Defendant Favorable
270 defendant favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
270 cases | Page 5 of 9
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.
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.
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, logo, and trademark by M's Dhanalakshmi Bottles Supplies. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting for sales made using the protected bottle designs. However, during the proceedings, it was reported that the sole defendant had passed away. Given that the cause of action was in persona (personal to the individual), the court dismissed the suit.
M/s.Fast Products v.G.G.Aqua Industries
M/s.Fast Products filed a suit against G.G.Aqua Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AQUA FAST' and copyright violation concerning the associated trade dress and artistic label design. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, and damages. However, on the date of judgment (26.08.2021), the plaintiff failed to appear before the court despite previous proceedings, leading the High Court to dismiss the suit for default.
Yennes Infotech (P) Ltd. v.The Managing Director, eNoah Solution Pvt. Ltd.
Yennes Infotech appealed an order rejecting its plaint, which sought permanent injunctions and damages for alleged copyright infringement related to customized Tally Software. The court upheld the rejection, finding that the first defendant acted as an authorized agent and the second defendant was a licensee with a valid right to use the software.
ICEBERG WALNUT FOODS (I) Pvt Ltd. v.Iceberg Icecreams Regus, Tower D, Rmz Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bangalore – 560016
This case involved a civil suit filed by Iceberg Walnut Foods Pvt Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ICEBERG'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the defendant, claiming unauthorized use of their registered mark and artistic work. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the actual registered proprietor of the relevant trademark ('ICEBERG ICECREAM') was M/s. Anjani Diary Foods Private Limited, not the named sole defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit for proceeding against a wrong person.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Foods Private Limited
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited filed a Transfer Application seeking to move its trademark infringement suit from the Principal District Court, Erode, to the specialized Commercial Court. The core dispute revolved around whether the nature of the intellectual property right—trademark infringement—automatically classified the case as commercial, irrespective of its low valuation (Rs. 12,000/-). The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the transfer application, holding that while IP disputes are defined as commercial under Section 2(xvii), a suit must still meet the 'Specified Value' criteria to fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, thereby validating its original filing in the District Court.
Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v.Beton Tile Company, Iqbal, Nazmuddin, Mr. Huzaiffa Zoeb, Mrs. Bani Mufaddal, Mr. Kuzema Zainuddin, Indian Ceramic Company, Ali Akbar
The plaintiff, Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against a trial court judgment after losing a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. The suit alleged that the defendants were passing off their imitation tiles under the name 'Diana', confusing the public regarding the plaintiff's unique tile 'MONALISA'.
R.Ravindran v.M.Anandan
R.Ravindran appealed against an order concerning his rights as assignee of the copyright in a story related to the film 'Chakra'. The court dismissed both appeals, noting that while the primary finding regarding his arbitration application was accepted, the dismissal did not preclude him from asserting other legal causes of action.
Sanjay Lalwani v.M/s.Jyostar Enterprises
Sanjay Lalwani filed an Original Application seeking an interim injunction against M/s. Jyostar Enterprises and others to prevent the alienation and telecasting of copyright and satellite rights for the film “PSV GARDA VEGA”. The applicant claimed that a subsequent assignment of these rights was in contravention of his original Deed of Assignment. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the application, holding that disputes concerning copyrights are generally considered non-arbitrable under established Supreme Court precedents.
Sun Mobility Private Limited v.Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu
The appeal challenged an order that appointed a Scientific Advisor to adjudicate a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff claimed his patents covered specific EV battery charging systems, while defendants were accused of infringing with 'quick interchange station' technology. The High Court confirmed the single judge's order appointing the Scientific Advisor and dismissed the appeal.
M/s.ADD PRINT [INDIA] ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v.M/S.LAMBA MARKETING SYSTEMS AND M/S.LAMBA STAMPS AND SIGNS
This civil suit was filed alleging infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks ('SUN STAMPER') and designs (Box type pre inked rubber Stamp, Reg. No. 207586) by the defendants using 'STAMP ONE'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages against the alleged infringers. However, despite multiple opportunities to depose its witness over a period of nearly twelve years, the plaintiff failed to appear in court.
