India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 126 of 164 · 4,909 total
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a Commercial IP Suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trademark. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and ordering the destruction of all related materials.
Rallis India Limited v.Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Rallis India Limited filed a suit against Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr. alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the trade mark 'RALLIS' in medicinal preparations, website domains, and business names. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendants and ordering them to transfer the infringing domain name.
Unilever Plc v.Deluxe Ice Cream Factory
Unilever Plc filed a suit against Deluxe Ice Cream Factory alleging infringement and passing off related to its well-known trademarks, specifically FEAST and CORNETTO. The court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like CHOCO FEAST, CONATTO, and CONETO in relation to ice creams and frozen desserts.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Halberd Chemicals
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Halberd Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress, registered trademarks (Nos. 1486109, 1780462, 1486107), and passing off using its well-known logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Halberd Chemicals
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Halberd Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress and registered trademarks. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing these rights and passing off.
Unilever Plc. v.Masqati Dairy Products
Unilever Plc. filed a commercial IP suit against Masqati Dairy Products regarding the alleged infringement and passing off related to its registered trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc. v.Masqati Dairy Products
Unilever Plc. filed a commercial IP suit against Masqati Dairy Products alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave and decreed the suit, restraining the defendant from using the similar mark 'CHOCO FEAST' in relation to frozen desserts.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Crop Life Science Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a suit against Crop Life Science Limited alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429). The parties subsequently reached a compromise and settled their disputes before the Madras High Court.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Enzalutamide', citing lack of inventive steps. The petitioner further argued that the rejection was vitiated because the Controller failed to address or refer to crucial expert affidavits and scientific documents presented during the proceedings.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of Patent No.193247, but since the patent had lapsed, the suit was pursued only for damages. The defendant filed a Counter Claim seeking revocation of the subject patent. The core legal issue addressed by the court was whether the written statement to the Counter Claim could be taken on record despite not being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial within the stipulated time.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, imposing perpetual injunctions on the defendant.
M/S. Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
M/S. Lucky Exports challenged an order rejecting its appeal against the cancellation of Design No. 202108, which covered a 'Coaster Brake Sub Assembly'. The core dispute revolved around whether this mechanical component was purely functional and therefore ineligible for design registration, or if it possessed sufficient aesthetic features to qualify. The court examined arguments regarding prior publication and novelty, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
Amrit B Sanghavi v.Dhanraj Surana
The suit involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered mark 'ITONE' with the use of 'DITONE', and also restrained them from passing off the plaintiff's goods.
International Cycle Gears v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner appealed against the Controller's order allowing the cancellation of Design No. 201728 for a 'Coaster Brake Hub'. The appeal argued that the design was significantly different from known models, particularly those published in February 2005. However, the High Court upheld the Controller's finding, concluding that the design lacked novelty and originality as it was substantially identical to prior publications.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Hari Om Plasters
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a suit against Hari Om Plasters alleging trademark infringement concerning various 'BIRLA' branded products. The court, after reviewing the site report and inventory of seized goods, granted leave to the plaintiffs. Crucially, the court passed a temporary order restraining the defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered 'BIRLA' trademarks, including specific variants like 'BIRLA WHITE' and 'BIRLA PLUS', pending the final hearing of the suit.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite India Ltd.
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Aqualite India Ltd. for allegedly infringing its registered footwear design No.294938. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product was an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. During the interim application, the court directed a market survey which revealed numerous third-party products with near identical designs available in the market.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.Satish Reddy
The plaintiffs, holding exclusive rights to Indian Patent No. 215528 for Lorcaserin, filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against the defendants who were planning to commercialize an infringing drug (LHH). The court found that there was a prima facie case of infringement in favor of the plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringing its registered trade marks (SUNLIGHT) and copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringement and passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the Bolar provision. The court examined whether patented products could be exported for clinical trials and regulatory submissions outside India without constituting patent infringement. The bench affirmed that sale or use under Section 107A is legal both domestically and abroad, provided the end purpose is reasonably related to research and development for regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that disputes regarding the legitimate scope of this exemption should be adjudicated in civil suits rather than public law proceedings like writ petitions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringing its trade marks (SUNLIGHT) and copyrights related to detergent packaging. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, issuing permanent injunctions.
Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. v.BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras)
This civil suit was filed by Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. against BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras) seeking perpetual injunctions for infringing their registered mark 'Eagle' and committing copyright violations. The plaintiffs sought relief including damages, surrender of materials, and a preliminary decree for accounts of profits. However, the parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jayalakshmi Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Jayalakshmi Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyrights, and trade dress concerning its detergent products. The court granted the injunctions sought by the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using infringing marks or artwork.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Time Plus Institute & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management (T.I.M.E.) against Time Plus Institute, recognizing the strong likelihood of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the respondent's use of similar marks was likely to deceive the public and dilute T.I.M.E.'s established goodwill in the coaching industry. Furthermore, a local commissioner was appointed to seize infringing materials, reinforcing the protection of T.I.M.E.'s statutory and common law rights.
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited v.Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, which was seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. The court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the order, primarily based on the principle that the defendants themselves had applied for registration of a similar mark (CONCRETA). This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine against 'approbation and reprobation,' preventing parties from contradicting their own prior actions in litigation.
Speciality Restaurants Limited v.Deepika Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd.
Speciality Restaurants Limited filed a suit against Deepika Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court disposed of the suit and notice of motion based on minutes of order, accepting undertakings from the defendants.
Flexituff International Ltd v.M/S Tirupati Sprinklers
The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging infringement of its registered dripper design. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the design developed since 2010. The defendant countered that the design was generic, not novel, and had been obtained from a third party (Mr. Uri Alkalay) prior to registration. The court dismissed both injunction applications.
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.