Punjab-Haryana High Court
23 cases · page 1 of 1
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja And Another v.Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a revision petition concerning a composite trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that while joinder of causes of action is permissible under CPC, the delay in trial due to combining both claims necessitated modification. Consequently, the court granted the defendant time to seek rectification of the plaintiff's registered mark, stayed the infringement claim for three months, and directed that the passing off claim be tried as a separate suit.
Dark Brown Through Proprietor v.State Of Haryana And Others
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a petition filed by Dark Brown Through Proprietor alleging trademark infringement by Respondent No. 6, noting that local police authorities had failed to act on the petitioner's complaint. While not delving into the merits of the infringement claim itself, the court issued a directive compelling Respondents No. 2 and 3 (police/authorities) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within two months. This order serves as an administrative nudge to ensure timely action against alleged IP violations.
M/S Thind Motion Films Private Limited v.Ishdeep Randhawa and others
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction passed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, restraining defendants from releasing the film 'Jodi Teri Meri.' The High Court observed that the suit was fundamentally flawed due to jurisdictional error, as claims based on the Copyright Act should have been filed in the District Court. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227.
M/s Vets Farma Ltd. v.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the review application filed by M/s Vets Farma Ltd. The court clarified that while statutory provisions may restrict registration until a competent court determines rights, this does not bar the Civil Court from admitting assignment deeds into evidence to examine their validity and enforceability during litigation. The judgment underscores the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts in resolving complex trademark disputes involving assignments.
M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd & Ors v.Swadesh Raiment Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd, upholding the trial court's decision regarding the usage of the trademark 'OSWAL'. The dispute centered on whether the appellants had the right to continue using the mark after a specific period. The court found that the defendant's claim based on the deed of assignment (valid for 15 years) was valid and the memorandum of understanding did not override this limitation, thus favoring the respondent.
Shyam Sunder v.Pushpa Devi And Ors.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a complex dispute over the usage rights of the registered trademark 'Shehnai' for edible oils. The appeal, filed by Shyam Sunder (the defendant), challenged the lower court's decision which granted co-usage rights to the plaintiffs (Pushpa Devi and Ors.). After examining evidence regarding prior use, partnership history, and consumer perception, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It ultimately found that both parties had established usage rights, thereby upholding the principle of shared or concurrent trademark use in this specific context.
Surbhi Tangri v.Nishant Goel
The Punjab-Haryana High Court allowed Surbhi Tangri's appeal, setting aside a lower court order that had dismissed her application for an injunction. The court found that the defendant's use of 'DECORALLEY' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered trademark, 'The Décor Alley'. Despite arguments regarding different mark types (word vs. device) and business models, the High Court emphasized the common law principle of passing off, ruling that a common man would be deceived by the similarity.
Vikas Jain And Anr. v.State Drugs Controller Haryana & Ors.
This petition challenged an order issued by the State Drugs Controller, Haryana, which directed the petitioners to cease using two cosmetic brand names, 'COSMO SILKY' and 'COSMO'. The controller had acted based on the lack of ownership proof in a family dispute pending before the Delhi High Court. The Punjab-Haryana High Court set aside this order, ruling that the regulatory authority overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing a blanket ban while complex trademark disputes were still sub judice.
M/s Bharat Iron Foundry And Ors v.M/s Sadhu Singh & Sons Iron & Steel Rolling Mills
The Punjab-Haryana High Court overturned an interlocutory injunction that had restricted the defendants from manufacturing and marketing their products without 'collaboration' with the plaintiffs. The court found that the restrictive interpretation of the deed of assignment was unsustainable, especially given the parties' conduct over two decades where the mark was used independently. Consequently, the application for interim relief was rejected, allowing the appellants to continue their operations.
M/s Kay Cee Exports v.Nentex Woollens
The petitioner filed a civil revision challenging an order that dismissed the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint. The defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the suit was barred under the Copyright Act, Design Act, and Patents Act. The High Court found no relief under these Acts was explicitly claimed in the plaint, thus upholding the lower court's orders.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh v.M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Assessing Officer's order disallowing royalty payments made by M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions P. Ltd. to Tarun Mohan for using the brand name 'phoneytunes.com'. The court held that since Tarun Mohan merely licensed the trademark, and the company was a separate legal entity, the payment of royalty was permissible as business expenditure.
