Automotive — India Patent Cases
320 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 11 · 320 total
Bajaj Auto Limited v.M/S Yc Electric Vehicle & Ors.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Bajaj Auto Limited sought compliance regarding the use of its 'CHETAK' brand. The Delhi High Court noted that the defendants claimed no E-rickshaws under the 'CHETAK' trademark had been sold since a previous interim order was issued. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit addressing these claims within three weeks, keeping the litigation moving forward.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court restrained the defendants from pursuing a related civil action before the U.S. District Court at Southern District of Texas, as well as preventing them from manufacturing or selling goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to UNOCAL and UNOCAL 76 in India. This decision protected the plaintiff's established rights derived from its licensing agreement with UNOCAL.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited v.Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited
This case involved a dispute between Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited and Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement of the 'Hero' trademark on electric bikes. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks. However, the core legal battle revolved around whether the contractual disputes arising from the Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) and Trade Mark and Name Agreement (TMNA) were subject to arbitration.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
Minda Corporation Ltd. v.Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Minda Corporation Ltd. against Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's adoption of the 'STAR MINDA' mark was deceptively similar to their registered device marks, leading to a risk of consumer confusion and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited v.Voltronic India Lubricants & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Gulf Oil Lubricants India Limited, to appoint two more Local Commissioners in its ongoing infringement suit. The court recognized that new entities were using the registered trademark 'GULF PRIDE 4T PLUS' and employing deceptively similar trade dress for their engine oil products. This order allows the plaintiff to further investigate and seize infringing goods from newly identified parties, reinforcing the court's initial finding of widespread infringement.
Exide Industries Limited v.Krishna International & Ors.
Exide Industries Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction in the Delhi High Court against Krishna International and others. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting its well-known 'EXIDE' trademark to manufacture and sell various products, including bulbs and power banks. Given the prima facie case made out by Exide regarding the unauthorized use of its mark, the court granted the injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning trademark infringement between Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. and Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors. The dispute centered on the use of similar trade names like 'Road Faster' and 'Milan Road Master.' Through a settlement, the respondents agreed to cease using the disputed marks and withdraw their applications for registration. Consequently, the court disposed of the appeal, allowing the appellant to proceed with seeking a decree in the underlying suit.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.M/S. Mobil House
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation against M/S. Mobil House, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark 'Mobil' for lubricant oils, while the defendant was using it in their trade name, causing market confusion. Consequently, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the disputed mark across all platforms until further hearing.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which rejected its Patent Application. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked reasoning, failed to consider foreign patent grants for the same invention, and did not properly analyze the prior art cited against the claimed invention. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.T.V.S.Motor Company Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant was infringing his Patent No.182682, which covered a specific four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the TVS Flame -125cc. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit due to his severe health conditions.
Bridgestone Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks & Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in the matter of Bridgestone Corporation versus Controller General Of Patents Designs & Trademarks. The court directed both parties to prepare and exchange short notes detailing their submissions and to compile relevant judicial precedents for consideration. This procedural step moves the case closer to final disposal, which is scheduled for February 2, 2022.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Volvo, granting permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing and passing off the 'VOLVO' trademark. The court also ordered the transfer of specific domain names held by other defendants to Volvo. Furthermore, substantial damages were awarded to Volvo against those who willfully used the mark while evading legal proceedings, reinforcing the principle that evasion does not shield commercial gain.
Sun Mobility Private Limited v.Mr. Arumugam Rajpendra Babu
The appeal challenged an order that appointed a Scientific Advisor to adjudicate a dispute over patent infringement. The plaintiff claimed his patents covered specific EV battery charging systems, while defendants were accused of infringing with 'quick interchange station' technology. The High Court confirmed the single judge's order appointing the Scientific Advisor and dismissed the appeal.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Mr. Anwar Ali
The plaintiff, Nike Innovate C.V., filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling infringing shoes and accessories bearing identical or deceptively similar 'Nike' trademarks and logos in Delhi. The court found that the defendant was causing confusion and deception among the public by using falsified marks on inferior quality goods.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.M/S. Mobil House
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation against M/S. Mobil House, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark 'Mobil' for lubricant oils, while the defendant was using it in their trade name, causing market confusion. Consequently, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the disputed mark across all platforms until further hearing.
Kanishk Sinha v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a title suit seeking accounts, delivery of products, and permanent/mandatory injunction against defendants for infringing his patent rights related to eco-friendly e-rikshaws. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction and failure to comply with Section 80(2) CPC. This appeal challenged the impugned order.
M/s. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed a civil suit against Bajaj Auto Limited seeking permanent injunction, accounts of profits, and damages for infringing Patent No.195904 related to 2/3 wheelers. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the Civil Suit.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.Kyk Corporation Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a judgment that had partially allowed a counter-claim by Kyk Corporation, granting it permanent injunctions. The court found that while the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) findings were dispositive regarding trademark registration, they did not address Kyk Corporation's core claim of passing off. Consequently, the High Court set aside the granted injunctions and remanded the matter to the Single Judge to specifically consider Kyk Corporation's claim for passing off based on the existing evidence.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.Bajaj Auto Limited
Mr. P. Radhakrishnan filed a civil suit alleging that Bajaj Auto Limited infringed his Patent No. 182682, which covers a four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the Pulsar series. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages.
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited v.M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited filed a suit against M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries alleging infringement of its well-known trademark, "O TVS TYRES," and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, damages, and account of profits. However, the court ultimately decreed the suit only for the specific prayers related to permanent injunctions after receiving an undertaking from the defendants.
Mrf Limited. v.Metro Tyres Limited.
Mrf Limited filed a suit alleging that Metro Tyres Limited infringed its copyright by producing a similar advertisement for their tyres. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's ad was a substantial and material copy of their original cinematic work. However, the Delhi High Court found that after applying the R.G. Anand test, the two advertisements were neither substantially nor materially similar in substance or kernel. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
M/S. Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
M/S. Lucky Exports challenged an order rejecting its appeal against the cancellation of Design No. 202108, which covered a 'Coaster Brake Sub Assembly'. The core dispute revolved around whether this mechanical component was purely functional and therefore ineligible for design registration, or if it possessed sufficient aesthetic features to qualify. The court examined arguments regarding prior publication and novelty, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
Ceat Limited v.Ambika Rubber Industries and others
The petitioner, Ceat Limited, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark CEAT and copyright in its original artistic work and trade dress. The court had previously granted ex-parte ad-interim relief. On this date, the defendants repeatedly failed to file their affidavits or appear before the court despite multiple adjournments, leading the court to pass an order directing them to appear on a specific future date while continuing the existing interim orders.
Sae India v.Delta Inc.
Sae India filed a civil suit against Delta Inc., alleging multiple infringements, including trademark violation (SAE INDIA, BAJA), copyright infringement related to standards and rules, and passing off. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages. However, both parties agreed that the defendant had ceased all business operations, leading the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
M/s.MRF Limited v.Multi Race Force Lubricants Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. MRF Limited, finding that the defendant's use of similar marks constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court applied the 'average purchaser' test, concluding that the overall similarity between the marks and packaging was likely to mislead an ordinary consumer. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a perpetual injunction restraining further misuse of the mark.
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.