvt. Limited-Trends Division filed a civil suit against P & P Associates alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'GREEN TRENDS' and copyright infringement related to product artistic works. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders
This case involved a civil suit filed by M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders, alleging infringement of their registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and violation of copyright through the use of the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. However, both parties reached a mutual settlement agreement.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and copyright in the associated artistic work and trade dress used on edible oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Niju Gold' and passing off inferior products. Both parties subsequently reached a settlement, leading the Madras High Court to dispose of the captioned suit based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Zydus Wellness Products Limited
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed a suit against Zydus Wellness Products Limited and others alleging passing off concerning its glucose-based chewy tablet brand, BOLTS, versus the defendants' product under the mark VOLT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions regarding trademark infringement, tag line similarity, and packaging get-up. While initial prayers related to the tagline and color scheme were dropped due to prior compromises, the core dispute over the 'VOLT' mark remained central. The court ultimately directed the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.
M/s.Micro Labs Limited v.Mr.A.Santhosh
M/s. Micro Labs Limited filed a civil suit against Mr. A. Santhosh alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AVAS' and copyright in its label by the use of the deceptively similar mark 'AVASLIP'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits. However, the Madras High Court rejected the plaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement stipulated under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Ajax Engineering Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court set aside an order by the Registrar of Trademarks that had rejected the trademark application 'AJAX-MAKES CONCRETE SENSE'. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary, as they had submitted extensive documentation proving continuous use since 1983. The court found that the respondent failed to apply its mind to the documents provided and violated principles of natural justice by issuing a non-speaking order. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration on merits.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise executed by both parties on August 23, 2022. Consequently, the Madras High Court decreed the case based on the terms of this settlement, allowing the defendant to use a specified label.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms. Y. Aafiya Halima against Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science alleging copyright infringement related to 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief regarding an Australian patent application. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a compromise memo.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a mutual agreement between the parties. The court examined the memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2022 and found no legal impediment to its terms. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima alleging copyright infringement concerning her work on 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief relating to an Australian patent application for the same product. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a joint compromise memo.
Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthik Subbaraj.G
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership over the copyrights of its film 'Jigardhanda', damages, and permanent injunction against Karthik Subbaraj.G for alleged infringement. The parties subsequently executed a Joint Compromise Memo.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the 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.