M/s.Taranga Technologies v.M/s.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The appeal was filed against an order dismissing an application seeking to revoke leave granted in a suit for infringement of registered design and passing off. The core dispute revolved around whether the appellant's involvement in a national tender, which included supply within Chennai jurisdiction, provided sufficient grounds for the court to exercise territorial jurisdiction.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Captain Tractors Private Limited
Ashok Leyland Limited filed a suit alleging that Captain Tractors Private Limited was using the mark 'CAPTAIN' to pass off its goods. The dispute centered on whether the use of the mark constituted passing off, given that Ashok Leyland manufactures heavy vehicles while the respondent holds a registration for mini tractors.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v.Tanmed Pharma India Private Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sued Tanmed Pharma for infringing its patents related to the medicinal product Linagliptin. The court conducted an inspection and found that the defendant had neither manufactured nor marketed the drug, having surrendered its manufacturing license.
Deepa Jayakumar v.A.L. Vijay
Deepa Jayakumar filed an appeal seeking an interim injunction to prevent respondents (film producers) from making, releasing, or promoting films/web series about the life of Dr. J. Jayalalitha without her consent, citing concerns over privacy and reputation. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
Hindustan Unilever Limited appealed an order that allowed Sree Annapoorna Foods to amend its plaint to include a claim for rendition of accounts. The appellant argued that this amendment changed the nature of the suit and was contrary to Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the single judge's finding that the amendment did not fundamentally alter the character of the original infringement and passing off suit.
Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. v.M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trade mark infringement suit filed by Relish Snacks Pvt Ltd. against M/S.Virchow Biotech Pvt. The court held that since the plaintiff had not obtained a registered trademark, but only pending applications, the claim for infringement was premature and lacked cause of action. Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued that neither party was the registered proprietor of their respective marks, leading to the suit's dismissal.
N.Sathish Proprietor Om Tech Plastics v.Mr.C.Murali Kannan
N.Sathish filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr.C.Murali Kannan and others, initially alleging passing off related to plastic taps under the mark 'SIVA'. However, the judgment ultimately focused on copyright infringement claims regarding compilations. The court found that the plaintiff himself had copied material from earlier books, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
K.Dalpat Singh v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by K.Dalpat Singh challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on whether opposition proceedings against the trademark 'Gold Mehal' had been validly abandoned. The court found no infirmity in the IPAB's decision, which set aside the initial finding of abandonment and remanded the matter for a full hearing on its merits. This ruling emphasizes procedural correctness in trade mark oppositions.
Palson Enterprises v.Kasi Group Of Companies
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Palson Enterprises, upholding the Single Judge's decision to vacate the interim injunction. The court found that Palson had slept over the matter for eight months despite having knowledge of Kasi Group's use of the 'Kasi' name in their theatre business. While acknowledging the appellant's rights under the Trade Marks Act, the court held that issues of prior usage and comparative loss must be determined during a full trial, not at the interim stage.
Flsmidth Private Limited v.Mr.S.Balaj Das
Flsmidth Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts regarding alleged copyright infringement in engineering drawings and passing off related to its 'O-SEPARATOR' product. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff had adequately established territorial jurisdiction for the Commercial Division of the Madras High Court against foreign respondents. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff failed to provide specific pleadings demonstrating how the defendants were amenable to the court's jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
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.
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.
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.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.
M/s.Geege Paints v.M/s.Agsar Match Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s.Geege Paints challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Geege Paints had sought to uphold the validity of its trademark 'STAG' against rectification initiated by M/s.Agsar Match Industries. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court despite being duly served with notice, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.
This appeal involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a registered design for a mixer grinder base unit. The appellant, M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., challenged an order that had granted an injunction against them based on copyright infringement. The court examined both designs side-by-side and found no substantial similarities, noting distinct differences in shape and configuration between the two tripod bases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous interim orders.
M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Registrar, Trademarks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg challenging the Registrar's decision to treat its trademark applications as abandoned. The court held that since the impugned orders were passed by the Trademark Registrar, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was not a Writ Petition under Article 226, but rather an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
M/s.Lyca Productions v.J.Manimaran
M/s. Lyca Productions filed an appeal seeking an injunction against J. Manimaran (and others) for allegedly infringing on their film title 'KARU', which they claimed to have registered with a Film Producers Guild in 2011. The core dispute revolved around whether this guild registration conferred exclusive rights over the title, especially when the opposing party had also invested heavily and was readying its release. The Madras High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, ruling that such guild registration does not grant exclusive use of the title without statutory backing.
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.