Judge Profile

Bench:Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

3 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent mixed · Apr 4, 2024

Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · MISC. PETITION No. 5001 of 2022 & MISC. PETITION No. 6127 of 2022

This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.

patent mixed · Apr 4, 2024

Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · MISC. PETITION No. 5001 of 2022 & MISC. PETITION No. 6127 of 2022

This case involves a dispute over the artistic work 'ENERZY powder' between Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The core legal battle centered on whether the Commercial Court was correct in directing the plaintiff to amend their plaint based on an agreement dated 22.01.2015, specifically regarding valuation for court fees. The High Court examined the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution and ultimately ruled that the statutory copyright right should govern the suit's substance, not solely the contractual terms.

patent defendant favorable · Nov 3, 2023

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · MISC. APPEAL No. 232 of 2021

Pernod Ricard appealed a Commercial Court order that rejected their application for temporary injunction against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging trademark infringement of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by the defendant's use of 'London Pride'. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's finding that no deceptive similarity existed between the marks. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the main suit on merits without being influenced by the appellate observations.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →