Madras High Court
1365 cases · page 30 of 46
Showing 871–899M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar v.Kothai Dairy Farm
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar filed a suit against Kothai Dairy Farm and others alleging infringement of their trademarks and copyrights related to the product 'ghee'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and rendition of accounts due to alleged passing off and unauthorized use of artistic works and trade dress. Ultimately, the parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo on 21.03.2022, which was subsequently decreed by the Madras High Court.
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar v.Kothai Dairy Farm
M/s.R.K.Ganapathi Chettiar filed a suit against Kothai Dairy Farm and others alleging infringement of their trademarks and copyrights concerning the product 'ghee'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were passing off goods using deceptively similar artistic works, trade dress, and color combinations associated with the plaintiff's registered trademark (No. 463167). Despite the initial claims for injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately resolved their dispute by entering into a Joint Compromise Memo dated March 21, 2022.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited, seeking permanent injunction against alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification or revocation. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registration period for the design had expired.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited seeking permanent injunction regarding alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification, while also challenging the defendant's Cease and Desist Notice. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registered design rights had expired.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited alleging infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs, seeking permanent injunction and declaration that the Cease and Desist Notice was unjustifiable. The plaintiff argued that the design was common use in the industry and liable for rectification due to lack of novelty. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous, noting that the registered design's protection period had expired.
Beardsell Limited v.Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Beardsell Limited, granting a perpetual injunction against two defendants (Beardsell Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Beardsell Equipments Pvt. Ltd.) for passing off the company's trademark 'Beardsell'. The court found that these entities unlawfully appropriated the Plaintiff's established corporate name and were carrying on similar lines of business, risking public deception. Consequently, the injunction was granted, barring them from using or advertising the mark.
Malabar Cements Limitd v.Drawing And Disbursing Officer, The Office of the Trademarks Registry; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Malabar Cements Limited's Writ Petition, setting aside an earlier rejection order from the Trademarks Registry. The court ruled that a Notice of Opposition filed against Trademark Application No 427808 fell within the prescribed window for filing opposition, based on a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. Consequently, the respondents agreed to accept and record the opposition upon re-submission within three weeks.
M/s.24 Am Studious Private Limited v.Divya M.Jain
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendants for releasing the film 'Production No.5 (Colour) – Ayalan' without consent, alleging infringement of Tamil Satellite Television Rights in India. The dispute centered on the validity of the finance agreement where the plaintiff pledged the exclusive copyright to the first defendant.
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
PNB Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd challenged the Controller General of Patents' order that deemed its patent application, relating to novel Cholecystokini Receptor Ligands, as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the abandonment was based on procedural failures and clerical errors by agents, not due to lack of interest in the invention. The Madras High Court acknowledged the violation of timelines but emphasized principles of natural justice, ultimately restoring the application for fresh consideration.
M.Gagan Bothra v.The Central Government
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents to act upon a 2013 order from the Central Government regarding R.Anbarasu's misuse of the National Emblem. The court found that despite central government directions, the State Government failed to initiate action against the ex-member of parliament for misusing the emblem on his letter pad.
Leeds Hr Solution v.The Controller General of Patents
Leeds Hr Solution challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on December 2, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further action was necessary from the respondents.
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, geographical Indications, Designs
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on November 30, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further judicial consideration was necessary regarding the refund claim.
M/s.Maya Appliances P Ltd. v.Apex Consumer Appliances P ltd.
M/s. Maya Appliances P Ltd. filed a civil suit alleging that Apex Consumer Appliances P ltd. was infringing upon its registered copyrights related to the design of its VIDIEM AIR frameless gas stove. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's APEX EVA stoves were identical or deceptively similar, constituting both copyright infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant used proprietary phrases from the promotional video on their carton boxes. The Madras High Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions, damages, and ordering the destruction of infringing products.
