Defendant Favorable
13 defendant favorable decisions from Punjab-Haryana High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
13 cases | Page 1 of 1
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.
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 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 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.
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).
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.
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.