Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe)

Natco Pharma LimitedvsAssistant Controller Of Patents & Designs Anr.

Natco Pharma challenged the Assistant Controller's order granting a patent to Novartis for pharmaceutical compositions, arguing that the order was passed with procedural irregularities and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and quashed the impugned order, remanding the application back to the Controller for fresh consideration based on due process.

M/s. ARCEE ElectronicsvsM/s. ARCEEIKA

M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter adopted a similar name and business model for selling electronic goods. The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff did not operate or conduct any infringing acts within Mumbai city. After examining the evidence, the court found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants had established sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, leading to the dismissal of the suit and return of the Plaint.

Hero Investcorp Private Limited Anr.vsVenuse Automobile

Hero Investcorp Private Limited filed a suit against Venuse Automobile alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'HERO' brand. The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of the Plaintiffs, including an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with powers to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize infringing auto parts bearing the HERO marks, and ascertain the stock value, signaling strong initial support for the Plaintiff's claims.

Pidilite Industries Ltd.vsVilas Nemichand Jain

The Bombay High Court allowed Pidilite Industries Ltd. to amend its original suit, which was initially filed for passing off. The plaintiffs sought to introduce claims for trademark infringement after successfully registering their mark during the pendency of the trial. The court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply in this case, noting that allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This decision allows the suit to evolve and incorporate stronger IP protections.

Pernod Ricard India Private LimitedvsJagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.