India Design Cases
261 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 9 · 261 total
Indus TMT Industries Ltd. v.M/s. Hoysala TMT
Indus TMT Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of TMT steel bars operating under the brand 'INDUS', sued M/s. Hoysala TMT for infringement of its registered designs (Design Nos. 283226, 338410, 338411, 338412) relating to TMT rods with a honeycomb and X-rib pattern. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing TMT bars under the name 'Hoysala 550 SD TMT Building Heritage' using a design deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, amounting to infringement and passing off. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was placed ex parte, leading the Commercial Court at Bengaluru to grant a permanent injunction, order destruction of infringing materials, and direct the defendant to render accounts of profits.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that the Controller adopted an unduly strict interpretation, failing to recognize GUIs as registrable designs. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests regarding GUI registration.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUIs constitute an 'article' or possess permanence were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding all matters for fresh consideration.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiff, Crocs Inc Usa, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Bata India Ltd for infringing its registered design. The suit was previously disposed of after the design registration (No. 197685) was cancelled by the Controller of Patents & Designs due to lack of novelty. The current application seeks costs against the plaintiff.
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.
M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v.Pyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep
The applicant (M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a revision application challenging an order that rejected its application for rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit. The dispute centered on allegations of infringement of the plaintiff's industrial oven design by the respondent. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application, finding no grounds for rejection.
Aqualite Industries Private Limited v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned allegations that Aqualite Industries was infringing on Relaxo Footwears' registered designs for hawai slippers. Relaxo had secured an interim injunction against Aqualite, which challenged this order. The court examined whether Aqualite's products were identical to the protected designs and whether the registrations themselves were invalid due to prior art or lack of novelty. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the suit designs possessed novelty and that Aqualite was infringing Relaxo's registered design.
Smt. B.K. Annapurnamma, Sri B.N.K. Sarathi, Smt. B.S. Nagarathna, and Sri B.S. Sapthagiri (Partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works) v.M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works
The plaintiffs, partners of M/s. Sarathi Perfumery Works, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S. Mahendra Perfumery Works for infringing their registered design (No. 203040) of a display box. The court found that the copyright subsisting in the design had expired in 2016, rendering the cause of action infructuous.
Suneeta Sharma v.German Plast Industries Private Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Suneeta Sharma's registered design, Design No. 331213-001. Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking fresh summons and directions for the Controller of Patent and Designs (Defendant No. 2) to produce complete records related to the design registration.
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited v.Miniso Life Style Private Limited
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited filed a suit against Miniso Life Style Private Limited for piracy of its registered design and passing-off concerning the 'Tranquility Neck Pillow'. The plaintiffs claimed that their distinctive neck pillow design, registered under number 281315, was being copied by the defendants in retail stores and online platforms. The court found a prima facie case based on the identical aesthetic appeal and visual similarity of the products, leading to the grant of interim relief.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order that refused to grant an interim injunction against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied its registered ceiling fan design, 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan,' and committed passing off. The court examined the comparison between the two designs and found that prima facie differences existed in various aspects of the products and packaging. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed Atomberg's appeal, upholding the lower court's decision.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently copied and infringed upon its registered design of the 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan.' The dispute involved claims of both design infringement and passing off, given the similarity between the products. The Bombay High Court examined the comparison table provided by both parties. Ultimately, the court found that Atomberg failed to demonstrate 'something more' than mere similarity required for a successful claim of passing off at the interim stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.
Trodat Gmbh v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
Trodat Gmbh appealed a single judge's order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd to manufacture and sell a self-inking stamp design without infringing Trodat's registered designs. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's new design produced a different overall impression on an 'informed user.' The Delhi High Court, while extensively discussing established principles of design infringement, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that no piracy had occurred.
Trodat Gmbh & Anr. v.Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the infringement of registered stamp designs. The defendant, Addprint India Enterprises Pvt Ltd, sought clarification regarding an interim injunction that had previously restrained it from manufacturing products deemed imitations of the plaintiffs' (Trodat Gmbh & Anr.) designs. The defendant proposed a new, alternative design and argued that it was sufficiently distinct to avoid infringement. The court examined the visual differences between the two designs and granted prima facie permission for the defendant to proceed with the manufacture and marketing of this modified product.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the 'Toy Building Block' design (No. 345217-001), filed a suit against various defendants, including e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, alleging infringement and dilution due to counterfeit toys being sold online. The court found that Defendants no. 6, 8, and 10 were misusing the registered design, granting permanent injunctions against them.
Thermo Electrics Madras Manufacturing v.P.R.Gopalakrishnan
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for committing piracy through fraudulent imitation of four registered designs (No. 193288, 193289, 193290, 193291) related to Extraction and Heating Mantles. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had access to their trade secrets and designs during his employment with the second plaintiff, leading to unauthorized imitation.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the writ petition filed by Neeraj Jain against the Controller General of Patents. Crucially, the court condoned a 36-day delay in filing the petition itself. The core matter involves challenging an order that declared the petitioner's design application abandoned due to a belatedly filed Power of Attorney. Notice has been issued, setting the stage for further arguments on the merits of the abandonment claim.
M/s Architectural Solution and Production v.Sandeep Kumar Jangid Trading as M/s Bhavishya
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging illegal acts of infringement, piracy, passing-off, and unfair trade competition against the defendant regarding its registered design. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and trading lamps and LED lights. The court passed a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Ve Commercial Vehicles Limited v.Jaswant Industries & Ors
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered designs related to the Volvo 9600 buses. The defendants are accused of copying the design and engaging in unfair competition.
Pramit Sanghavi v.Energy Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in a suit concerning design infringement. The plaintiff, Pramit Sanghavi (representing market leaders in packaged natural mineral water), alleged that the defendant was imitating their registered bottle designs (Nos. 281573 and 311139) for their product "NU". After considering the prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the Court granted an interim injunction to protect the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
Ttk Prestige Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for infringing on its design registration for the Svachh Deluxe Alpha pressure cooker. The defendant was set ex-parte after failing to respond adequately to the claims.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Astral Limited (Formerly known as Resinova Chemie Limited)
Pidilite Industries Limited filed an interim application alleging that Astral Limited was infringing its registered design for the M-SEAL PV SEAL container. The plaintiff claimed originality in the shape and configuration of the container, which is used for solvent cement products. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant's use of similar containers.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller cancelling his registered design for an Air Cooler (No. 233559) based on alleged prior publication in China. The appeal contended that the cancellation relied only on insufficient evidence from the CNIPA website and ignored previous rejections of similar claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar of Copyrights and Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed a suit against the Registrar of Copyrights alleging that respondents were selling mustard oil using an almost identical trade dress and packaging to the petitioner's product. The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters, noting the emergence of evidence showing blatant copying by the respondents. While granting some time for the respondent to file necessary documentation, the court emphasized the seriousness of the infringement claim and fixed a firm date for the next hearing.
Dharmaj Technologies v.Mac Swin Technologies
Dharmaj Technologies filed a suit against Mac Swin Technologies alleging infringement and passing off related to its Registered Design No. 253469, which pertains to a diamond processing machine. The dispute centered on the defendant's manufacturing and sale of machines bearing identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's design. Following an undertaking by the defendant discontinuing the use of the impugned design, the court allowed the suit to the extent of granting permanent injunctions against future infringement.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.ITC Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the validity of a registered design used on 'Good Day' Biscuits labels. The defendant, ITC Ltd, sought summary judgment arguing that the design was not registrable under Section 19(1)(d) and Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, citing prior public disclosure. Britannia Industries Ltd countered this by seeking to place additional documents on record, which they claimed would correct an error in their user claim date. The court adjourned the matter to determine the admissibility of these crucial documents.
Baskar v.G. Raghu Babu
The plaintiff, who holds a registered industrial design for a 'Forklift Vehicle,' sought an injunction against the respondent, alleging imitation and infringement. The respondents contended that the design was not unique, as it involved attaching a forklift to a conventional tractor already used in agriculture, and their activities were merely assisting farmers. The High Court set aside the ad-interim injunction.
Protecting your design rights?
Design disputes move fast. Arctic's IP team specializes in interim relief, design invalidation, and cross-border enforcement strategies.