Plaintiff Favorable
422 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
422 cases | Page 10 of 15
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.
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.
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.
T.S.J.Media Private Limited v.Boston Analytics Private Limited
T.S.J.Media Private Limited filed a suit alleging that Boston Analytics Private Limited illegally harvested substantial portions of information from its proprietary database, which tracks investments made by Private Equity and Venture Capitalists in India. The plaintiff claimed this infringement occurred after the defendant gained access under false pretenses. The court found that the defendant's act of publishing the data without permission constituted a clear violation of copyright.
A.Mani v.S.Suresh Trading as Flash Beauty Saloon
A.Mani appealed a judgment and decree that had been passed against him regarding the use of the mark 'FLASH'. The appeal challenged the trial court's decision, which was based on the alleged violation of an interim order by the appellant (defendant in the suit). The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, stating that the trial court failed to conduct proper adjudication on merits.
M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED v.ROHIT MARKETING Incense & Allied Products
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the registered trademark owner, M/s.N.RANGA RAO & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED, against Rohit Marketing. The court granted permanent injunctions, preventing the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'Tri Cycle 3-in-1' for incense sticks and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff withdrew claims for accounting and destruction of stock, the core infringement and passing off allegations were upheld.
M/s.THALAPPAKATTI NAIDU ANANDHA VILAS BIRIYANI HOTEL v.M/s.THALAPPAKATTU BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel, granting a permanent injunction against M/s.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food for trademark infringement and passing off. Although the defendant later changed its name to 'AL RAHMAN BIRIYANI & FAST FOOD,' the court found that the initial use of the offending mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to distinctive trade names in the competitive food service industry.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Honda Motor Co. appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 380/CHE/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs on grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the original order was flawed due to a deprivation of fair opportunity regarding sufficiency of disclosure, and lacked proper justification for concluding lack of inventive step.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Food Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions, restoring an interim trademark injunction previously vacated by the lower court. The dispute centered on whether the petitioner had complied with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC after receiving the initial injunction. The High Court found that the delay in filing the compliance affidavit was excusable due to logistical constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby interfering with and setting aside the order that vacated the injunction.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed a suit against Safaana Cosmetics & Perfumes alleging copyright infringement and passing off related to their bathing soap packaging. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used an identical colour scheme, trade dress, and deceptively similar artistic work on its product 'ISIE', mimicking the successful brand 'IVA'. After examining the evidence, the Madras High Court found that the defendant had encroached upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Ashique Exports, granting permanent injunctions and directing the destruction of infringing stock.
M/s.Kumbhat Holographics v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
The appellants challenged the tender terms set by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd for producing polyester based hologram excise labels. They argued that the technical specifications favored a specific patented technology, leading to limited participation and vitiating the public tendering process. The High Court found merit in this challenge, quashing the tender but allowing Uflex (the awarded vendor) to continue work temporarily.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others regarding alleged patent infringement (Patent No.282429). The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the suit fell within the court's territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the state. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the revocation of leave to sue was incorrect due to jurisdictional concerns.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others for alleged infringement of Patent No. 282429. The core issue revolved around whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the local limits. The Madras High Court allowed the appeals, restoring the suit to the Commercial Division.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which rejected its Patent Application. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked reasoning, failed to consider foreign patent grants for the same invention, and did not properly analyze the prior art cited against the claimed invention. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning.
M/s.Diabliss Consumers Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd.
Diabliss Consumers Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Dia Health Foods Pvt. Ltd. alleging copyright infringement regarding the artistic design used on its 'Diabliss Diabetic Friendly Sugar' pouches. The plaintiff demonstrated prior creation and use of the unique artistic design since 2015, which was subsequently copied by the defendant for their product, Diabeat. The Madras High Court found that the background, color, and overall get-up of the defendant's pouch were identically similar to the plaintiff's protected design.
