India Design Cases
274 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 10 · 274 total
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. v.Varun Sood
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. filed a suit against Varun Sood and others alleging infringement of their design rights and passing off related to water purifier products. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages concerning the use of deceptively similar designs (ESSENCIA/SPARKLE) compared to their registered designs (KENT WONDER/EKNT SUPREME). Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual settlement, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.
Symphony Ltd. v.Wim Plast Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Wim Plast Ltd for allegedly infringing its registered designs related to air coolers. The dispute centered on the similarity between the plaintiff's protected designs and the defendants' products. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the disposal of the suit.
M/s.Vaibhav Foods v.Narendra Kumar Mali / M/s.FOOD INDIA
M/s. Vaibhav Foods filed a suit against Narendra Kumar Mali and M/s. FOOD INDIA alleging infringement and passing off related to their unique chocolate packaging design. The Plaintiff demonstrated that they had successfully registered two designs (Nos. 274667 and 274668) for the specific arrangement and color combination of chocolates. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling chocolates using a similar and identical design, leading to confusion in the market.
Dart Industries Inc v.Vijay Kumar Bansal
Dart Industries Inc. filed a suit against several defendants alleging infringement of their registered design (casserole lid) and passing off related to their Tupperware products. The court examined the scope of protection, noting that while the lid is independently registered, the plaintiffs claimed passing off for the entire casserole set. The court ultimately issued an interim order directing the defendants to furnish detailed sales particulars.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/s Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against M/s Arora Stationers alleging fraudulent imitation of its registered pen design (Design No. 263172). The respondents challenged the validity and novelty of Pentel's design, claiming it was a combination of known designs. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Pentel, emphasizing that since the respondents themselves had applied for registration of a similar design, they could not simultaneously argue against its originality. Consequently, the court found a prima facie case of piracy and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from marketing the infringing product.
M/S. Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
M/S. Lucky Exports challenged an order rejecting its appeal against the cancellation of Design No. 202108, which covered a 'Coaster Brake Sub Assembly'. The core dispute revolved around whether this mechanical component was purely functional and therefore ineligible for design registration, or if it possessed sufficient aesthetic features to qualify. The court examined arguments regarding prior publication and novelty, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
International Cycle Gears v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner appealed against the Controller's order allowing the cancellation of Design No. 201728 for a 'Coaster Brake Hub'. The appeal argued that the design was significantly different from known models, particularly those published in February 2005. However, the High Court upheld the Controller's finding, concluding that the design lacked novelty and originality as it was substantially identical to prior publications.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite India Ltd.
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Aqualite India Ltd. for allegedly infringing its registered footwear design No.294938. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product was an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. During the interim application, the court directed a market survey which revealed numerous third-party products with near identical designs available in the market.
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.
Symphony Ltd. v.Thermo King India Pvt Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Thermo King India Pvt Ltd alleging that its air cooler model, 'Thermoking Typhoon,' substantially imitated Symphony's registered design for the 'Symphony Storm 70i.' The court found that the Defendant's product was a substantial imitation of the protected design. Despite the Defendant initially raising defenses regarding prior publication and difference in designs, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Symphony Ltd. v.Life Plus Appliances
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Life Plus Appliances alleging infringement of its registered designs for air coolers. The Plaintiff demonstrated that the Defendant's models, 'Tower' and 'Tycoon', were substantial imitations of Symphony's protected designs (Storm 70i, Sumo, and Winter). Despite the Defendant raising defenses regarding prior publication based on advertisements and trademark applications, the court found these claims unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Symphony Ltd., granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not new and had been in use for decades. The Court ultimately disposed of the Original Applications on terms requiring the Respondent to maintain and submit quarterly accounts related to the sale of similar products.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not novel and had been in public use for decades. The Court found that while the balance of convenience was not clearly in favor of granting injunctive relief immediately, it directed the Respondent to maintain detailed quarterly accounts regarding sales and profits of similar products.
Jhs Svengard Laboratories Limited v.Ranir Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the unique ornamental design of toothbrushes, where JHS Svengard Laboratories claimed exclusive rights over its 'CURVY' design. The court noted that the Plaintiff sought an injunction against Defendants selling similar products and had previously initiated a trademark cancellation action against one of the defendants. Recognizing the interconnected nature of the claims, the Court ordered the transfer of the pending trademark cancellation petition to be heard alongside the current infringement suit.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd & Ors
Crocs Inc filed multiple suits alleging infringement of its registered designs (No.197685 and No.197686) by various defendants, including Bata India Ltd. Crocs claimed exclusive rights over the unique shape and pattern of its footwear designs, supported by extensive global trade and goodwill. The present appeal challenged the dismissal of Crocs' applications in these pending suits. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, directing that all related suits be listed together for further proceedings.
Mahesh Gupta v.Dheeraj Kumar
This order in CS(COMM) 341/2017 addresses allegations of design infringement concerning the 'AQUA GRANDE' water purifier. Despite the defendants claiming they had stopped using the impugned trademark, the court noted evidence showing the sale of the infringing product through a third party, Mannat Electronics. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit clarifying their connection with this seller and detailing their sales turnover for the financial year 2018-19.
