Bench:R.I. Chagla
84 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, copyright, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
84 cases indexed | Page 2 of 3
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Mritunjay Kumar
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Mritunjay Kumar was settled between the parties. The Court accepted the Consent Terms, which were signed by both sides, and consequently disposed of and decreed the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Pradeep Dhidaria
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an Interim Application against Pradeep Dhidaria alleging that the latter had slavishly copied the original artistic work featured on the Plaintiff's product packaging. The court examined the resemblance, noting similarities in elements like the starburst and globe depiction used on the rival product's trademark 'MASTER'. Based on this prima facie finding of copying and subsisting copyright, the court continued the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons regarding alleged trademark infringement was settled between both parties. The Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The suit between Unilever Global Ip Limited and Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after the parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in a decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons was settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which included a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and mutual undertakings regarding the destruction of seized goods.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The Commercial Suit filed by Unilever Global Ip Limited against Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after both parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in the decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons And Anr.
The dispute between Marico Limited (Plaintiff) and MW & Sons And Anr. (Defendants) concerning alleged infringement was settled on August 18, 2023. The parties entered into a Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.M. Senthilkumar
The applicant/plaintiff sought continuation of previously granted exparte ad-interim orders related to a passing off claim. Despite serving notice, the defendants remained absent. The court decided to continue the existing interim orders until further orders.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sushil Prajapati
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Sushil Prajapati regarding the use of impugned marks SUPER SURF and Splat device. The parties subsequently settled their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on the terms agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The Defendant agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards costs and full and final settlement, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on the terms of the Consent Minutes of Order.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties in the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, Unilever Global Ip Limited, based on the terms agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Terms on the date of judgment, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled on July 12, 2023. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
Resintech Inc v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark application dispute, setting aside the Senior Examiner's refusal based on the mark being descriptive. The Petitioner argued that the Examiner failed to consider prior submissions regarding the distinctiveness of 'RESINTECH,' including its use by the applicant globally and its combination nature. Consequently, the court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, ensuring all petitioner arguments are reviewed before a final decision is made.
Kilitch Drugs (India) Limited v.Zee Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiff, Kilitch Drugs, sought an interim injunction and relief for passing off against the Defendant, Zee Laboratories. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks (KILITCH and KILITCH SRO) in pharmaceutical preparations by the use of the impugned mark KILITH/KILITH SRO.
UltraTech Cement Ltd. v.Ultratech Paints and Allied Products
The plaintiffs filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants. The court allowed the application, granting an interim order restraining the defendants from using the impugned name 'ULTRATECH' and associated domain names to infringe upon or pass off goods related to the well-known trade mark 'UltraTech'.
I Am The Ocean, LLC v.Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Bombay High Court ruling, the petitioner successfully challenged an Examiner's refusal to register their trademark. The court found that the original rejection was not a 'reasoned order' because it failed to consider detailed arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness and its unique visual structure. Consequently, the high court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, ensuring all petitioner submissions are properly addressed.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Ajanta Pharma Limited against Zodley Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court passed an order accepting the Consent Minutes, disposing of the suit and interim applications accordingly.
Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa, setting aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to register a subject mark. The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider crucial material on record, including evidence of opposition and abandonment status of cited marks, as well as a NoC obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for the Respondent to conduct a fresh hearing based on all submitted facts.
Beiersdorf Ag v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Beiersdorf Ag successfully challenged an administrative order issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its international registration. The Bombay High Court found that the original order was arbitrary, lacking independent reasons or consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, mandating a reasoned decision within eight weeks.
Unilever Plc. v.Anurag Tiwari
The Commercial IPR Suit No. 481 of 2022, filed by Unilever Plc. against Anurag Tiwari and others, was settled by both the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, permitted amendments to the cause title, and disposed of the suit.
Jawed Habib Hair And Beauty Limited v.Madhuri Singh
The Bombay High Court addressed an application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the 'Jawed Habib' trademark and associated copyright in hair salon services. The court denied the plaintiff's request for immediate relief, primarily because the defendant asserted that she had ceased using the marks as of September 17, 2022, and there was no prima facie evidence to the contrary. Crucially, the court allowed the defendant to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, effectively directing the dispute towards arbitration.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit after noting that the disputed mark had already been removed from the register by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court accepted the defendant's affidavit stating that the trademark was never put into commercial operation, rendering all remaining claims for injunction and damages moot. This decision highlights how prior administrative actions (like rectification) can fundamentally alter the trajectory of a civil IP suit.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the suit filed by Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited against Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar and others. The court found that since the disputed trademark was successfully removed from the register via a rectification petition, and the defendant provided affidavits confirming no commercial use of the mark had ever occurred, all prayers in the original suit were rendered infructuous. This decision effectively closed the infringement proceedings.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Vim Industries Ltd
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an interim application seeking continuation and reinforcement of an exparte ad-interim order. The court found that a case for passing off was made out, specifically concerning the use of marks VIM, SURF, and the Splat device in relation to cleaning products.
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc against Ashok Kumar. The plaintiffs sought permission to amend their pleadings to identify and join another party involved in manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit cosmetic preparations. The court allowed the amendment and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.New Parle Ice Cream
The suit was filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against New Parle Ice Cream concerning an IP matter. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was formally recorded and accepted by the Bombay High Court on September 28, 2022.
Unilever Plc. v.Ashok Kumar
The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc. seeking amendments to its suit plaint and related petitions. The Plaintiffs sought to incorporate additional impugned marks and parties into the case title based on new information received from a Court Receiver's Report. The court allowed the amendments and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.
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.