Supreme Court of India
63 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29Gloster Limited (SRA) v.Gloster Cables Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed a complex dispute regarding the ownership and status of the trademark 'Gloster' within the context of insolvency proceedings (IBC). The core issue was whether the trademark, which had been assigned to Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), remained an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The Court ultimately set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s finding that the trademark belonged to the Corporate Debtor, but clarified that this ruling did not definitively resolve the underlying title dispute between the parties. This judgment highlights the limitations of insolvency forums in adjudicating complex intellectual property ownership claims.
Novenco Building And Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The appellant (Novenco) filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents and designs by the respondent (Xero Energy). The High Court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, citing a delay between discovery and filing. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that continuous infringement and public interest in preventing market confusion establish urgency, regardless of the time lag.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited
Atomberg Technologies filed a suit in Bombay against Eureka Forbes regarding groundless threats of patent infringement. Eureka Forbes subsequently filed an infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg's 'Atomberg Intellon' water purifier infringed their patented technologies. The Supreme Court addressed the competing transfer petitions to consolidate the proceedings.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. v.Amazon Technologies Inc.
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a Special Leave Petition filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. against Amazon Technologies Inc., concerning the stay of an execution decree related to trademark infringement. The core issue revolved around whether the Delhi High Court was justified in granting a stay on the money decree without insisting on the deposit of the decretal amount. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the stay.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ram Babu
Asian Paints Limited challenged the High Court's decision that barred its ability to appeal a criminal acquittal concerning counterfeit products. The case originated from an incident where the company found unauthorized, similar-looking paint in the market. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the company, as the rights holder and victim of IP infringement (trademark and copyright), could utilize the provisions of Section 372 CrPC to challenge the acquittal. The apex court held that the proviso creates a substantive right for victims, allowing the appeal to be restored.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning alleged copyright infringement related to proprietary engineering drawings used in manufacturing LNG semi-trailers. The core issue was whether these technical drawings fell under the definition of 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby invalidating the claim for copyright protection. The Supreme Court held that determining this mixed question of law and fact could not be done at a preliminary stage (Order VII Rule 11 CPC). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Commercial Court was directed to conduct a full trial to comprehensively assess all IP claims.
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The dispute arose from agreements between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME) regarding film rights for 'Sholay' and 'Sholay 3D'. After a Deed of Settlement was executed, the core issue became non-compliance with payment terms by one party. NHC filed a commercial suit seeking declaration of exclusive license and injunction against termination notices issued by SME.
Ajanta LLP v.Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal concerned an attempt by Ajanta LLP to modify a consent decree reached with Casio Computer Co. Ltd., alleging a typographical error regarding the scope of the settlement agreement. The original suit involved claims of design piracy related to scientific calculators, citing specific registered designs. Although the parties had settled and the High Court decreed the suit based on this settlement, Ajanta LLP sought rectification, arguing that the agreement incorrectly specified trademark elements. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that a consent decree cannot be modified merely due to misunderstanding unless the mistake is patent or obvious.
S.D. Containers Indore v.M/S. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal challenged a High Court order that had directed the transfer of a design infringement and cancellation suit from Indore to Calcutta. The suit involved registered designs for containers and lids, where the defendant sought cancellation based on lack of originality. The core legal question was whether the Commercial Court in Indore or the High Court held jurisdiction over such matters. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court's order, holding that since the entire cause of action arose within Madhya Pradesh, the suit must be heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, affirming the competence of the local court.
M/s Genentech Inc. v.Drugs Controller General Of India
Genentech Inc. appealed an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court which had altered the protective conditions previously set by the Single Judge concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug 'TrastuRel' (manufactured by Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.). The dispute centered on Genentech's patent rights over the monoclonal antibody drug 'Trastuzumab'.
Monsanto Technology Llc Thru The Authorised Representative Ms. Natalia Voruz & Others v.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Thru The Director & Others
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute between Monsanto Technology LLC and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. concerning the use of patented Bt cotton technology ('BOLGARD'). The core issue revolved around whether the defendants' rights were protected under the PPVFR Act, potentially invalidating the patent claims, or if the plaintiffs could enforce their registered patent for infringement. The court ultimately restored a Single Judge's interim injunction and remanded the suit, emphasizing that complex questions of patent validity must be decided after full evidence is adduced during trial.
Wockhardt Limited v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Supreme Court rejected Wockhardt Limited's appeal against a High Court Division Bench order that had granted an interim injunction based on passing off. The court found that the Division Bench correctly applied the triple test for passing off, establishing reputation and likelihood of confusion due to the minimal difference between the trade names. Despite arguments regarding acquiescence and prior conduct, the Supreme Court held that the balance of convenience favored the original judgment, thereby upholding the protection of Torrent's trademark.
M/S. Nandhini Deluxe v.M/S. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
The Supreme Court set aside previous orders from the IPAB and High Court that had cancelled the 'NANDHINI' trademark registration held by M/S. Nandhini Deluxe. The dispute centered on whether the restaurant chain could use a deceptively similar mark to the established milk producer, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Federation Ltd. The SC found that the appellant was a concurrent user who adopted the mark early enough and did not attempt to take unfair advantage of the respondent's goodwill, thereby restoring the registration.