M/s Raj Son Agro Engineers Regd v.M/s Kalsi Metal Works Private Limited
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order that allowed a trademark infringement suit to proceed. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could sue in its own jurisdiction based on registered trademark rights, or if the admission that certain goods were unregistered would limit the case to 'passing off.' The court ruled that even if treated as a passing off action for unregistered marks, the plaint contained sufficient averments regarding clandestine sales within the court's territorial jurisdiction to sustain the suit.
M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Vardhaman Crop Nutrients Pvt. Ltd, which sought to overturn an order directing it to change its company name. The court upheld the decision that the petitioner could not use 'Vardhaman' as part of its name because Respondent No. 4 held a registered trademark for the word. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and acquiescence during a marketing agreement, the High Court concluded that using the similar name amounted to an attempt to usurp the established business of the trademark holder.
Vinod Verma v.State Of Punjab And Ors
The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding alleged patent infringement. The court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such claims, as the matter required detailed evidence and consideration of facts governed by the Patent Act.
M/s Rana Sugars Limited v.State Of Punjab And Others
The petitioner, M/s Rana Sugars Limited, challenged a notification issued by the State of Punjab that amended distillery rules to mandate 'Superior-Grade quality and round in shape' for bottles. The petitioner argued that its innovative use of non-round shapes (kidney and rectangular) was commercially successful and protected by design registration. The court quashed the restriction on bottle shape, holding that the state lacked jurisdiction to specify this detail.
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. v.State of Punjab and Others
M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. filed a petition seeking action against respondents for alleged trademark infringement, claiming exclusive use of the 'Surya' mark. The petitioner argued that prima facie evidence existed for violation of the Trademark Act. However, the State submitted that since respondent no. 4 had initiated civil litigation regarding the same trademark dispute, criminal proceedings were not pursued. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition, noting that the petitioner could pursue alternative remedies.
M/s Skol Breweries Limited v.State Of Haryana And Others
The Punjab-Haryana High Court ruled in favor of M/s Skol Breweries Limited, setting aside an excise department order that denied fee exemptions. The court held that since the petitioner had filed an application for trademark registration based on a valid assignment deed as early as May 27, 2005, the effective date of ownership was retroactive. Consequently, the State's demand for franchise and registration fees from that period was deemed incorrect, necessitating the matter be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Bhupinder Jain
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent alleging infringement of registered trademarks ("Pari") and copyright. The lower court rejected the plaint on the ground that the courts in Amritsar lacked territorial jurisdiction. The High Court set aside this order, holding that under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the courts where the plaintiff carries on business have jurisdiction.
S. Ram Kumar v.Micromax Informatics Limited
S. Ram Kumar (appellant/patent holder) challenged a District Judge's order which granted an interim injunction restraining him from preventing or hindering the import and sale of dual SIM card phones, infringing his patent. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that given the IPAB was already involved in the matter, the balance of convenience favored the respondent (Micromax Informatics Limited).
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and AMR Technology, Inc. v.Barr Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and AMR Technology, Inc. filed a petition seeking permission from the Punjab-Haryana High Court to execute a letter of request issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under the Hague Convention. The request sought evidence and documents related to patent infringement concerning Aventis's ALLEGRA® drug products manufactured using intermediates supplied by Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd.
Madura Coats Limited And Ors. v.Chetan Dev
The suit was filed by Chetan Dev against Madura Coats Limited seeking a declaration that the alleged infringement threats were unjustifiable and an injunction to stop them. The trial court decreed the suit, finding no infringement. On appeal, the High Court clarified that since damages were not claimed, the scope of the suit was limited only to whether the threats were justifiable. It found the threats unjustified.
N.V. Philliphs, Eindhoven, Holland And ... v.Banga Watch Company
This Punjab-Haryana High Court judgment addressed a suit for passing off concerning the 'Philips' trademark. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite their formal registration not covering watches and clocks, they had established immense goodwill and reputation in India through their extensive marketing of electrical goods. The court affirmed that the defendants dishonestly adopted the mark to mislead consumers into believing their watches were associated with the plaintiff's brand, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Tapton Tea Company v.The Liptons Ltd.
The Tapton Tea Company appealed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks at Bombay's refusal to register the trade mark 'Tapton Tea', which was opposed by Lipton Limited. The court examined whether the Punjab-Haryana High Court had jurisdiction to hear this appeal, given that the firm was located in Amritsar.
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.