A. P. Thaker
4 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Jivraj Tea Limited v.Dayalji Vanravan Kotecha
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning tea brands. The plaintiff, Jivraj Tea Limited, argued that its registered mark 'JIVRAJ-9' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'DOUBLE HAATHI PREMIUM TEA NO.9'. However, given the introduction of additional pleadings and documents during the appeal process, the High Court found it necessary to remand the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the interim injunction application.
Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt. Ltd. v.N. Venkta Yayadri Rao
The Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal filed by Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt. Ltd., overturning a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'SCARY HOUSE' trademark and copyright in their dramatic work, successfully argued that the defendant was illegally adapting and reproducing their copyrighted material under a new name ('TERRIFIC DEVIL ZONE'). The Court emphasized that since the defendants failed to deny the allegations of adaptation during pleadings, the injunction should be granted to protect the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill.
Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd v.Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court disposed of an Appeal from Order in a trademark dispute between Surge Biotech Pvt Ltd and Surge Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. Due to mutual consensus between both parties, the court quashed the previous order passed by the trial court regarding Exh.5 application. The case has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh, ensuring both sides are given an opportunity to present their arguments.
Kinjal Lalitbhai Dave v.Red Ribbon Entertainment Private Limited
This appeal challenged an ex parte injunction granted by the Commercial Court regarding copyright infringement of the song "Char Bangadi Wari Gaadi." The appellant argued that the trial court failed to record reasons demonstrating how delaying the injunction would defeat its object, violating Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. While the respondent cited the appellant's delay in responding to the notice, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, quashing the impugned order and directing the parties to proceed with filing replies, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be treated as a mere formality.
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.