Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
25 cases · page 1 of 1
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim
The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Sware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.
Rajani Products v.Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown; Karishma Trading Corporation
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal, quashing a lower court order that had rejected an interim injunction application. The petitioner, Rajani Products, holds a registered trademark for 'Swastik' used in edible oils. The court found prima facie evidence that the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('Shree Parwati Swastik'), amounting to infringement. Citing prior identical rulings in related cases, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing trademark until the main suit is decided.
M/s Martindal Research Laboratories v.M/s Shalina Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a civil appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute between Martindal Research Laboratories and Shalina Laboratories. The appellant sought to overturn an order that denied temporary injunction, citing lack of evidence regarding prior use of their mark 'VITAPLEX'. Recognizing the long pendency of the original suit (since 2008), the Court disposed of the appeal without interfering with the lower court's finding on interim relief. Instead, it directed the trial court to expedite the final decision on the merits of the case within a strict timeframe.
Harish Khatri S/o Late Shree Radheyshyam Khatri v.M/s Khatri Pannalal Premraj Bidi Manufacturer, Firm City Sawai Madhopur
The Rajasthan High Court modified a previous temporary injunction that had halted business operations by restricting the use of the registered trademark 'Macchis Brand Bidi'. Recognizing that both parties are partners in the firm, the court stayed the restriction on using the trademark until the underlying partnership dispute is resolved. This decision allows the defendants to continue their trade while ensuring the main suit proceeds expeditiously.
M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd. v.M/S S M Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Baid Rotomoulders Pvt Ltd against a prior order that denied a temporary injunction. The plaintiff sought to stop the defendant from using the trade name 'POLYGON', claiming it infringed upon their registered trademark 'POLYCON'. However, the court found no prima facie case for infringement or passing off, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding market goodwill or proof of prior use. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the court clarified this ruling does not prejudice the final trial on merits.
Mr. Peter Fanning, Chief Executive, The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.M/s Institute Of Charted Tax Advisers Of India Limited
The Rajasthan High Court addressed two interconnected writ petitions concerning a trademark dispute over 'Chartered Tax Adviser (CTA)'. The core issue was whether the plaintiff's attempt to invalidate the registered trademark, via an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, should be decided on its merits. The court set aside previous technical orders that dismissed the application and directed the Commercial Court to frame a specific issue regarding the pending cancellation proceedings (Section 57) before the High Court of Gujarat, ensuring the Section 124 application is now heard afresh on its substantive grounds.
Gopal Krishan S/O. Sh. Mangat Rai v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)
This writ petition was filed by Gopal Krishan seeking a direction from the High Court to expedite the registration of his trademark 'PANTHER' in Class 5. The petitioner highlighted that the application had been pending for an extended period since 2015. The court issued notices to the respondents, setting a timeline of six weeks for the matter to be returned, thereby moving the case forward.
Suresh Mishra Trading As Sanskriti Yuva Sansthan Society v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Government Of India
Suresh Mishra filed a writ petition seeking an expedited disposal of his pending trademark application, 'Bharat Gaurav,' which had been awaiting consideration since October 2006. The Rajasthan High Court addressed the petitioner's limited prayer by issuing a directive to the Registrar of Trademarks. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the long-pending application within a period of four months from the date of receiving the order, thereby providing relief against administrative delay.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Tomar Enterprises and others for alleged infringement of his air cooler designs. The plaintiffs claimed their unique, registered designs were being copied by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, supported by evidence showing copies and prior rejection of cancellation applications. Consequently, the temporary injunction application was allowed, restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing design.
M/S. Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks, Govt. Of India
Paam Biotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking an expeditious disposal of its long-pending trademark registration application for 'DELPAR.' The Rajasthan High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application no. 2192781 as quickly as possible, specifically within three months from receiving the court order. This ruling provides a crucial timeline for the petitioner's intellectual property rights.
B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing v.Guthy-Renker Llc
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing seeking an expeditious decision on its trademark registration application for 'AYU-HINA'. The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2003, had exceeded the statutory period of 18 months for disposal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to resolve the pending registration within a strict timeframe of three months.
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited v.Union Of India, Registrar Of Trade Mark Ministry Of Commerce And Industries
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention against the Union of India regarding the delayed registration of its trademark, 'Mr. Money.' The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2014, had exceeded the statutory period for decision under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Rajasthan High Court acknowledged this delay and issued a directive compelling the respondent to expeditiously decide the trademark registration application within three months.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
The plaintiffs initiated a suit for infringement and perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, concerning their registered air cooler design. The defendants subsequently filed an application challenging the suit's validity before the High Court. This court addressed the objections raised by the defendants regarding jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, and cause of action. Ultimately, the court dismissed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, affirming the maintainability of the original infringement suit.
