Bench:R.I. Chagla
84 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, design matters.
Cases Presided Over
84 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Le Shark Apparel Limited v.Anil Shah And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court granted rectification to remove a registered trademark (No. 466002) belonging to the Respondents, which was identical to the Petitioner's established global mark 'LE SHARK'. The court found that the Respondents had fraudulently adopted the mark and lacked evidence of genuine use, thereby allowing the Petitioner to proceed with its brand in India. This decision reinforces the principle that a trademark register must maintain purity against deceptive or fraudulent registrations.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.The Controller of Patent and Designs
The Petitioners challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a 'Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal,' which was rejected under Section 25(1)(b) due to lack of novelty/inventive step. The court examined whether the seal provided a technical advancement over cited prior art documents, including US5419599.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Jyotiben Hareshbhai Chovatiya and Ors.
The Plaintiff sought permission to add several associated entities (Defendants No. 4 to 6) as party defendants, alleging they were involved in dealing with goods bearing an impugned trade mark 'NEUROGABA'. The Court found that these parties were necessary and proper for the adjudication of the matter.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v.Jagpin Brewerise Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Bombay High Court addressed motions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce a plea of invalidity. The court noted that since the defendants were uninterested in pursuing the current motions and had discharged their counsel twice, it was appropriate to dismiss the pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motion for now. Furthermore, the court reinforced established Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that while rectification applications exist, the Civil Court must first determine the prima facie validity of the trademark before granting a stay on the suit.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited for infringing registered trademarks 'HAYWARDS 5000' and 'FIVE THOUSAND'. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'COX 5001' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off in relation to beer. Furthermore, due to the Defendant's persistent non-appearance during the proceedings, the Plaintiff was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs.
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in favor of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) against Meta Platforms Inc. and other social media intermediaries. The court addressed urgent concerns regarding sophisticated AI-generated 'deepfake' videos impersonating the NSE's MD & CEO, which were used to promote fraudulent stock picking schemes. The order mandates that the platforms immediately remove these unauthorized deepfakes and infringing content, while also compelling them to disclose details of the unknown perpetrators involved in the misuse of the NSE trademark.
Upl Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Upl Limited challenged an order dated February 8, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the order was cryptic and failed to consider all filed documents (D3 and D4) when rejecting amended claims under Section 2(1)(j)(a) of the Patents Act. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's submissions.
Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg. v.Saneet Gmbh and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg., leading to the removal of an identical trademark registration held by Saneet Gmbh and Anr. The court found that the Petitioner was the prior user and proprietor of the mark 'JACO,' which possessed extensive international reputation and goodwill spilling over into India. Given the Respondent's failure to contest the matter despite multiple opportunities, the Court ruled that the impugned registration was fraudulent and contrary to honest trade practices, thereby protecting the Petitioner's rights.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
Electronica India Ltd. v.Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Electronica India Ltd., setting aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' communications that allowed a subsequent proprietor (Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.) to record ownership via Form TM-24. The court found significant procedural flaws, including the lack of a speaking order and discrepancies in official records. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner is given a full opportunity to be heard before any decision is made.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Riddhi Siddhi Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark suit against Riddhi Siddhi Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai. The court examined the jurisdiction clause and confirmed that Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, grants this court jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business location. Consequently, the court held that no special leave was required and made the petition absolute.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.C.K. Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Kamal Electricals And Sanitary
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a suit against Kamal Electricals and Sanitary regarding trademark infringement. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai, while the defendants were operating outside the court's jurisdiction in Telangana. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v.Extra Tech World and Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to file a Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit against the respondents. The core issue was establishing the court's jurisdiction, given that the infringing websites were accessible across India.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application sought to determine the method of inquiry regarding whether certain moulds/dyes were infringing material, considering the original patent had expired. The court considered the request for an independent scientific adviser under Section 115 but proceeded by allowing the parties to file their respective expert affidavits.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application concerns whether certain moulds/dyes are infringing material, despite the original patent having expired. The court considered the need for expert determination on this factual question.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Jogaram Sirvi And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement. Crucially, the court affirmed that the 'ATOMBERG' brand qualifies as a well-known trademark across all classes of goods and services. This landmark decision reinforces the high level of protection afforded to coined and inherently distinctive marks with established national reputation.
Crc Industries Europe Besloten v.Bhalaria Corporation
The Bombay High Court granted the plaintiff permission to de-seal seized 'impugned products' from the premises of certain defendants. The core issue was determining whether these seized goods were counterfeit or legitimately procured through authorized distributors. The court allowed the plaintiff to take two samples for investigation, ensuring the entire process would be conducted transparently in the presence of all parties and videographed.
The Chocolate Spoon Company Private Limited v.Oceanleaf Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted leave for a plaintiff to combine claims of passing off with an existing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that they lacked territorial jurisdiction as their outlets were located outside Mumbai, but the court prioritized the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation. This decision allows the combined action to proceed while keeping the jurisdictional issue open for later determination.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Shree Dev Colour And Hardware and Ors.
The Bombay High Court disposed of a portion of the IPR suit after the parties reached a settlement via Consent Terms dated 31st October, 2023. Specifically, the suit against Defendant No.2 was disposed of based on these terms, which included undertakings to cease using infringing marks and destroy counterfeit materials.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Ayur Gen Herbals
The parties, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Ayur Gen Herbals, settled their disputes in the Bombay High Court. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
Mitsu Chem Plast Limited v.Abs Mediequip And Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a suit concerning the infringement of design rights and passing off related to hospital beds. Despite previous undertakings by the defendant acknowledging Mitsu Chem Plast Limited's rights and promising cessation of use, the plaintiff alleged continued infringement. The court found sufficient grounds to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from adopting or using designs identical or deceptively similar to the registered design and trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
The suit concerning alleged trademark infringement was settled between Unilever Global IP Ltd. and Rajender Prasad Bandaru. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
Unilever Global IP Limited filed a Commercial IP suit against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding the use of the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently arrived at a comprehensive settlement, which was accepted by the court.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
The suit was filed by Unilever Global IP Ltd. against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding infringement related to the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was accepted and taken on record by the court.
Pranay Satyendrakumar Goyal v.Muza Hospitality Private Limied
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application concerning alleged trademark infringement. The Plaintiff accused the Defendants of breaching a prior undertaking by continuing to use the impugned mark 'DIVE' on their website and selling services under the similar name 'DEEPDOWN DIVE'. While the court did not rule on the merits, it granted the Plaintiff leave to file an Affidavit in Rejoinder and simultaneously granted the Defendants liberty to file an Affidavit in Sur Rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for further consideration.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Tri Parulex Fire Protection System & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking an injunction against the Defendants for allegedly infringing Patent No.202302, which covers a specific operational sequence involving differential relay, Buchholz relay, and circuit breaker in fire prevention systems (NIFPS). The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants not to use this specific patented sequence but directed both parties to file affidavits addressing the technical scope of the patent.
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.