Bench:S.A. Bobde
4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation v.M/S Euro Apex B.V.
The dispute arose from an arbitration award requiring M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation (appellant) to unconditionally and irrevocably transfer all rights and interests of Indian Patents No. 2143/MUM/2008 and 2144/MUM/2008 to M/S Euro Apex B.V. (respondent). The respondent challenged the execution, but the Supreme Court found that the appellant had duly executed and forwarded the transfer deed as per the modified request from the respondent themselves.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Cipla Limited
The Bombay High Court rejected Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's application for an interim injunction against Cipla Limited regarding the use of the trade mark 'Graniset'. Despite the similarity in marks and their use in treating nausea related to chemotherapy, the court found that the plaintiff lacked a prima facie proprietary right in the mark. The judgment highlighted the importance of prior user rights versus registration, while also noting the plaintiff's failure to provide supporting medical evidence for potential consumer confusion.
Faber-Castell v.Pikpen Private Limited
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendants for infringing their registered design and passing off their product using the identical trade mark "TEXTLINER". The court found that there was a deceptive similarity in the shape, configuration, color scheme, and get-up of the products. After establishing the plaintiffs' ownership rights, the court allowed the motion for an injunction.
Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Lever Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for injunction in a passing-off suit against Hindustan Lever Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark 'AYUSH' was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'AYUSHAKTI,' and crucially, it held that mere possibility of confusion is insufficient; actual misrepresentation must be demonstrated. Furthermore, the court presumed the plaintiffs had knowledge of pre-existing marks, but ultimately concluded there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.
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.