Plaintiff Favorable
422 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
422 cases | Page 11 of 15
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori
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 Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori' constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the defendant willfully adopted a phonetically and deceptively similar name to capitalize on the plaintiff's established goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Dart Industries Inc. v.K.K.Plastics
Dart Industries Inc. filed a civil suit against K.K.Plastics and others, alleging infringement of its registered bottle and cap designs (Registration Nos. 221424 and 221425) and passing off related to its 'Aquasafe' brand. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the defendants for manufacturing or selling imitative products. Given that the defendants failed to appear and contest the suit, the Madras High Court passed a summary judgment in favor of Dart Industries Inc., confirming the infringement claims.
Celgene 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Kyorin Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its tablet patent application (No.5360/CHENP/2010), which cited lack of inventive step and non-patentability. The court found that since a process patent for manufacturing the tablet had already been granted, the respondent was estopped from rejecting the product patent on grounds of lacking inventive steps. However, the matter regarding Section 3(e) non-patentability was remitted for fresh consideration.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Naseer Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Naseer Apollo Pharmacy. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Apollo Pharmacy' was deceptive and infringed upon Apollo's registered trademarks across multiple classes, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, ordered the surrender of all infringing materials, and directed the defendant to render accounts of profits.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., finding that the defendant, Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('Apollo', 'Apollo Pharmacy') and committed passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks or services. Furthermore, the plaintiff was awarded costs and directed the defendant to surrender all infringing materials and render accounts of profits.
M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendant, Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('ULTRA') and committed passing off. The court held that since both parties operate in the same market (tiles) and target similar consumers, the use of a deceptively similar mark was unacceptable. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, orders for destruction of infringing materials, and directions for accounting of profits.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.R.Shankar (Thalappakattu Briyani & Fast Food)
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against R.Shankar for passing off. Despite the defendant submitting an affidavit stating they had closed their business, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunctive relief under summary judgment proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade names and trading styles in the food service industry.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd. The suit, which alleged passing off based on similar trade names, was decreed with a permanent injunction. Although the plaintiff initially sought damages and surrender of goods, they subsequently withdrew those specific prayers after the defendant provided an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food and Indian Chinese Thandoori. The suit, which was initially filed for passing off, resulted in a summary judgment decreeing the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. This decision protects the established goodwill of the plaintiff's 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel' brand against deceptive use by the defendant.
M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited v.M/s.Balarama'S Incense Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of the mark 'WOOD' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered word mark 'WOODS'. The court affirmed that since both marks were used for identical goods (incense sticks) within the same trade channel, deception was inevitable. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions, ordering the surrender of infringing stock, and directing the defendant to render accounts.
Versalis Spa v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
Versalis Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN7854/CHENP/2011) by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute was whether the process for hydrolyzing lignocellulosic biomass was inventive, given that the claims were challenged as lacking inventiveness and technical advancement over cited prior arts.
M/s.Agsar Match Industries v.M/S.Edison Paints By Its
The Madras High Court confirmed a lower court's finding that M/S.Edison Paints was engaging in passing off by using a deceptively similar mark (Double Stag) for red oxide and colour oxide. The court emphasized that even if the products were technically different or had minor packaging variations, the similarity of the core trademark image—the stag—would lead the target audience (civil contractors/masons) to believe both products originated from the same company or sister concerns. This ruling strongly protects established goodwill against confusing imitation.
Beckman Coulter Biomedical, LLC v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents & Designs which returned its subject patent application (PCT/US2011/035420) on the grounds that the mandatory 31-month deadline for nationalization had expired. The petitioner argued that technical errors led to the delay and sought judicial intervention.
A. Arivazhagan / P.C.N. Raghupathy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Union of India & Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed two writ petitions concerning the abandonment of various trademark applications. The core issue was the denial of a proper opportunity for petitioners to be heard before the Trade Mark Registry. Recognizing that due process had been violated, the court directed the respondents to provide an immediate personal hearing at the appropriate office and pass orders expeditiously in line with the Trademarks Act, 2002.
M/s. Eris Life Science Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Micro Labs Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of staying a trademark infringement suit when a rectification application concerning the registered mark is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The court clarified that the right to file for trademark rectification is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed by requiring prior leave or prima facie satisfaction from the civil court. Given the similarity between the marks and the pendency of the IPAB proceedings, the suit was stayed.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.P.Ramu Trading as Skylane Pharmaceuticals
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Cadila Healthcare Limited, a major pharmaceutical player, finding that the defendant's use of the trademark PANTOSKY constituted infringement against Cadila's registered mark PANTODAC. The court held that PANTOSKY was deceptively similar to PANTODAC, leading to a decree for permanent injunction and damages. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known pharmaceutical trademarks in the Indian market.
Apex Laboratories Limited v.India Pharmaceuticals
Apex Laboratories Limited filed suit against India Pharmaceuticals alleging infringement and passing off concerning its 'ZINCOVIT' product label. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's 'BICAL' label was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered artistic work. The court found that the labels were absolutely identical, applying the time-honored test for comparison. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of Apex Laboratories Limited, granting permanent injunction and damages.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited challenged an order regarding territorial jurisdiction in its trademark infringement suit against Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited. The core dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could file the suit in Chennai, given that the defendant claimed no sales or office presence there. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant's actions and disclosures indicated a sufficient connection to the local jurisdiction.
Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Merus N.V appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 467/CHENP/2011 by the Assistant Controller, which had been based on non-patentability grounds (Section 3(i) and 3(j)). The appellant argued that the amendments were permissible as they merely refined the claim to nucleic acid molecules while retaining the core invention. The High Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the scope of amendments.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed suit against SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The court granted permanent injunctions in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the defendant was not manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' from November 2015 onwards.
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.