IP Cases — 2004
39 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 2 · 39 total
Bpl Refrigeration Ltd. v.Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
The assessee, Bpl Refrigeration Ltd., paid Rs. 6 crores to M/s BPL Ltd. for the right to use the registered trademark "BPL" for ten years. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) held that this transaction was a sham designed for tax avoidance and disallowed the expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that since the payment was not an outright purchase but a limited-period license, it constituted admissible revenue expenditure.
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v.Intas Pharmaceuticals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals against Intas Pharmaceuticals, finding that the defendants' use of the mark 'LIPICOR' was deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff's globally reputed trademark 'LIPItor'. Despite the plaintiff not yet having entered the Indian market, the court recognized the trans-border reputation of LIPItor. The judgment emphasized the need for a stricter approach in pharmaceutical cases due to the potential disastrous effects on consumer health, thereby protecting the goodwill associated with the original brand.
George V. Records, Sarl v.Kiran Jogani And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction favoring George V. Records, Sarl, against Kiran Jogani And Anr., upholding the plaintiff's claim over the trademark 'BUDDHA-BAR'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior adoption and international reputation for the mark in relation to music albums, which subsequently spilled over into India. Given the prima facie case and the risk of irreparable harm from delay, the injunction was confirmed, preventing the defendants from using the identical mark.
Exphar SA v.Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'Maloxine' and its distinctive packaging design. The appellants, claiming ownership of the copyright and trademark, sued the respondents for passing off and copyright infringement related to the malaria medicine. A key legal challenge was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The court ultimately ruled that the receipt of a cease and desist notice within the jurisdiction was sufficient to invoke the court's authority.
Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft v.Pikpen (P.) Ltd.
The plaintiffs, who manufacture and market textmarkers under the 'Faber-Castell' brand with a registered distinctive design, filed a motion alleging that the defendant was breaching an existing injunction by continuing to sell deceptively similar products despite cosmetic alterations. The court examined the changes made by the defendant and accepted their undertaking to make further distinguishable changes.
Iag Co. Ltd. v.Triveni Glass Ltd.
Iag Co. Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Triveni Glass Ltd. for infringing its registered glass design 'KARATACHI' (No. 183322), and subsequently filed an interlocutory application for interim relief. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the design, but the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove they were the original proprietor of a new design, suggesting it was sourced from the international market.
Daniel v.A.R. Safiullah
The applicant (defendant) filed applications seeking to transfer an original suit concerning design infringement and passing off from the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, to the Madras High Court. The core argument was that certain defenses under the Designs Act required exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the court dismissed the transfer application, noting that a related revision petition had already been pending before it.
Usv Limited v.Systopic Laboratories Limited
Usv Limited filed a suit for passing off against Systopic Laboratories Limited, alleging that the latter was deceptively using similar trade marks ('PIO-15'/'PIO-30') for medicinal preparations. The court examined issues of jurisdiction and whether the defendant's use caused confusion or deception.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Wyeth Holdings Corporation And Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited against an interim order favoring Wyeth Holdings Corporation. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off, where Wyeth held the registered trademark 'Pacitane' for anti-spasmodic preparations, and Sun used 'Parkitane'. The court found that due to the identical field of activity, common composition (Trihexylphenidyl), and high likelihood of consumer confusion, the appellants' use was fraudulent. Consequently, the court upheld the protective order granted to Wyeth.
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.