M/S VAJRA PLASTICS INDUSTRY v.M/S VARSHA POLYMERS
This appeal addressed allegations of design infringement concerning PVC rainwater gutters. The plaintiffs claimed their unique 'Euro Guard' gutter design was copied by the defendants' 'Varsha Square Gutter'. Although the plaintiffs held a valid design certificate, the High Court found it difficult to sustain the lower court's injunction order. The court ultimately set aside the temporary injunction while directing both parties toward expedited trial proceedings.
Skol Breweries Ltd. v.Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd.
This appeal was filed by Skol Breweries Ltd. (now Sab Miller) seeking a temporary injunction against Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd., alleging that the latter was using bottles bearing the appellant's registered design for their product, 'BLACK FORT.' The plaintiff claimed this constituted infringement and passing off of its beer, 'HAYWARDS 5000.' However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substance in the request for an injunction at that stage.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Sationers
This case involves a dispute over design rights concerning a pen. The defendants filed an application seeking to amend their written statement, claiming that they had subsequently received a Certificate of Registration for Design No. 282909 in Class 19-06. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment, arguing it was mutually destructive and that the trial had already commenced. However, the court allowed the amendment, finding that the registration was a subsequent development and not fundamentally contradictory to the earlier pleas.
Simon, S. A. U. v.The Controller Of Patent & Designs & Anr.
Simon filed three applications for the registration of a design related to 'Accessories For Electrical Devices', claiming priority from a Spanish application. The Controller found that the design lacked novelty because it was taught by earlier, prior published designs and compared unfavorably with Registered Design No. 216507.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
The petitioner challenged the registration of Design No. 242843 (Sunday Chair) on grounds that it lacked novelty or originality as it resembled known designs. The respondent argued that the design was unique, aesthetically pleasing, and distinct from prior art. The High Court upheld the Deputy Controller's order, finding the registered design to be novel and original.
M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd v.M/S Kamdhenu Ltd
This appeal addressed an interim injunction sought by Kamdhenu Ltd against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for alleged infringement of a registered design on TMT steel bars. Kamdhenu claimed its unique surface pattern was protected, while Aashiana argued that the design merely replicated a widely accepted British Standard (BS 4449:2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the injunction, finding that Kamdhenu's registration was suspect because it relied on a commonly applicable standard available in the public domain.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was selling products identical or obvious imitations of their protected designs, including the Aqua Safe bottle and Eco Flip Top bottle. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on the interim relief. Consequently, the court allowed the injunction application for the plaintiff while dismissing other related applications.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps (Aqua Safe and Eco Flip Top) against Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff demonstrated that their unique and popular product designs were being imitated by the defendant. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on interim relief.
Klassic Wheels Private Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the cancellation of Design No. 229267, which covered a 'Wheel Rim' design. The grounds for cancellation were lack of novelty and prior publication. The court dismissed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence.
Vega Auto Accessories (P) Ltd. v.S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Vega Auto Accessories filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet for infringing its registered design related to helmets. The court examined whether the features of the defendant's helmet were substantially similar to the plaintiff's protected design. After detailed comparison, the High Court found that the defendant's product was an obvious imitation, thus confirming the ad-interim injunction in favor of Vega Auto Accessories.
Rajesh Kalra v.Safeops. Surgical Care & Anr
Rajesh Kalra filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safeops. Surgical Care and others for infringing his registered design of 'Pre-Cut Eye Drape'. The plaintiff claimed novelty in the unique shape and configuration, which included a pre-cut aperture for surgical use. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the core feature—the pre-cut aperture—was purely functional and dictated by utility rather than aesthetic appeal.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.
This appeal involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a registered design for a mixer grinder base unit. The appellant, M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., challenged an order that had granted an injunction against them based on copyright infringement. The court examined both designs side-by-side and found no substantial similarities, noting distinct differences in shape and configuration between the two tripod bases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous interim orders.
M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Limited. v.M/s.S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment records a compromise in an infringement suit concerning the bottle design and label color scheme for gingelly oil. The parties agreed to settle the dispute amicably, leading the court to pass a compromise decree. Key terms included the first defendant voluntarily amending its label by enlarging the logo and altering other features, agreeing to destroy remaining unused labels within three months, and ceasing deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's product.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries v.M/S Pearl Thrmoplast Pvt. Ltd.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging violation of its registered design (No.245-249) concerning a 'Jug'. The defendant challenged the suit, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as their primary business operations were outside Jodhpur. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that since the infringement and sale of the goods occurred within the court's jurisdiction (Jodhpur), part of the cause of action arose there, thereby establishing the court's competence to hear the matter.
Protecting your design rights?
Design disputes move fast. Arctic's IP team specializes in interim relief, design invalidation, and cross-border enforcement strategies.