Canara Bank v.N.G. Subbaraya Setty
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute involving Canara Bank and N.G. Subbaraya Setty concerning the use of the trademark 'Eenadu'. The core legal questions revolved around whether the bank's actions, such as selling agarbathies using the trademark, violated the Banking Regulation Act. Furthermore, the court examined the applicability of res judicata when a prior judgment was based on an assignment deed that was prohibited by law under the Trade Marks Act.
Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. v.Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. concerning its trademark registration in Class 42 against Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. The dispute centered on who was the prior user of the 'Royal Orchid' mark. Despite arguments regarding previous litigation, the Court found that the High Court's detailed consideration of evidence—which concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated first use and that confusion was possible due to similarity—was reasonable and justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited & Ors.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited for infringement of its trade marks ('TOYOTA', 'TOYOTA INNOVA', etc.) and passing off using the mark 'Prius'. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, concluding that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'Prius' in the Indian market.
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
The dispute arose from an arbitration award requiring M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation (appellant) to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests of Indian Patents No. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008 to M/S Euro Apex B.V. (respondent). The respondent challenged the execution, but the Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the transfer deed as per the modified request from the respondent themselves.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute revolved around whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court clarified that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at their location, they must file there.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute centered on whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court ruled that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at that location, they must file there.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra
Dr. Aloys Wobben filed multiple patent infringement suits against Yogesh Mehra and others, despite them having already filed numerous revocation petitions before the IPAB challenging his patents. The Supreme Court addressed whether these two proceedings could run concurrently.
M/s Paragon Rubber Industries v.M/s Pragati Rubber Mills
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the territorial jurisdiction for a composite suit filed by Paragon Rubber Industries against Pragati Rubber Mills. The core issue was whether a suit claiming relief under both the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, could be maintainable in the court where the plaintiff resided. While the High Court initially found the composite suit not maintainable, it allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the amendment liberty.
Lakha Ram Sharma v.Balar Marketing Private Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court of India overturned the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision that dismissed a trade mark rectification petition due to delay. The appellant, who had been using the 'Kundan' mark since 1980, argued that his efforts to challenge the registration were timely, despite initial jurisdictional issues in the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that procedural delays caused by lack of jurisdiction should not prejudice a bona fide applicant seeking to protect their established rights, remanding the case for fresh consideration on merits.
Satnam Overseas v.Sant Ram & Co.& Anr.
The Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order that allowed the respondent to use the 'KOHINOOR' trademark across the entire state of Uttar Pradesh, despite the appellant's attempt to have the registration rectified due to alleged non-use. The court found no error in extending the geographical scope, noting that restricting usage to specific cities would create undue commercial and legal complications for the user. This judgment reinforces the principle that practical trade realities can override strict geographical limitations in trademark rights.
Novartis Ag v.Union Of India & Ors
This landmark Supreme Court judgment addressed the critical interplay between Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, and the definition of 'invention.' The case centered on Novartis's claim for a patent covering the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate (marketed as Glivec/Gleevec), a life-saving drug. The Court was tasked with balancing the need to encourage pharmaceutical research and development against India’s commitment to ensuring affordable access to essential medicines, particularly in developing nations.
Cipla Ltd. v.Union Of India and Others
Cipla Ltd. challenged the grant of Patent No. 209251 by filing an application for revocation. The Controller subsequently revoked the patent based on the Opposition Board's recommendation. The Supreme Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that it violated the principle of natural justice because the parties were not provided with a copy of the Opposition Board's report.
Super Cassetts Industries Ltd. v.Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.
Super Cassetts Industries Ltd. appealed against the Delhi High Court's order which held that the Copyright Board could grant an interim compulsory licence under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Supreme Court examined whether such an interim power could be implied by law or if it required express statutory authorization.
Polydrug Laboratroies P.Ltd v.Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Polydrug Laboratroies P. Ltd appealed against a judgment where its evidence was not taken on record. The appellant argued that the Controller had the power to extend time for filing evidence under Rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2003. The Supreme Court agreed with this view and set aside the impugned judgment.
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v.Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty.Ld.
The appeal challenged the Delhi High Court's decision regarding its jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, which cancelled several registered designs for 'Insecticide Coil'. The Supreme Court held that since the cause of action arose in Kolkata (where the cancellation occurred), the Calcutta High Court, not the Delhi High Court, had the proper jurisdiction.
Bajaj Auto Ltd v.TVS Motor Company Ltd
This Supreme Court judgment addressed the protracted nature of patent infringement litigation, specifically concerning Bajaj Auto Ltd versus TVS Motor Company Ltd. The court emphasized that matters relating to patents must be decided expeditiously by the Trial Court rather than remaining stuck at the interlocutory stage over temporary injunctions. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with directions mandating the respondent to file a written statement and directing the appointment of a Receiver to monitor sales records until the suit is finally disposed of.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning patentability issues involving crystal modification of an N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative. The core issue was the absence of a qualified Technical Member in the Intellectual Property Appellant Board (IPAB).
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.