Bench:Vinod K.Sharma
4 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, copyright, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited (and Dr. Issac Mathai) v.Defendant/Respondent (unnamed in excerpt)
The Madras High Court granted interim injunctions in favor of Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited against the respondent. The court found that the respondent's use of deceptively similar marks like 'SOWKHYA' and associated domain names constituted trademark infringement and passing off, despite arguments regarding prior usage or delay. This ruling underscores the importance of registered trademarks in protecting service-based businesses from unauthorized imitation.
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited v.Mastech Corporation And 2 Others
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited filed several applications seeking temporary injunctions against Mastech Corporation and others for alleged infringement of copyright, business interference, defamation, and inducement of clients and employees. The court dismissed all the applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, noting that damages were already claimed.
M/s.Cholayil Private Limited v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'Herbal,' was not phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'Medimix.' Furthermore, despite the plaintiff claiming long usage, the court noted that the artistic work relied upon was only assigned in 2008, undermining the claim of continuous use since 1969. Ultimately, the court concluded there were more dissimilarities than similarities, finding no likelihood of deception among ordinary purchasers.
Nokia Corporation v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Corporation challenged the Deputy Controller's order which rejected its National Phase Application because it was filed after the stipulated 31-month deadline. The petitioner argued that Rule 138 allowed for a one-month extension and condonation of delay. The High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the application should be decided on merit under Rules 137 & 138.
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.