Madras High Court
1365 cases · page 40 of 46
Showing 1171–1199Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation v.Indus Biotech Private Limited
Vittal Mallya Scientific Research filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against Indus Biotech Private Limited for manufacturing and selling products (soluble double metal salt of HCA and anti obesity beverages) in violation of several process patents. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit as 'not pressed', which the court accepted, dismissing the case.
Unimed Technologies Ltd. v.M/s Eyekare Kilitch Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Side Appeals filed by Unimed Technologies Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited against a prior order dismissing their injunction application. The court found that the mark 'TOBA', being derived from the generic chemical term Tobramycin, was publici juris. Furthermore, the court noted factual dissimilarities in color schemes and symbols between the products, concluding there was no prima facie case of passing off or consumer confusion, especially since both drugs are sold under prescription by specialized physicians.
M/s.Flsmidth Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Secan Invescast (India) Pvt.Ltd.
M/s. Flsmidth Pvt.Ltd. filed an appeal seeking to enforce a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) against M/s. Secan Invescast (India) Pvt.Ltd., alleging that the respondent violated trade secrets by approaching Flsmidth's customers and using proprietary technical knowhow. The appellant claimed significant loss of sales due to this breach. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction after the agreement expired and noting that damages remained an available remedy.
Hindustan Uniliver Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking to reject a civil suit on grounds of re-litigation. The respondents, Sree Annapoorna Foods, sued Hindustan Unilever Limited over alleged trademark infringement concerning 'Annapoorna' and 'Annapurna'. The appellant argued that the claim was barred by prior litigation and relinquishment of rights. However, the court found that since the cause of action for the second suit arose from subsequent events not covered in the earlier plaint, the suit could not be rejected at the initial stage.
R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.N.K.Theatres Pvt. Ltd.
R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff/Appellant) sued M/s.N.K.Theatres Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) for copyright infringement related to the Telugu dubbing and remake rights of its movie '3', after the Defendant failed to pay the final installment amount due under the assignment agreement. The Defendant filed an application seeking arbitration, arguing that all disputes should be referred to arbitration. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the suit involves complex issues mixing payment dispute with copyright infringement against multiple parties, it cannot be bifurcated for arbitration.
M/s. United Spirits Limited v.Henkel India Limited
M/s. United Spirits Limited appealed against the denial of an interlocutory injunction concerning the trademark 'ARAMUSK'. The dispute arose from a complex chain of assignments and transfers related to the original business agreement between Shaw Wallace & Company (predecessor-in-interest) and Henkel India Limited. The court examined the three pillars required for granting temporary relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed as the appellant was found not to have a strong enough case or demonstrated irreparable harm.
Vodafone India Limited v.M/S. R.K. Productions Pvt Ltd
The suits were filed regarding the unauthorized copying, recording, reproduction, and distribution of cinematograph films '3' and 'Dhammu'. The court upheld the maintainability of the John Doe suits and clarified that the interim injunction was limited to blocking specific infringing URLs rather than entire websites. All applications seeking to vacate the existing interim orders were dismissed.
Salzer Electronics Ltd v.Sg Controls And Switchgear
The petitioner, Salzer Electronics Ltd., filed applications seeking an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing their registered patent (No. 198122) related to Integral Cam Operated Rotary Switches, alleging identical manufacture and use of product and trade dress. The respondents countered by challenging the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Applicant (Naga Industries) v.M/S. Lachmi Marain Traders And Others
The Madras High Court dismissed the applicant's requests for an interim injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that despite the similarity between 'NAGA' and 'AAGA', there was no convincing prima facie case, noting that the respondent had been using their mark openly since 2006 with significant advertising expenditure. Furthermore, the court highlighted the delay in the applicant filing suit (only after receiving a cease and desist notice in 2011) as a critical factor against granting immediate relief.
This Application Has Been Filed Seeking ... v.Ashok Leyland Limited And Another
The Madras High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions concerning the trademark 'O2'. While the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for passing off, it ultimately denied the request for infringement relief. The judge ruled that despite concerns about delay, the applicant was entitled to an interim injunction specifically regarding the act of passing off by the respondent.
A.R. Safiullah v.A. Sowkath Ali
The petitioner sought ad-interim injunctions against the respondents regarding infringement of his registered patent (No. 198079) and registered design (No. 182931), as well as passing off related to artificial laminated banana leaves. The court found that while the claim for restraining patent infringement was not grantable, interim injunctions were allowed for design infringement and passing off.
Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited (and Dr. Issac Mathai) v.Defendant/Respondent (unnamed in excerpt)
The Madras High Court granted interim injunctions in favor of Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited against the respondent. The court found that the respondent's use of deceptively similar marks like 'SOWKHYA' and associated domain names constituted trademark infringement and passing off, despite arguments regarding prior usage or delay. This ruling underscores the importance of registered trademarks in protecting service-based businesses from unauthorized imitation.
Indecon Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v.Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant (Indecon Structurals) filed an appeal challenging the trial court's dismissal of its suit alleging infringement and passing off related to its unique 'Aquarius' tile design. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who claimed copyright over the design drawing, could obtain injunction against the defendant for manufacturing identical tiles, especially since the design was registered in favor of the respondent.
Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v.Union Of India
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Rhizome Distilleries, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark. The court held that the IPAB erred by applying grounds for refusal—which should have been raised at the time of initial registration—to a rectification application filed much later. Given that the petitioner had used the mark and faced prior objections which were withdrawn, the High Court found the subsequent attempt to cancel the mark was legally unsustainable.
