India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 118 of 164 · 4,909 total
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.BRD Medilabs & Anr
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against BRD Medilabs & Anr regarding trademark infringement. The court decreed the suit in specific terms, requiring the defendants to apply for the cancellation of their registered mark 'Sanaret Labs' and withdraw their service mark application within four weeks.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
H. Lundbeck A/S filed a suit against Hetero Drugs Limited regarding alleged infringement of Patent IN227963, which covers Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. During the hearing, the defendants asserted that they were not commercially launching any product and were using the substance solely for regulatory and R&D purposes.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiffs, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking an injunction against Actis Generics Pvt Ltd for infringing Patent No. IN'816, which covers the compound Sitagliptin. The court examined the prima facie case and found that the Defendant was distributing and selling infringing Sitagliptin API without authorization.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited
This case involved a dispute between Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited and Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement of the 'Hero' trademark on electric bikes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks. However, the core legal battle revolved around whether the contractual disputes arising from the Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) and Trade Mark and Name Agreement (TMNA) were subject to arbitration.
Vimal Dairy Limited v.Gujarat Tea Depot Company
The Gujarat High Court upheld the interim injunction granted in favor of Gujarat Tea Depot Company against Vimal Dairy Limited. The court found that allowing Vimal Dairy to market its product could cause confusion among the public due to substantial similarities between the brands and labels, despite differences in trade products. This decision reinforces the principle that courts must look at prima facie similarity to prevent consumer deception in trademark and copyright disputes.
Johnson & Johnson v.Pritamdas Arora T/A M/S Medserve & Anr
In a trademark infringement dispute, Johnson & Johnson sought permission from the Delhi High Court to amend its original plaint. The plaintiff argued that evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner revealed additional trademark infringements by the defendant concerning 'LIGACLIP,' which needed to be incorporated into the suit. Satisfied that these amendments were necessary for determining the real issues between the parties, the court allowed the application, allowing J&J to update its claims and proceed with the litigation.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
This case involved a suit for alleged patent infringement. The defendants filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements, citing difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and general disruptions to legal processes. The court allowed these applications, condoning the delay.
Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited v.The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority & Ors.
Astrazeneca challenged several orders and notifications issued by NPPA regarding overcharging on its drug, OSIMERTINIB (TAGRISSO). The petitioner argued that the drug is patented and qualifies for a five-year exemption from price controls under DPCO, 2013. The Court directed NPPA to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into account the data supplied by the petitioner.
Praveen Murarka v.Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a dispute over registered designs of water bottles. The appellant, Praveen Murarka, sought an injunction against the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered design ('Kool Kommandar') with their product ('Cool Cutie'). The core legal issue revolved around whether the Commercial Court correctly applied the test of 'exact similitude' or if the proper standard under the Designs Act, 2000, was the 'look alike' factor. The High Court ultimately found that the designs were substantially similar and set aside the lower court's order, allowing the injunction.
A.R.Safiullah v.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts
A.R.Safiullah filed a civil suit against Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts and others, alleging infringement of his intellectual property rights. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions based on Patent No. 198079 (for food-grade laminated paper) and Design No. 182931 (for artificial laminated banana leaves). Furthermore, the suit claimed passing off related to trade dress imitation. However, before a final judgment could be delivered, the plaintiff formally withdrew the civil suit.
A.R.Safiullah v.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts
A.R.Safiullah filed a civil suit against Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts and others, alleging infringement of his intellectual property rights. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions based on Patent No. 198079 (for food-grade laminated paper) and Design No. 182931 (for artificial laminated banana leaves), as well as claims of passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff formally withdrew the civil suit.
R X Infotech Private Limited v.Jalpa Rajesh Kumar Jain
The Delhi High Court dismissed a defendant's application seeking to reject the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that even if the suit was primarily based on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC allow for jurisdiction where any part of the cause of action arose. Specifically, the court found that online transactions related to the defendant's website could reasonably be considered to have occurred within Delhi, thus validating the plaintiff's choice of forum.
Plaintiff No. 1 v.Defendants
The plaintiffs, owners of two patents covering the compound LINAGLIPTIN and its derivatives, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing LINAGLIPTIN tablets under the brand name BRLENTA-5 without consent. The court found a prima facie case for injunction.
M/s.Kumbhat Holographics v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
The appellants challenged the tender terms set by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd for producing polyester based hologram excise labels. They argued that the technical specifications favored a specific patented technology, leading to limited participation and vitiating the public tendering process. The High Court found merit in this challenge, quashing the tender but allowing Uflex (the awarded vendor) to continue work temporarily.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor used to treat Diabetes Mellitus Type II. The court issued an order granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products until further hearing.
