India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 164 of 164 · 4,909 total
Procter and Gamble Health Limited v.Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court disposed of a commercial appeal and interim application related to trademark infringement and passing off. The court accepted the defendant's statement that they are not using the offending mark and have no intention to do so. The court clarified that the observations made in the earlier order shall not act as a precedent. The case involved the trademarks LIVOGEN and LIVOGEN-Z, and the defendant's mark LIVOGEM. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing misrepresentation and damage to goodwill in passing off cases.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited, allowing the appointment of an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trade mark/label. The court also directed the concerned police authorities to assist the Additional Special Receiver in the execution of the order. The plaintiff had filed a suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement, alleging that the defendant was using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'LAVIE' without permission.
Astral Ltd v.M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors
Astral Ltd filed a suit against M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors for trademark infringement, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The defendants agreed to give up the use of the impugned marks and not to use any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ASTRAL. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with the defendants permitted to sell existing stock within five months.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors
The Delhi High Court awarded costs in favor of the defendant, M/S Bata India Ltd, in a design infringement suit filed by Crocs Inc Usa. The court directed the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 24,63,400/- to the defendant within three months. The suit was initially filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Design Registration no. 197685, but the court had earlier dismissed the interim injunction applications and allowed the defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of John Cockerill Hamon SA, restraining Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited from using the HAMON mark. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark was likely to cause confusion and deceive the public. The plaintiff had registered the HAMON mark in India and had been using it since 1963. The defendant's use of the mark was held to be an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights.
Geetanjali Salon Private Limited v.Ms. Amita Dubey & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Geetanjali Salon Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's trademarks 'GEETANJALI' and 'GEETANJALI STUDIO'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants were also restrained from passing off their services as those of the plaintiff.
Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld an order allowing an extension of time for filing an evidence affidavit in a trademark rectification proceeding, despite a delay of over three years. The court held that the deadline under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is directory, not mandatory. The case involved a dispute between two factions of the same family over the use of the 'Black Diamond' name in their respective businesses.
M/S. Psychotropic India Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Psychotropic India Limited, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to correct the class of goods in respect of Trademark Application No. 2038075 from Class 11 to Class 05. The petitioner had filed the application for the mark 'THIOPIL' in 2010, but due to an error, the application was processed under the wrong class. The court ordered the correction to be made within three weeks and the application to be processed expeditiously thereafter.
SML Limited v.M/s Happy Agro Chemicals
SML Limited filed a patent infringement suit against M/s Happy Agro Chemicals, alleging that the defendant's product 'SELZIC' infringes their patent rights under Indian Patent No.282092. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their patent rights. However, the court dismissed the application due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the alleged wrong was not committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction.
Havells India Limited v.Vijay
Havells India Limited sued Vijay for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction, restraining Vijay from using the HAVELLS trademark. The court also awarded damages and punitive damages to Havells India Limited. The case highlights the importance of protecting well-known trademarks in India.
Modern Snacks Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Ace Foods Private Limited
The Madras High Court condoned the delay of 118 days in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.4015735. The appeal was filed by Modern Snacks Private Limited against the order dated 04.07.2025. The court allowed the petition on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Chief Justice Relief Fund. This decision highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals in trademark opposition cases. The court's discretion in condoning delays can be crucial in determining the outcome of such cases.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal against a single judge's order denying an absolute interim injunction in a trademark dispute between More Than Water Private Limited and Nesco Limited. The court imposed a territorial restraint, allowing both parties to continue manufacturing and selling their products within their respective states. The court also directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take note of the restraint and make an appropriate noting in its register.
Ashiana Ispat Limited v.Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Ashiana Ispat Limited against a single judge's order granting an interim injunction in favor of Kamdhenu Limited. The court held that Ashiana Ispat Limited cannot use the mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' as it is deceptively similar to Kamdhenu Limited's registered marks. The court also issued directions to preserve the rights of both parties pending final determination of the suit.
Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Exotic Mile
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd against Exotic Mile, seeking to restrain the defendant from using the trademark BOULT, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks BOAT/boAt. The court found that the defendant had discontinued the use of the impugned marks and had transitioned to a new trademark, rendering the application without merit. The case highlights the importance of establishing undue hardship in seeking interim relief. The court's decision is significant as it demonstrates the application of trademark law principles in determining the similarity between marks and the potential for consumer confusion.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed an appeal against the refusal of interim injunction by the Single Judge in a trademark infringement case against Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent's mark 'PANTOPACID' is deceptively similar to their registered mark 'PANTOCID'. The Court allowed the appeal with directions, granting the Respondents liberty to dispose of their existing stock within a limited period.
M. Manuel v.Malabar Gold Private Ltd.
The Kerala High Court modified an injunction granted by the Trial Court, restraining the appellant from using any mark, label, logo, artistic work, trade dress or commercial presentation deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark and business identity. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired exclusive rights over the registered trade mark and trade name 'Malabar Gold' with the logo, and the defendant's mark 'Malabar Fashion Jewellery' and logo were deceptively similar. The court also found that the term 'Malabar' is a geographical expression and no exclusive proprietary right can be claimed over the said word in isolation.
Dr. G. Srinivasan v.M/s. Voltamp Transformers Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for infringing his patent related to Midget Transformers with built-in State node Circuit Breakers. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the infringement and revoked the patent.
Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Baghyaa Home Appliances, M/s.Maya Appliances Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its registered design for a tripod shaped base unit for mixer grinders by the defendants. The case involves a dispute over the originality and imitation of the design.
M/S. M.V.J Foods (India) Pvt.Ltd v.Devanand Shenoy
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging a trial court's order allowing the reopening of evidence in a trademark infringement suit. The original suit alleged that the defendants were passing off goods using the 'MELAM' brand, which was registered by the plaintiffs. The core dispute centered on whether a licensing agreement from 1994 could be introduced as evidence. The High Court found no prejudice to the defendant and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the case to proceed with the newly admitted evidence.
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.