M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v.Sangeetha Food Corner
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP against Sangeetha Food Corner for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SANGEETHA FOOD CORNER' was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark 'SANGEETHA'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse of the mark.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt.Ltd. v.Crazy Concepts & Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Bluechip Amusements, granting a perpetual injunction against Crazy Concepts & Mazes. The dispute centered on the use of the terms 'HORROR HOUSE' and 'HOUSE OF HORRORS' in the amusement industry. Despite the defendant claiming prior rights and trademark registration, the court found that the plaintiff had established continuous business operations under these names since 2008. Consequently, the court held that the defendant's caution notice was unjustified and groundless, protecting the plaintiff's business interests.
K.P.Selvah @ Panner Selvam v.Atlee
K.P.Selvah filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Atlee and M/s. AGS Entertainment Pvt., Ltd., claiming copyright infringement over his story 'Kalki', which was registered with the South Indian Film Writers' Association. After facing procedural hurdles in the trial court, Selvah sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Madras High Court intervened via revision petition, holding that the trial court erred by allowing withdrawal but denying the crucial liberty to institute a new suit on the same subject matter.
Trustees, Jesus Redeems Ministries v.The Bible Society of India
The plaintiff Trust printed the Holy Bible in Tamil language. The defendant sent a Cease and Desist notice alleging copyright infringement. The plaintiff argued that no existing copyright subsists in the joint authorship work (Bower Version) after the statutory period, and the threat was groundless. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Mr.Mohammed Niyamathullah v.Mr.Mohammed Hidayathulla
This civil suit was filed by Mr. Mohammed Niyamathullah seeking a permanent injunction against defendants for infringing his copyright in the Tamil feature film, “Pongadee Neengalaum Unga Kadhalum.” The core of the dispute revolved around an Assignment Deed executed on 09.10.2013, where the plaintiff provided financial assistance to the defendant (who was venturing into film production) and subsequently acquired the entire copyright under default clauses. Despite the defendants' claims of forgery and lack of funds, the court found that the assignment deed was validly established through evidence, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd v.Narasu's Sarathy Industries
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd against a lower court order. The company successfully argued that it is the exclusive owner of the 'Narasu's' trade mark, dating back to 1926. Given the risk of irreparable injury and loss of goodwill due to the respondents granting licenses to third parties, the Court issued an interim injunction. This order mandates that the respondents cease all licensing or assignment activities related to the trademark until the final disposal of the civil suits.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Somasundaram Ramkumar
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Flipkart Internet Private Limited against Somasundaram Ramkumar for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'FlippingKart' with mala fide intent to deceive consumers and spoil Flipkart's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions against the use of the infringing mark and declaring 'FLIPKART' a well-known trademark.
Mr.T.Chitty Babu v.M/S.Sakthivel Builders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Mr. T. Chitty Babu and M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendants' use of the 'SB' logo constituted infringement and passing off against their registered 'AH' trademark. The court held that the similarity in color scheme and stylized script created a likelihood of confusion among the public, leading to the decree of permanent injunctions and an award of damages.
Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. v.Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories Private Ltd., declaring them the exclusive proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT against Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court found that despite a past manufacturing agreement, which was subsequently terminated, the defendant had no right to claim ownership or make false propaganda about the mark. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from making such claims and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.HOTEL NAMMA AACHI
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic (P) Limited v.Veecare Hospitals and others
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic, finding that the defendants infringed upon its registered trademark 'VCare'. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'Vee Care' was phonetically and alphabetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse and ordering the defendants to pay costs.
M/s.Vaibhav Foods v.Narendra Kumar Mali / M/s.FOOD INDIA
M/s. Vaibhav Foods filed a suit against Narendra Kumar Mali and M/s. FOOD INDIA alleging infringement and passing off related to their unique chocolate packaging design. The Plaintiff demonstrated that they had successfully registered two designs (Nos. 274667 and 274668) for the specific arrangement and color combination of chocolates. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling chocolates using a similar and identical design, leading to confusion in the market.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani' constituted passing off and trademark infringement. The court recognized the plaintiff's long-standing reputation and exclusive use of the name since 1957. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, which had acquired distinctiveness through long-standing usage since 1984. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
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.