Bench:Sunita Agarwal
8 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
8 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S. Safed Parindey Event Management LLP and Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, upholding the Commercial Court's rejection of her request for an interim injunction. The court found that Ms. Pancholi failed to establish a prima facie case regarding her proprietary rights over the trademarks "Safedishq" and "SafedParindey." Crucially, the judgment highlighted that while she was associated with 'the Sheri Affair,' ownership lay with another entity, Loop Events & Entertainment, making her claim of prior usage unsubstantiated at this stage. The ruling emphasizes that mere association is insufficient to secure injunctive relief without concrete proof of proprietary rights.
Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S Safed Parindey Event Management Llp & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a petition seeking intervention in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioner, claiming rights over various trademarks, sought the court's direction to expedite the decision on an injunction application filed before the Commercial Court. While acknowledging the urgency, the High Court directed the lower court to proceed with deciding the interim injunction on the next scheduled date (September 16, 2025). Crucially, the court stipulated that no adjournment would be granted to the defendants, ensuring a swift resolution of the urgent matter.
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
M/S Avriva Solutions & Ors. v.Avriva Skintech Private Limited & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed petitions filed by defendants against the trial court's orders in a trademark infringement suit. The court upheld the grant of an interim injunction, finding that the defendants were actively infringing the plaintiff's 'AVRIVA' trademark. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the plaint rejected on procedural grounds related to directorial authority, confirming the validity of the suit.
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
Ashokbhai Manjibhai Sankharava trading as M/s. Unolex Aquatech v.M/S. Trishul Pump
The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commercial Court rejecting applications seeking exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff had filed four suits for patent infringement (No. 388576) but failed to demonstrate a genuine need for urgent interim relief.
Bot Organic Private Limited v.Piruz Khambhatta & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a challenge filed by Piruz Khambhatta against an earlier Commercial Court order that allowed the plaintiff, Bot Organic Private Limited, to amend its plaint. The core dispute involved alleged trademark infringement and passing-off concerning the mark 'RUS' used on fruit juice packaging versus the plaintiff's well-known mark 'RASNA'. The court upheld the amendment, finding that adding variants of the existing trade mark did not fundamentally change the nature or scope of the original suit.
Inox India Private Limited v.Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged the dismissal of a Commercial Trademark Suit, which had been rejected on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centered on whether proprietary engineering drawings used for commercial vehicles qualified as an artistic work under copyright law and if their protection lapsed after exceeding a production threshold of 50 units. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the Commercial Court to reconsider both the rejection and injunction applications simultaneously.
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.