Ms. Mallika Singh Daughter Of Mr. Narendra Singh and Mr. Parth Pareek Son Of Mr. Prem Prakash Pareek v.Union Of India, State Of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan
Petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the respondents to ascertain if any vaccine is covered by patents, issue compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, share manufacturing trade secrets, and increase vaccine production capacity. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the issues involved relate to policy decisions to be taken by the respondents.
Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited v.AIA Engineering Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a second stay on civil suit proceedings before the Commercial Court, arguing that since they had challenged the patent's validity (IN.248740) under Section 64 of the Patents Act, the commercial court proceedings should be stayed to prevent conflicting orders. The respondent argued against this, citing legal precedents that restrict simultaneous remedies and emphasizing the petitioner's delay in challenging the patent.
Flexituff International Ltd v.M/S Tirupati Sprinklers
The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging infringement of its registered dripper design. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the design developed since 2010. The defendant countered that the design was generic, not novel, and had been obtained from a third party (Mr. Uri Alkalay) prior to registration. The court dismissed both injunction applications.
Rajendra Singh Shekawat v.M/S Shrinath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Rajendra Singh Shekawat against an order that denied a temporary injunction. The plaintiff, holding registered trademarks MAHARAJA MAHANSAR and MAHARANI MAHANSAR, alleged infringement by the defendant's use of 'Mahansar D.J. Special.' While the court acknowledged the similarity in the word 'MAHANSAR,' it held that determining whether this commonality constitutes deceptive similarity or infringement is a complex question of fact requiring evidence from a regular trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the defendant was directed to provide production and sales accounts to facilitate potential restitution if the plaintiff succeeds later.
Arihant Evergreen Agro Plast And Textiles Private Limited v.EPC Industries Limited
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed in 2004 alleging patent infringement. The plaintiff-respondent sought to take product samples on record via Order VII Rule 14 CPC, despite a significant delay of over 11 years. The appellants-defendants challenged this order, arguing the delay was unexplained and irrelevant to determining patent infringement.
M/S Shree Seco Pvt Ltd v.Union of India And Anr
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Shree Seco Pvt Ltd seeking mandamus for the renewal of its Trade Mark Registration No. 721240. The court did not grant the renewal directly but issued a specific direction to the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This order mandates that the Registrar must decide on the pending renewal application within three months, providing a clear timeline and procedural path for the petitioner.
Tez Tobacco Company & Anr. v.M/s Tejram Dharampal
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a stay application concerning trademark infringement between Tez Tobacco Company and M/s Tejram Dharampal. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the appellant's label, featuring 'Ganesh Chhap Zarda,' was deceptively similar to the respondent's registered mark, thus maintaining the injunction against its use. However, the court simultaneously lifted a restriction placed on the appellants regarding the use of their firm name, 'Tej,' allowing them to continue operating under that name pending the appeal.
M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited v.Piyush Shah
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited, setting aside a lower court's decision that dismissed its application under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that since Havmor was a registered proprietor and had commenced action with due diligence by issuing a statutory notice, the suit filed by the respondent could not be deemed a 'groundless threat.' This judgment reinforces the importance of timely legal action by trademark owners to protect their established rights against potential infringement.
B.I.C. Sales Corporation And Anr. v.Tinwari Automobiles And Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court admitted appeals challenging a temporary injunction granted in an action under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Despite initial arguments regarding irreparable injury, the court ultimately decided that the balance of equities favored staying the existing injunction during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants were mandated to provide detailed accounts of their manufacturing and selling activities to ensure transparency while the main suit proceeds.
Ramesh Kumar v.Santosh Devi And Ors.
This appeal addressed a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Pooja Udyog' for manufacturing registers and slip pads. The plaintiff, who was a former partner in the firm, sought an injunction against defendants using the similar mark 'Shree Pooja Udyog'. However, the court found that since the original business had been closed for a long period and the plaintiff showed no intent to resume operations, he could not claim monopoly over the trade name. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the trial court's injunction decree was set aside.
Perry Bottling Company v.S.S. Soda & Soft Drinks Company And Ors.
The plaintiff, Perry Bottling Company, filed a suit for injunction alleging that the respondents were deceiving customers by using a copy of their registered trademark on 'Fruit Beer'. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, finding dissimilarity and arguing that 'Fruit Beer' was not exclusively owned. The High Court overturned this decision, holding that phonetic similarity existed and granting an interim injunction.
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.