Uster Technologies Ag v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Uster Technologies Ag challenged the rejection of its patent application, which related to a method for optimizing textile manufacturing processes. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was erroneous and failed to consider the provisions of the Patents Act regarding convention applications and amendments. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Sss Lungie Company v.SSS Lingam Company
Sss Lungie Company filed a civil suit against SSS Lingam Company and others, alleging trademark passing off and copyright infringement related to the '3 ROSES label' used on lungies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages for unauthorized use of their brand and artistic work. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
Ashok Kumar Sethi Trading as M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation v.Amilal Ramkrishnan Dass
This suit addressed allegations of copyright infringement concerning the picture mark 'AMIN's' used on black henna products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendant for using similar marks and designs. During the pendency of the litigation, both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this memorandum of compromise, allowing both parties to continue their respective branding practices without further legal conflict.
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s JB Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s JB Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyright designs associated with 'hotpot' products. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory directions to stop the unauthorized use and sale of deceptively similar goods. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the complex IP claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
C.Prakash v.S.N. Media
C.Prakash appealed an order that vacated an initial injunction granted in his favour against S.N. Media. The dispute centered on whether C.Prakash's assignment of digital dubbing rights for films 'Chingari' and 'Shrikanta' was invalid because the first defendant claimed non-payment of consideration. The court held that copyright assignment does not require payment of consideration to be valid.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging infringement of its registered trademark VOLINI, copyright violation in its packaging art, and passing off due to the use of 'VOLINEX'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
DINA MALAR A Partnership Concern v.K.Ramasubbu
This suit was filed by Dina Malar against several defendants, including K. Ramasubbu, alleging infringement of its trade marks ('DINA MALA') and copyright related to the work 'DINAMALAR'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and surrender of infringing materials. However, despite the initial filing under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
R.Venkitapathy v.Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd.
This case involved a dispute filed by R.Venkitapathy against Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd., alleging infringement of trade marks ('DINA MALAR') and copyright in stylized lettering and associated devices. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to prevent deceptive similarity and passing off. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its registered mark 'VOLINI'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks like 'VOLINEX' and imitation packaging. The dispute was ultimately resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages regarding the use of their trademarks (LION, LUCAS TVS) and distinctive packaging on auto electrical parts. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiffs chose to withdraw the suit.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were infringing their registered trademarks (LION, DEVICE OF LION) and committing copyright violations through the use of deceptively similar branding and slavish imitation of distinctive packaging for auto electrical parts. Despite the detailed claims seeking injunctions and damages, the plaintiffs ultimately decided to withdraw the suit before a final judgment was passed.
Arumugam Rajendra Babu v.Ashok Leyland Limited
Arumugam Rajendra Babu appealed an order dated September 1, 2021, passed in a commercial suit. The appellant sought a direction from the trial court to have the Controller of Patents provide evidence regarding his products and patent distinctions. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Indcon Structurals Pvt.Ltd v.Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd.
Indcon Structurals Pvt.Ltd filed a civil suit against Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off concerning their distinctive 'CATHERINE' tile drawing. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the unique design, which was allegedly copied by the defendant's 'OPUS' tiles. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit, holding that since the design was not registered under the Designs Act, the claim for copyright infringement was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
L.G.Varadarajulu v.M/S.Raj Ganesh Enterprises
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing Patent No. 179607, Design Nos. 163445 and 163446, and copyright in their table top wet grinders. However, the first plaintiff passed away, and the remaining plaintiffs sought to withdraw the suit.
New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess v.New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess - Nunpahal Unavagam LLP
This case involved a dispute over the use of the trade name 'New Pattukottai Kamatchi Mess' between two entities. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off, along with damages. However, both parties mutually agreed to resolve all existing disputes, including those related to the trademark claims, through arbitration.
M/s Store N Move Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Olog Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Store N Move Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against M/s Olog Logistics Pvt. Ltd., seeking permanent injunctions against alleged infringement of its copyrighted computer application, 'OLOG', and its associated trademark. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from reproducing or passing off services using similar applications or marks. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to pursue the matter in a pending case before the NCLT.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered design, trademark, and copyright by M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the unauthorized use of their branded bottles. However, the court noted that the sole defendant had passed away prior to the hearing date. Given that the cause of action was in persona (personal), the suit was ultimately dismissed.
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.