M/S South Thindis (Now known as South Veg Thindis) v. M/S Billion Smiles Hospitality Pvt Ltd

WP No.24093/2012 (IPR)

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S South Thindis, which sought to stay an ongoing trademark infringement suit based on its pending application for rectification. The court held that since the petitioner raised the plea of invalidity for the first time in the written statement and not before the suit was instituted, the mandate of Section 124(1)(b)(i) did not apply. Furthermore, the court noted the belated nature of the stay request, citing precedent against staying proceedings at a late stage.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Karnataka High Court
Case Number
WP No.24093/2012 (IPR)
Judge(s)
Jawad Rahim

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Karnataka High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S South Thindis (Now known as South Veg Thindis) vs M/S Billion Smiles Hospitality Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(OS) 2011/2010 & CC No.4/2011

Nippon Soda Co. Ltd.vsV.P. Goyal And Anr

The Delhi High Court allowed a stay application filed by Nippon Soda Co. Ltd., restraining further proceedings in its trademark infringement suit against V.P. Goyal And Anr. The court ruled that Section 124(1)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 applies whenever rectification proceedings are pending, regardless of whether those proceedings were initiated before or after the main suit was filed. Furthermore, while the stay does not apply to claims of passing off, the court maintained that the relief against passing off must be decided concurrently with infringement.

patentCS(COMM) 950/2025

Novartis Ag & Anr.vsNovarise Pharmachem Private Limited

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Novartis against Novarise Pharmachem Private Limited, addressing a trademark infringement dispute. The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case regarding their registered trade mark 'NOVARTIS,' noting its extensive use and high goodwill in the pharmaceutical sector. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion between 'NOVARTIS' and 'NOVARISE,' the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark until further hearing.

patentCS(COMM) 917/2024

Lotus Herbals Private LimitedvsNishtu Enterprises & Ors.

The Delhi High Court allowed Lotus Herbals Private Limited to implead a new entity, Jhalak Cosmetics Store, as a defendant in its trademark infringement suit. This decision was based on the plaintiff's discovery that the new store was selling counterfeit products using the infringing 'LOTUS' mark and trade dress. Furthermore, the court extended the existing interim injunction to this newly added defendant and granted extensive powers to a Local Commissioner to conduct search, seizure, and document examination at the premises of the infringer.

patentS. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2023 (and 273/2022)

M/s Anondita HealthcarevsFaiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim

The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.

patentCS(COMM) 1314/2025

Ohr Laboratory CorporationvsGasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ohr Laboratory Corporation against Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, irreparable harm would result without intervention, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. Defendants are now restrained from using the 'OHR' mark or similar names/model numbers, as well as from reproducing copyrighted brochure elements.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call