Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v. Cipla Limited

Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology Corporation LimitedvsG.Parthasarathi

The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology. The petition sought to remove or rectify the registration of Trade Mark No. 1958762, specifically requesting that the applicant be recognized as the proprietor via assignment. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on the scheduled date, the petition was dismissed for default.

Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd.vsGalaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark cancellation petition filed by Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. against Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd. The dispute centered on the conflicting marks 'DROTIN' and 'DROTAGAN' in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to Respondent No.1 agreeing to surrender its registration for 'DROTAGAN' and acknowledging the Petitioners' rights in 'DROTIN'. The court accepted this agreement, effectively resolving the dispute.

Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors.vsSamsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr

This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries LimitedvsMackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

In this trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought a permanent injunction against Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'OFLOMAC.' The court noted that the matter was previously stayed pending an IPAB order which ultimately favored the Plaintiff by ordering the removal of the Defendant's mark due to deceptive similarity with 'OFRAMAX.' However, given conflicting statements made by counsel before the Bombay High Court regarding the continuation of the suit, the Delhi High Court decided not to rule on the procedural dispute and instead issued notice for the Defendant to file a reply.

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra ReddyvsM/S. Servomax Precious Electronics

The Telangana High Court set aside a lower court's dismissal of an application for interim injunction in a trademark dispute involving the 'Servomax' brand. The appellant, claiming ownership based on an assignment deed from 1998, argued that the respondent's subsequent registration was obtained through fraud and concealment of prior rights. Given the ongoing injunction and the merits of the claim regarding fraudulent acquisition, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the suit while maintaining the interim protection for the appellant.