Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v. M/S Electro International & Ors.

CS(COMM) 293/2021

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited and its affiliates against a defendant operating the domain www.tatacliqsmart.com. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was infringing on their registered trademark 'TATA' and associated e-commerce brand, tatacliq.com, by using a similar name to sell products, including those belonging to the Tata Group. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunction, noting the apparent link between the defendant's activities and the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 293/2021
Judge(s)
Subramonium Prasad

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. vs M/S Electro International & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentSuit No.1213 of 2007 (Notice of Motion No.1599 of 2007)

The International Association of Lions ClubsvsThe Association of Lions India

The International Association of Lions Clubs filed a suit against The Association of Lions India, alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were wrongfully adopting their registered trademarks, specifically 'LION', and engaging in acts of passing off by using similar names. Furthermore, they alleged copyright infringement through the adoption of insignia and substantial copying of the Plaintiffs' Constitution and By-Laws. The suit also included claims regarding defamation due to negative reports published by the defendants.

patentCMA(PT)/34/2024

The Trustees Of Columbia UniversityvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

The appellant challenged an order rejecting its amended patent claims (1-19) for 'METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF AMYLOID DEPOSITION DISEASES' under Section 59 of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the amendments were supported by the complete specification, citing relevant case law. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh reconsideration.

patentCRP(PD)No.4408 of 2023

Living Seed Technologies Llp.vsKarthikeya Crop Technologies

The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.

patentC.O. 4/1997 and connected matters (e.g., CS(COMM) 415/2022)

Sh. Jaininder Jain And Ors.vsRegistrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the ongoing dispute concerning the 'KANGARO' trademark. Addressing requests for comprehensive information, the court directed the Plaintiffs to first compile a list of all trademark oppositions they have filed against Defendants. Subsequently, the Defendants were mandated to provide certificates and applications for all relevant foreign trademark registrations not contested by the Plaintiffs. This order aims to ensure full transparency regarding global IP rights related to the brand.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 8/2021

Microsoft Technology Licensing LlcvsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

The Delhi High Court heard several part-heard matters concerning a common legal question under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970. The order was passed in hybrid mode and scheduled for further 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