Industry Sector

Automotive — India Trade-secret Cases

4 decisions indexed

Page 1 of 1 · 4 total

trade-secret interim order · Sep 8, 2021

Wheelseye Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v.Zinka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 158857242

Wheelseye Technology filed a suit alleging that its competitor, Zinka Logistics Solutions, along with several former WheelsEye employees, conspired to disrupt the business. The Defendants allegedly misappropriated Confidential Information, solicited employees through en masse poaching, and induced breaches of contractual obligations.

trade-secret remanded · Jan 12, 2010

Tata Motors Limited v.State Of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court · 109815302

Tata Motors challenged an order from the State Chief Information Commissioner which mandated the disclosure of commercially confidential information contained in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Government of West Bengal regarding the manufacturing of its Nano car. The High Court, while noting that the initial proceedings were flawed due to the non-valid constitution of the SIC, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the State Information Commission.

trade-secret defendant favorable · Nov 24, 2005

International Tractors Ltd. v.Punjab Tractors Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 283528

International Tractors Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Punjab Tractors Ltd. for infringing copyright and breaching exclusive license rights regarding tractor designs and know-how. The plaintiff subsequently sought to amend the plaint to include claims related to confidential information/trade secrets, expanding the scope of protection to 20 HP tractors based on subsequent assignment deeds.

trade-secret plaintiff favorable · Apr 2, 2002

Hindustan Composites Ltd. v.Jasbir Singh Randhawa And Anr.

Bombay High Court · 928099

Hindustan Composites Ltd. filed a petition alleging that Respondent No. 1, an employee, used confidential information and processes to promote and run Respondent No. 2, which manufactured identical products. The court found that Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 committed contempt by continuing production despite prior injunctions, leading to fines and the striking off of their defense in the underlying suit.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →