Industry Sector

FMCG — India Patent Cases

190 decisions indexed

Page 7 of 7 · 190 total

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 15, 2002

Marico Industries Ltd. v.Sarfaraj Trading Company, Hyderabad

Bombay High Court · 232357

Marico Industries Ltd. appealed a single judge's order that refused to allow it to combine its copyright infringement suit with claims for trademark infringement and passing off against Sarfaraj Trading Company. The court examined whether this discretionary refusal was appealable, ultimately adopting the principle that an order putting an end to proceedings constitutes a judgment. Finding that granting leave would prevent multiplicity of litigation, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the single judge's order.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 14, 2000

Britannia Industries Ltd. v.Sara Lee Bakery India Private Limited

Madras High Court · 937323

Britannia Industries Ltd. filed multiple applications seeking interim injunction against Sara Lee Bakery India Private Limited, alleging that the latter was pirating its registered biscuit design and wrapper through the product 'Milk Wala'. Britannia claimed infringement of both its registered design (Design No. 171091) and copyright. The court examined the claims regarding visual similarity and passing off but ultimately dismissed the applications for interim relief, finding no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 17, 1999

Frito-Lay India & Another v.Amit Goswamy & Another

Delhi High Court · 1327035

The plaintiffs, Frito-Lay India (Pepsico subsidiary), launched a successful promotional campaign in India using collectible round discs (TAZO) with their Lays & Cheetos chips. The defendants started distributing similar discs (AMAZZO) with their Uncle Chipps product, leading to allegations of copyright infringement and passing off. The court examined the similarity between the packaging and the discs.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 7, 1997

Arun Digamber Varangaonkar v.M/S. Kharpe Gruh Udyog And 2 Others

Bombay High Court · 1919244

The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement regarding his spices preparation under the mark 'GHARKUL' against the defendants. The court was asked by the defendants to revoke the ex parte leave granted to the plaintiff. After considering jurisdiction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored trying the case in Amravati, where both parties resided and manufactured goods.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 2, 1997

Arun Digamber Varangaonkar v.M/S. Kharpe Gruth Udyog And Others

Bombay High Court · 1391842

The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against the defendants concerning their masala products. The core dispute revolved around whether the Bombay High Court had proper jurisdiction to hear the case, given that both parties primarily resided and conducted business in Amravati. After considering the facts, including the residence of the plaintiff and manufacturing location of goods, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored a trial in Amravati. Consequently, the ex parte leave previously granted was revoked, allowing the defendants to proceed with their chamber summons.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 4, 1995

M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. v.The Coca Cola Co.

Supreme Court of India · 104935066

The dispute involved trade rivalry and contractual issues between M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. (GBC) and The Coca Cola Co., concerning the bottling and distribution rights for various soft drink brands like Thums Up and Limca. GBC was party to several agreements with Coca Cola, but it allegedly breached these terms by transferring shares without consent. The Supreme Court upheld an interim injunction granted in favor of Coca Cola.

patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 25, 1992

Brooke Bond India Limited v.Balaji Tea (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · 1013577

Brooke Bond appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its applications for injunctions and refused leave to combine claims related to copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, and passing off against Balaji Tea. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that since all causes of action arose from the same facts and the copyright suit was maintainable in Madras, it would not serve justice to refuse joinder.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 18, 1988

The Proctor And Gamble Company v.Christian Hoden (India) Private Ltd.

Madras High Court · 33092

The Proctor And Gamble Company filed a suit alleging infringement of its copyrighted package design and passing off related to the trademark 'Always', used for sanitary napkins. The defendants countered by asserting their established goodwill under the 'Comfit' brand and arguing that P&G lacked any reputation in India, especially since their products had not entered the Indian market. The Madras High Court upheld the lower court's decision, dismissing P&G's appeals.

patent mixed · Oct 10, 1984

Amar Soap Factory v.Public Gram Udyog Samiti

Delhi High Court · 799542

Amar Soap Factory filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Public Gram Udyog Samiti for alleged infringement of its copyrighted artistic wrapper and passing off using the similar trade mark 'Talwar Marka'. The court examined claims regarding both copyright protection and trademark rights. Ultimately, while the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a permanent injunction protecting their registered copyright, the claim for rendition of accounts was dismissed due to the long usage by both parties.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 27, 1973

Hindustan Sanitaryware And Industries Limited v.Neiveli Ceramics And Refractories Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 233208

Hindustan Sanitaryware (petitioner) filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Patent No. 103411 held by Neiveli Ceramics (respondent). The core dispute revolved around whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to hear the revocation petition, and whether the proceedings should be stayed due to an existing infringement suit in Madras.

1 •••567
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 →