Miss.Kajal Aggarwal v.The Managing Director, M/s.V.V.D. & Sons P.Ltd.
The actress, Miss. Kajal Aggarwal (Appellant), filed an appeal against the refusal to grant interim injunction, alleging that the Respondent used her image and profile for promoting their hair oil and coconut oil products after the one-year endorsement agreement expired. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the right to use the actress's profile is limited by the contract duration, thus granting the injunction.
Unknown v.S.K.Maingi
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774, which covers Erlotinib Hydrochloride. The core legal issue before the Madras High Court was whether it had the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try the infringement case, given that the plaintiff was not a resident of Delhi and the alleged sales were isolated.
Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. v.Word Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network
Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. challenged Word Of God Fellowship Inc., claiming infringement and passing off related to its registered trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK'. The appellant sought permanent injunctions against downlinking, distribution, and use of the mark in India. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the respondent was honestly using their pre-existing global business name. Furthermore, the court held that since the program was originally designed by the respondent, they retained original ownership rights, preventing restrictions on their usage.
Matrix Laboratories Limited v.F.Hoffman La Roche Ltd.
This appeal involved Matrix Laboratories Limited challenging an order that granted leave to sue regarding alleged infringement of Patent No. 196774, which covers Erlotinib Hydrochloride. The core dispute centered on whether the appellant's filing of a revocation petition before the IPA Board in Chennai created sufficient territorial jurisdiction for the Madras High Court to hear the suit. The court ultimately ruled that merely approaching the IPA Board does not automatically confer cause of action or jurisdiction, especially when the appellant's primary operations are elsewhere.
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited v.Mastech Corporation And 2 Others
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited filed several applications seeking temporary injunctions against Mastech Corporation and others for alleged infringement of copyright, business interference, defamation, and inducement of clients and employees. The court dismissed all the applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, noting that damages were already claimed.
M/s.Cholayil Private Limited v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'Herbal,' was not phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'Medimix.' Furthermore, despite the plaintiff claiming long usage, the court noted that the artistic work relied upon was only assigned in 2008, undermining the claim of continuous use since 1969. Ultimately, the court concluded there were more dissimilarities than similarities, finding no likelihood of deception among ordinary purchasers.
M/s.Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v.M/s.Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar
Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd., the registered owner of the trade mark 'NAKODA' for milk products, filed appeals challenging the dismissal of its applications for temporary injunction. The Respondents argued that they were prior and long-term users of the mark since 1978, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed applications seeking permission to reserve its right to lead evidence concerning the invalidity of Bajaj Auto Limited's Patent No.195904, which was central to a suit challenging infringement by the product TVS Flame. The court found that due to the interconnected nature of the facts and issues in both suits, a joint trial was necessary.
Respondents/Plaintiffs v.Applicant/Defendant
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774 related to the cancer drug EROLTINIB HYDROCHLORIDE (TARCEVA). The defendant subsequently filed an application to revoke the leave granted by the court, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that since the defendant approached the IPA Board in Chennai with a revocation petition, a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Thalappakattu Biriyani and Fast Food (temporarily called as "Chennai Rawther Thalappakattu Biriyani") v.M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement and passing off of the trade mark "Thalappakatti Naidu Biriyani Hotel" by M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas, which used the similar mark "Thalappakattu". The court examined the prior use and reputation of the Plaintiff's mark versus the Defendant's adoption of the similar name.
M/s.Aravind Laboratories v.Modicare
The plaintiff, M/s.Aravind Laboratories, filed applications seeking an interim injunction against Modicare for infringement and passing off related to their cosmetics trade marks, specifically 'EYETEX DAZLLER'. The defendant argued that 'Daily Dazzler' was a bona fide descriptive mark under Section 35 of the Act. The court ultimately upheld the defense, finding no infringement or passing off.
Anu Ambraile Proprietrix M/s.AA Impex Company v.The District Collector Tiruvallur
Anu Ambraile challenged various orders related to the cancellation of her property mark registration and the subsequent seizure/confiscation of red sanders wood. The court ultimately found that the initial seizure and confiscation were void, upholding the judgment that the petitioner was not involved in illegal exports.
Mayil Traders v.Thiyagarajan
Mayil Traders, a long-established firm, filed an appeal against a judgment that favored its opponent, Thiyagarajan. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's use of 'RAGAM' and similar packaging for cigars constituted trademark infringement against Mayil Traders' registered mark 'RATHAM'. The court found that the marks were visually and phonetically too close, leading to potential consumer confusion.
Sheila Cine Arts v.Gemini Pictures Circuits Private Limited
The plaintiff, a cine film production firm, sued the respondent (a laboratory) for damages after copies of their film 'Manasu' were illegally pirated from the laboratory. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court appellate bench found that the defendant's employees were involved in video piracy and held them vicariously liable.
Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan v.Mrs. Sellappappa Keeran
The applicants sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent from copying, recording, or publishing works belonging to Late Pulavar Keeran, claiming they had purchased the exclusive rights. The respondent filed a suit asserting her title as owner of the copyright through inheritance. The court examined whether the oral agreement constituted a valid transfer of copyright.
Electronic Machine Tools Limited v.Power Engineers
Electronic Machine Tools Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its registered patents (Nos. 188585 and 190675). The trial court rejected the plaint, finding no cause of action against the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaint did disclose a triable issue.
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.