M/S Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd. against Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd and associated sellers. The plaintiff alleged that unauthorized third-party sellers were using the registered 'BOYA' trademark to sell counterfeit microphones on the platform, causing reputational damage and fraud. The court recognized a prima facie case and granted the injunction, compelling the e-commerce platform to take steps to remove listings of fake products.
Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. v.Jafar Ali
This appeal was filed by Kanjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel & Ors. challenging an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in a suit for patent infringement. The appellants argued that the Commercial Court had incorrectly applied parameters suitable for trademark infringement, constituting a jurisdictional error. They also raised concerns regarding procedural lapses and prior litigation history which prejudiced their case. Despite finding merit in the contentions, the High Court decided to allow the matter to proceed before the Commercial Court to ensure a fair hearing on the interim relief application.
Unilever Plc. v.Ashok Kumar (Unknown Person)
The court considered an Interim Application filed by Unilever Plc. against Ashok Kumar regarding patent infringement. The Court granted leave to amend the pleadings, noting that infringing goods were being marketed by a third party (Sunil Garg). Consequently, an ad-interim order was passed under Clause XIV of the Letter Patent.
Yogi Ayurvedic Products Pvt Ltd v.The Yogi And 2 Ors
The Plaintiff, a private limited company, filed an interim application seeking protection for its registered and formative marks under 'YOGI' against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were infringing these marks and attempting to pass off their goods using 'THE YOGI' online. The Court found a prima facie case made out and permitted the plaintiff to proceed with the ad-interim relief application.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) v.Vishna Foods Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) against Vishna Foods Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case that the defendant was infringing on ISKCON's registered trademark and engaging in passing off by using a deceptively similar mark across various goods and services. This interim relief prevents the defendant from continuing unauthorized use of the mark until the final disposal of the suit.
Societe D Elastographie v.N.W. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 244875 by the defendants. The patent's validity lapsed in February 2020, affecting the need for interim relief.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. v.Times Coaching Centre
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning an existing trademark infringement suit between Triumphant Institute of Management Education and Times Coaching Centre. The core issue revolved around whether the Defendant's subsequent change in its trademark, from 'Times Coaching Centre' to 'Future Times Coaching Centre', constituted wilful disobedience of a prior interim injunction. The court found that the Defendant acted under a genuine misunderstanding of the scope of the injunction, believing the new mark was outside its restraint. Consequently, while dismissing the applications for non-wilful reasons, the court imposed costs on the Defendant due to the continued use of infringing marks.
adidas AG / adidas India Marketing Private Limited v.Mr. Rajender Kumar
The plaintiff, adidas AG through its Indian subsidiary, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'adidas', 'three bars', '3-Strips', and 'Trefoil'. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking discovery through interrogatories in a suit alleging infringement of their patent for Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's process description was ambiguous and evasive, hiding the use of immobilized enzymes and specific acids. However, the court dismissed the application, finding it amounted to a roving inquiry and stating that the issues could be addressed through cross-examination.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akah Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification application concerning a trademark registration. The plaintiff informed the court that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously directed the removal of the defendant's mark from the Trademarks Register. However, the defendants requested an adjournment as they were in the process of challenging the IPAB's decision, leading the court to list the matter for a future date.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Sukan Raj Jain & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of V Guard Industries Ltd against Sukan Raj Jain & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'V-GUARD' and associated designs from the use of the deceptively similar mark 'N-GUARD'. Citing a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks and designs. This order sets the stage for the full trial on trademark infringement, design infringement, and passing off.
Grand Tobacco Private Limited v.Abdul Rashid Shaikh Tobaco, A Limited Liability Partnership & Ors.
The plaintiff, Grand Tobacco Private Limited, filed an application seeking interim protection against the defendant for infringement of its registered trademark and passing off. The court found a prima facie case existed, noting that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('A.R.S Chand Tara Marka') and color combination on tobacco products compared to the plaintiff's mark ('Super Chand Tara Marka').
Bharat Balar and White Lion Trading Private Ltd. v.Rajendra Distributors and Sha Mahendra Kumar Asuram & Sha Asuram Madaji
This case involved a suit filed by Bharat Balar and White Lion Trading Private Ltd. against Rajendra Distributors, alleging infringement of their registered design for Unitary Multilayer Containers and idly plates. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages based on the design's shape and configuration. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the civil suit.
C.V. Radhakrishnan v.Registrar of Trademarks
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed a writ petition filed by C.V. Radhakrishnan concerning the undue delay in issuing a trademark registration certificate for 'RIVER VALLEY.' Despite all procedural requirements being completed and publication occurring as early as December 2019, the petitioner had not received the final certificate. The court recognized the grievance regarding administrative delays and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation within two months.
Unilever Plc v.Pawan Saini
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered trademarks (SURF/SURF EXCEL) and copyrights related to detergent packaging by the defendant. The plaintiffs presented evidence of counterfeit goods bearing slavish imitations of their marks and artworks.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.