Madras High Court
1365 cases · page 35 of 46
Showing 1021–1049Celgene Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Celgene Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8064/CHENB/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that their invention—a dissolvable tablet formulation for cancer treatment—had novelty and inventive step over prior art, which consisted of enteric-coated tablets. The High Court found the controller's rejection faulty because it failed to consider the technical advancements presented by the appellant.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not new and had been in use for decades. The Court ultimately disposed of the Original Applications on terms requiring the Respondent to maintain and submit quarterly accounts related to the sale of similar products.
M/s.Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg v.Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Gedore Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. Kg filed a civil suit against Southern Hardware Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of its registered trade marks, including 'GEDORE', and copyright violation concerning the 'GEDORE Device' artistic works. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages for passing off and IP infringement. However, before the final judgment, both parties entered into a compromise agreement.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not novel and had been in public use for decades. The Court found that while the balance of convenience was not clearly in favor of granting injunctive relief immediately, it directed the Respondent to maintain detailed quarterly accounts regarding sales and profits of similar products.
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Bafna Biotech
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Bafna Biotech alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the 'ZINCOVIT' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA on pharmaceutical products. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise.
M/s.Bombay Pen Depot v.M/s.Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/s. Bombay Pen Depot and M/s. Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd by accepting a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC). Under the terms, the Plaintiff assigned its registered trademarks (PENTONIC) to the First Defendant for a consideration of INR 15 lakhs. In exchange, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw oppositions against the defendant's trademark applications and cease using the mark after a specified date.
Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa v.M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves an Italian company, Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa, which filed a suit against M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd. for passing off its trademark and design mark used on brass ball valves. The dispute escalated when the appellant challenged procedural orders passed during the trial process. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned interlocutory orders did not qualify as 'judgments' under the Letters Patent, thereby rendering the appeals non-maintainable despite the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Mr.Babu Xavier v.M/s.Feather Touch Entertainments
Mr. Babu Xavier filed a civil suit against M/s. Feather Touch Entertainments and others seeking financial compensation and permanent injunction regarding the film 'VAA DEAL Tamil'. The court first established its jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the dispute involved intellectual property rights (copyright) related to the cinematograph film. Subsequently, both parties submitted a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading the court to pass a summary judgment based on the settlement terms.
Parthasarathy Seniammal Educational Trust v.V.Rangasamy Naidu Educational Trust
This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed a dispute between two educational trusts regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants argued that mere abbreviations should not be considered infringement, while the respondents maintained that the single judge's decision was sound. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal but left all substantive issues open for resolution in the pending injunction application.
Sae India v.Delta Inc.
Sae India filed a civil suit against Delta Inc., alleging multiple infringements, including trademark violation (SAE INDIA, BAJA), copyright infringement related to standards and rules, and passing off. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages. However, both parties agreed that the defendant had ceased all business operations, leading the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit.
Sahaya Sujith Kumar v.A.Jordan
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the Patents Act because the respondent's patent rights were pending. The respondent argued the suit was an injunction based on breach of trust and non-disclosure agreement, not infringement.
S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons v.The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons' writ petition, setting aside a decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on the registration of the 'SVS' trade mark for edible refined oil. The court ruled that the contesting respondents could not claim exclusive rights over the mark based on an ambiguous arbitration award, especially since the award did not specifically allot the mark to them. This decision reinforced the petitioner's right to use and register the mark.
A.S. Hameed v.P. Maharajan
The dispute centered on a registered trade mark ('No.10 A.S. PHOTO BEEDI') used for beedies and tobacco products, with the plaintiff seeking an injunction against alleged infringement by the defendant. However, the case progressed to an application by the defendant seeking revocation of the 'leave to sue' initially granted to the plaintiff. The court ultimately held that neither party resided nor conducted business within its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the successful revocation of the leave and the dismissal of the main suit.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Kasthuri Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against M/s.Kasthuri Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('Gold Winner') and copyrights related to packaging for sunflower oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'Kasthuri Gold'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
Snj Distillers Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
Snj Distillers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to issue a registration certificate for their trademark application. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the trademark certificate had already been issued. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
Mr.A.D.Padmasingh Issac Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods / M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P)Ltd. v.Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Aachi Spices and Foods filed a civil suit alleging that Nutriyes Healthcare Pvt Ltd was infringing upon its copyright and passing off its brand, 'AACHI RAGI FLOUR.' The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the unauthorized use of similar marks on ragi flour products. After establishing jurisdiction and presenting ex-parte evidence, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting injunctive reliefs and directing the surrender of infringing materials. Furthermore, given the defendant's failure to appear despite being duly served, the court awarded significant compensatory costs.
Metco Polymers Private Limited v.M/s.AnB Healthcare Products
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their registered patent related to 'water beds'. However, the counsel for the plaintiffs subsequently moved an application to withdraw the suit.
Texmo Industries v.Mr.Kantilal Solanki
The Madras High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Texmo Industries against Mr. Kantilal Solanki, finding clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that since both parties used the identical mark 'TEXMO' on the same product—agricultural pumps—the use by the defendant constituted a direct violation of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (Nos. 315049 and 315050). Consequently, the suit was decreed granting permanent injunctive reliefs to protect Texmo Industries' brand integrity.
Unza International Limited / Cavinkare Private Limited (depending on the suit) v.Cavinkare Private Limited / Wipro Limited (depending on the suit)
This Madras High Court judgment, dated November 15, 2018, resolved multiple complex trademark disputes involving Unza International and Cavinkare Private Limited against Wipro entities. The court decreed Civil Suit No. 1006 of 2009 in favor of Unza International regarding the 'ENCHANTEUR' mark, while simultaneously dismissing other related suits (C.S.Nos. 221 & 222) and closing associated writ petitions based on a compromise memo signed by the parties. The ruling highlights how litigation can conclude through negotiated settlements.
M/s.MRF Limited v.Multi Race Force Lubricants Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. MRF Limited, finding that the defendant's use of similar marks constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court applied the 'average purchaser' test, concluding that the overall similarity between the marks and packaging was likely to mislead an ordinary consumer. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a perpetual injunction restraining further misuse of the mark.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited v.Netsweeper Inc.
Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited filed a suit against Netsweeper Inc. alleging passing off and unauthorized use of its registered trademark, 'NETSWEEPER'. The plaintiff, based in Canada, claimed that the defendants were wrongfully associating themselves with its brand to sell similar software services. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, confirming the original injunction granted in favor of Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited.
Commscope Inc. Of North Carolina v.Union Of India
Commscope Inc. approached the Madras High Court seeking rectification of errors in its trademark registration certificate (No. 1380719). The petitioner argued that despite multiple representations, the Trademark Registry failed to issue the corrected certificate. The court intervened, directing the second respondent, the Registrar of Trademarks, to correct the error and issue a fresh Registration Certificate, thereby resolving the immediate procedural hurdle for the petitioner.
M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates v.M/s.Very Good Foods
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates against M/s.Very Good Foods, upholding the original finding that no infringement occurred. The court found insufficient evidence to establish deceptive similarity between the labels 'Chakra' and 'VG', noting differences in product descriptions and names. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to adequately prove specific financial loss caused by the defendant's marketing.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
The Madras High Court modified existing interim injunctions in a dispute between Vennila Clothing Company and M/s.Arrs Silks regarding trademark and trade dress infringement. The court partially allowed the applications seeking to vacate the previous injunctions, establishing an interim arrangement where the defendants could use specified changed trade dresses for a period of eleven months. This decision allows the main suit to proceed while providing temporary relief to both parties.
Pradeep Cholayil & Cholayil Private Limited v.Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited
The Madras High Court confirmed the existing interim injunction in favor of Pradeep Cholayil and Cholayil Private Limited against Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MYSOAP' was deceptively similar to the applicants' registered trademark 'MYSOP' for cosmetic soaps, constituting infringement and passing off. The injunction was confirmed post-contest and ordered to operate for a period of one year, allowing the main suit to proceed expeditiously.
M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass v.Ashok Kumar Sethi
The main suit involved a claim by M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass against Ashok Kumar Sethi for copyright infringement and passing off related to their Henna products bearing the mark 'AMIN'S'. The defendant filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd v.Ganesh Industries
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Ganesh Industries alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark (MAXX), copyright violation in packaging art, and passing off related to detergent products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for these illegal activities. Both parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise.
Novartis AG v.Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited
Novartis AG filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its registered patent (No. 212815) concerning Vildagliptin. The defendant, Saimirra Innopharm Private Limited, contested the claim by stating it neither manufactures nor intends to manufacture the patented drug. By mutual consent, the court disposed of the suit, granting permanent injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiff.
S.Sudhakar & Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Udayam Marketing
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, S.Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd., against M/s.Udayam Marketing regarding trademark infringement and passing off of 'UDHAIYAM'. The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using an identical or deceptively similar mark for food products like Asafoetida Powder. Furthermore, given the decade-long litigation period and the defendant's non-appearance, the court awarded substantial compensatory costs to the plaintiffs.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Kovai Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fresh juice. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off, alleging that the defendant was deceptively using a similar trade mark. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit with the court's permission, leading to its dismissal.
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.