Syed Zakirali S/o Syed Jawarali v. Syed Zahidali S/o Syed Jawarali & Ors

FIRST APPEAL NO.500/2005

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal filed by Syed Zakirali against the dismissal of his civil suit concerning trademark infringement. The court held that Defendant No. 2 was illegally passing off goods as those of the plaintiff using disputed wrappers and labels ('322 pucca label' and '322 A.K.'). Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using these marks if the plaintiff renews them, and ordered to pay damages or render accounts of profits.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
FIRST APPEAL NO.500/2005
Judge(s)
Z.A. Haq

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Syed Zakirali S/o Syed Jawarali vs Syed Zahidali S/o Syed Jawarali & Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 288/2022

Axcess LimitedvsController Of Patents And Designs

Axcess Limited appealed the Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 2427/DELNP/2011), which covered bile acids and biguanides as protease inhibitors for gut peptides. The Controller had rejected the application under Section 59(1) of the Patent Act, arguing that the amendments exceeded the original scope. However, the Delhi High Court found that a detailed examination of the complete specification supported the amended claims regarding composition as a product. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.

patentC.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 70/2022

Alpa Laboratories LimitedvsTroikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.

The petitioner, Alpa Laboratories Limited, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent IN '231479. The petitioner argued that although the patent was revoked by the Deputy Controller of Patents on December 1, 2020, an appeal had stayed this revocation order. The court issued notice and directed parties to file submissions.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 84/2022

International Foodstuffs Co. LlcvsVijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...

The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.

patentCS(COMM) 1363/2025, I.A. 31845/2025

Kenvue Brands Llc & AnrvsRspl Limited

The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 89/2024

Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Impresario Entertainment, setting aside the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its trademark application. The court found that the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice because the Appellant was prevented from participating in the scheduled virtual hearing due to technical impediments. Furthermore, the Impugned Order failed to consider crucial evidence, such as a Joint Memorandum of Compromise between the parties. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back for a fair and comprehensive hearing.

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