M/s.Amilal Ramkishan Dass v. Ashok Kumar Sethi

Hindustan Unilever LimitedvsAarif Miraj And Anr

The Bombay High Court heard an interim application filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited against Aarif Miraj and others. The court confirmed the execution of previous orders, granted an injunction concerning passing off, and allowed the plaintiff liberty to file a further application for the destruction of counterfeit products.

M/S. Rochem Separation Systems (I) Pvt.vsTas Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.

The Plaintiffs, manufacturers of desalination plants under the trade mark 'DISK TUBE', filed a Notice of Motion alleging that the Defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'DISK & TUBE' to injure their reputation. The Defendants argued that the term is descriptive of the technology (Disc and Tube Reverse Osmosis) and that the Plaintiffs lacked exclusive rights over it. The Court ultimately held that the word was merely descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness, leading to the vacation of the injunction.

Dabur India LimitedvsMarico Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed disputes regarding trade dress infringement concerning SAFFOLA products between Dabur and Marico. The court noted that while the defendant had previously represented changes to its packaging (including embossing), it failed to inform the court when certain product lines, like glass bottles or 100gm PET bottles, could not comply with those representations. Consequently, the court revived the plaintiff's interim injunction application for these specific products and imposed a significant cost on the defendant for non-disclosure.

United Biotech Private LimitedvsCipla Limited And Anr.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition seeking cancellation of an impugned trademark. Respondent No. 1 (Cipla Limited) assured the court that it was not using the mark, leading to the petitioner's success. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the trademark and rectify the register accordingly.

Macleods Pharmaceuticals LimitedvsRidley Life Science Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's attempt to reopen evidence regarding costs and damages in a trademark infringement suit. The court noted the defendant's history of 'abysmal conduct,' including being a 'habitual offender/rank infringer' who repeatedly infringes third-party products. Given that the defendant had ample opportunity to present their case previously, the court found the late application was not bona fide and aimed only at delay.