Software — India Patent Cases
146 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 5 · 146 total
Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr v.Pindrop Music App Private Limited
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction favoring Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr against Pindrop Music App Private Limited. The court found that both parties held registered trademarks, but crucially, they operated in different classes (Class 41 for the plaintiff's studio services and Class 42 for the defendant's mobile application). Citing Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act, the court ruled that since the marks were not used in the same class, infringement could not be established at this stage. The ruling prioritized the balance of convenience in favor of the growing startup.
Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr v.Pindrop Music App Private Limited
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction favoring Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr against Pindrop Music App Private Limited. The court found that both parties held registered trademarks, but crucially, they operated in different classes (Class 41 for the plaintiff's studio services and Class 42 for the defendant's mobile application). Citing Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act, the court ruled that since the marks were not used in the same class, infringement could not be established at this stage. The ruling prioritized the balance of convenience in favor of the growing startup.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft v.M/S Appsone Consulting India (P) Ltd.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against M/S Appsone Consulting India for infringing its copyrights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were illegally providing training programs using their proprietary SAP ERP software modules without authorization, despite having specific license agreements in place. The court found the defendants liable for unauthorized use and granted the plaintiffs permanent injunction along with punitive damages.
Amultek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed a challenge to an interim order preventing Amultek Software Solutions from using the name 'Amultek' due to trademark concerns raised by Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. The court allowed the application filed by Amultek, permitting them to temporarily change their name to Atek Software Solutions Pvt Ltd while reserving their right to contest the underlying infringement claims in the main appeal. This decision allows the litigation to proceed toward a final determination of trademark rights.
Microsoft Corporation v.Mr. Rajeev Trehan
Microsoft Corporation filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages against Mr. Rajeev Trehan and others for the alleged piracy of its software products. The court examined evidence establishing that the defendants were loading Microsoft's copyrighted software onto computers they sold without permission. Given the defendants' failure to appear in court, the plaintiffs successfully made out a case for infringement.
Microsoft Corporation v.Karan Puri Prop. Of M/S Puri Computers
Microsoft Corporation filed a suit against Karan Puri Prop. Of M/S Puri Computers alleging that the defendant was infringing their copyrights by unauthorized hard-disk loading of Microsoft Windows and Office software onto branded computers sold to customers. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction, delivery-up of copies, and damages for piracy. Despite the defendant remaining ex-parte throughout the proceedings, the Delhi High Court found sufficient uncontroverted material on record to sustain the claim.
Microsoft Corporation v.Hitendra Idnani
Microsoft Corporation filed a suit against Hitendra Idnani, proprietor of Laptech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., alleging copyright infringement. The core issue was the unauthorized hard-disk loading and sale of pirated versions of Microsoft Windows and Office software on branded computers. Despite the defendants being ex-parte and the court initially requiring examination of expert witnesses, the Delhi High Court found sufficient material on record to establish infringement.
Director Of Income Tax v.Infrasoft Ltd.
The dispute centered on whether payments received by Infrasoft Ltd. for licensing its civil engineering software constituted royalty income under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Assessing Officer had taxed these receipts as royalty, leading to an appeal by the Director of Income Tax. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Infrasoft, holding that the payment was merely for a limited right to use the copyrighted material, not the copyright itself, and thus qualified as business income.
Tata Sons Ltd. v.Arno Palmen
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd., finding that the defendant's registration of the domain name www.tatainfotech.in constituted trademark infringement and bad faith. The court noted that the plaintiff had prior rights over the associated brand, TATA INFOTECH, and found conclusive evidence demonstrating the defendant registered the domain solely to exploit the plaintiffs' reputation. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction against the use of the infringing domain name and ordered its cancellation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Mr. Ganesh Wakode
Microsoft Corporation filed a lawsuit against Mr. Ganesh Wakode alleging widespread infringement of its copyrighted software titles, including various versions of Microsoft Windows and MS Office. Investigations revealed that the defendants' offices were running numerous computer systems with significant quantities of unlicensed/pirated software installations. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Microsoft, granting permanent injunctions, substantial compensatory damages, and punitive damages to deter future piracy.
Microsoft Coporation And Anr. v.Mr. Sanjay Langar And Anr.
Microsoft Corporation filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its copyrights in various software programs, specifically alleging unauthorized 'Hard-Disk Loading' onto computers sold by the defendants. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the installed software lacked genuine Certificates of Authenticity and End-User License Agreements. Given the evidence presented and the defendant's failure to appear in court, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Microsoft Corporation.
Times Internet Ltd. v.Jonathan S. And Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Times Internet Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against the infringement of its brand 'Indiatimes'. The court recognized that Indiatimes, a coined word associated with extensive e-commerce operations, held significant goodwill and reputation. Furthermore, the plaintiff was awarded damages, affirming the protection afforded to established online brands.
Samsung Electronics Company Limited v.Assessee
The appeal challenged the assessment that payments made by Samsung Electronics to DSP Asia Pte Ltd. for purchasing 'shrink-wrapped software' constituted royalty, thereby requiring TDS deduction under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the revenue's view, citing a previous judgment in the assessee's own case where the High Court had held that such payments were indeed royalty.
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd. v.Mehar Karan Singh
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co.Ltd filed suit against its former Director, Mehar Karan Singh, alleging that he divulged confidential company information, specifically a customized software manual for real estate, to a competing entity. The core dispute centered on whether the disclosed material qualified as protected trade secrets under their employment contract and Code of Ethics. While the court found grounds for injunctive relief regarding specific documents like the Goa property MOU, it cautioned against broad injunctions concerning general business plans.
Yahoo! Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Yahoo! Inc challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's refusal to entertain its appeal against the Controller's order rejecting a patent application. The petitioner argued that the rejection under Section 25(1) should be construed as a decision under Section 15, allowing for an appeal. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the IPAB to hear the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity to the opposing party.
M/S Fiorano Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (Amd)
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the appeal filed by M/S Fiorano Software Technologies against a trial court order that refused a temporary injunction. The dispute centered on whether AMD's use of 'Fiorano' in its server platform infringed upon Fiorano's registered trademarks, including 'Fiorano SOA Platform.' While the appellant argued for trademark infringement and passing off, the High Court declined to rule on the merits of the appeal, directing the Trial Court to proceed with a full adjudication.
Microsoft Corporation v.Mr. Pradeep Khanna
Microsoft Corporation filed four civil suits alleging that various defendants were using pirated or illegally copied software at their offices, constituting copyright infringement. The plaintiffs sought an ex-parte injunction and the appointment of a Local Commissioner to audit and seize hard discs as evidence. The Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunction subject to cost security and directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with technical experts to conduct a thorough inspection and mirror imaging of the defendants' computer systems.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. v.M/S. Varehouse Infotech
This case involved a suit filed by SAP Aktiengesellschaft against M/S. Varehouse Infotech seeking permanent injunctions for copyright infringement related to SAP software. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient nexus with Delhi under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. However, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that since Plaintiff No. 2 was carrying on business in Delhi on an extensive scale, the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Sap Aktiengesellschaft v.M/S Parginsys
Sap Aktiengesellschaft filed a suit seeking damages and rendition of accounts against M/S Parginsys for infringing its software copyright. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was providing training services using pirated software in Nagpur, Maharashtra. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient connection or 'place of business' within Delhi, concluding that the suit was filed merely as a tactic to harass the defendants.
Adobe Systems Incorporated v.Sh. Rohit Rathi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated, finding that the defendant's use of the domain name www.adobeinc.org constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized 'ADOBE' as a well-known mark with trans-border reputation, noting that the defendant's attempt to ride on Adobe's popularity was mala fide. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions against further use of similar names, a mandatory order for domain transfer, and punitive damages.
Department Of Income Tax v.Solid Works Corporation, Mumbai
The appeal was filed by the Department of Income Tax, arguing that payments received by Solid Works Corporation for its shrink-wrap software constituted royalty under the Indo-US DTAA. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the payment was merely for the purchase of a copyrighted article and not a right to use copyright.
Tata Sons Limited And Anr. v.Fashion Id Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Limited and Tata Infotech Limited, holding that principles of passing off fully apply to internet domain names. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain 'tatainfotecheducation.com' constituted an infringement and dilution of the plaintiffs' distinctive TATA trademarks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using the name and ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name back to Tata Infotech Limited.
Microsoft Corporation v.Ashok Azad And Ors.
This case involved Microsoft Corporation, the owner of copyrighted computer software and registered trademarks, suing various computer training institutes for using pirated software. After initial injunctions were granted, the parties reached an amicable settlement which included undertakings by the respondents to cease infringement and legalize their software use. The subsequent petitions filed before the court sought contempt action based on alleged breaches of these undertakings. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that since the undertaking was given only to the plaintiffs (the opposing party) and not directly to the court, it did not constitute a breach actionable under contempt jurisdiction.
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v.Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed whether internet domain names are protected under trademark law. The court ruled that a domain name can function as a business identifier and is therefore subject to passing-off principles, provided it serves as an instrument of commercial enterprise. Finding that the respondent was attempting to capitalize on the appellant's established reputation ('Sify'), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and affirming the injunction in favor of Satyam Infoway Ltd.
Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Shailesh Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Info Edge (NAUKRI.COM) against Shailesh Gupta (JOBSOURCEINDIA.COM). The court recognized that domain names function as trademarks and are entitled to protection. Finding the defendant's use of a similar domain name was deceptive and intended to divert traffic for commercial gain, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing the need to protect honest internet users from bad faith practices.
Yahoo!, Inc. v.Akash Arora & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Yahoo!, Inc., preventing the defendants from operating under the domain name 'Yahooindia.Com'. The court recognized that despite 'Yahoo!' being a dictionary word, its extensive use and reputation had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the internet services sector. This ruling affirmed that passing off actions can be maintained even if the mark is not registered, provided it has achieved sufficient repute.
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.