IP Cases — 2008
82 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 3 · 82 total
Garware - Wall Ropes Ltd. v.M/s. A.I. Chopra, Engineers & Contractors
Garware - Wall Ropes Ltd. filed a suit claiming infringement of its patents (GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems) by M/s. A.I. Chopra. The appeal challenged the rejection of the temporary injunction application. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and issued a temporary injunction against the respondent.
Mr.Muthukumar; Mrs.Padmavathi; M/s.Alama International v.M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K.K.Academy (P) Ltd); Mrs.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, which had granted an ad-interim injunction favoring the first respondent. The respondents argued that since the suit involved matters relating to Trade Marks Act, 1999, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and constituted an abuse of process. The High Court agreed, holding that the relief sought under the Trade Marks Act must be initiated in the High Court itself.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Mr. Wang Zhi Zhu Ce Yong Hu & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for using the deceptively similar domain name SUPERCASSETTES.COM. The court found that the registration of this domain name, which was created long after the plaintiff had established its brand identity, constituted an attempt to pass off their business and damage the plaintiff's goodwill. Furthermore, given the detrimental nature of the website's content (adult/pornographic), the court also awarded damages and directed the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff.
M/S Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Private Limited v.M/S Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, M/S Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Private Limited, against M/S Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning rice products using similar trade marks ('Double Deer' vs 'Deer'). The court ruled that despite differences in artistic features or geographical scope, the similarity of the core mark and the nature of the goods (rice) create a high risk of consumer confusion, thus warranting immediate restraint.
M/s.World Wide Brands Inc. v.Smt.Dayavanti Jhamnadas Hinduja, Smt.Janaki Madanlal Hinduja, Smt.Veena Rajendra Hinduja, Smt.Nalini Dinesh Hinduja (Trading as The Central Wearhouse) and The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s.World Wide Brands Inc challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's order allowing the registration of 'Camel Collection' by local partners trading as The Central Wearhouse. The petitioner argued that their global reputation and prior use entitled them to exclusive rights, while the respondents claimed long-standing continuous use in India since 1992. The Madras High Court upheld the appellate board's finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of commercial publicity within India.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Amit Jain & Anr.
Dabur India Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its application seeking interim injunction against Amit Jain and others who were manufacturing and selling hair oil products in bottles and caps deceptively similar to Dabur's registered designs. The core dispute revolved around infringement of registered industrial designs for packaging, specifically concerning whether foreign registrations could be used to challenge the novelty of the Indian design.
Indian Network for People living with HIV/AIDS v.Union of India
The petitioners, representing people living with HIV/AIDS, challenged the grant of Patent No.207232 by F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG for Valganciclovir derivative. They argued that since India adopted a product patent regime in 2005, any product invention disclosed prior to 1995 should be considered public domain and lack novelty. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the patent grant.
Delmon Diagnostics & Research Centre (DDRC) v.Doctors Diagnostics & Research Centre (DDRC)
The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal filed by Delmon Diagnostics & Research Centre against a lower court's decision in a passing off suit. While acknowledging that the letters 'DDRC' were used by the plaintiff in their email address and office name prior to the defendant's use, the court held that mere usage in an email or building name does not automatically establish sufficient reputation for the trade mark. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court's judgment and directed a retrial to allow both parties to present further evidence.
M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited v.M/s.United Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Orchid Chemicals filed appeals challenging the dismissal of its application for interim injunction against United Biotech, which was marketing a product under the mark 'FORZID' in Tamil Nadu. The court examined claims of trade mark infringement and passing off regarding the pharmaceutical preparation ORZID.
Bureau Of Indian Standards v.Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned whether Pepsico's use of specific terms ('PURE', 'PURITY GUARANTEED') and a pictorial device (snow-capped mountain) on its packaged drinking water label, Aquafina, was misleading. The Bureau of Indian Standards argued that these elements suggested the product was mineral water from mountains, which was untrue for standard packaged drinking water. After considering the statutory powers of BIS and consumer protection concerns, the court partially allowed the appeal.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the proper forum for filing a copyright infringement suit. The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. challenged the court's order directing them to refile their plaint in Maharashtra, arguing that its presence in Delhi granted it sufficient territorial sway under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. However, the court ultimately held that while Section 62 provides an additional forum, a pragmatic interpretation requires the suit to be filed where the cause of action actually arose.
Beiersdorf A.G. v.Ajay Sukhwani & Another
Beiersdorf A.G. successfully sued Ajay Sukhwani & Another for passing off, asserting its rights over the well-known trademark NIVEA. The Delhi High Court found that the defendants' initial adoption of the mark was dishonest, thereby rejecting their pleas of delay and laches. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction, protecting Beiersdorf's brand integrity against unauthorized use by the defendants.
Mr.Kiran Jogani & Anr. v.George V.Records, Sarl
The Delhi High Court upheld the grant of an interim injunction in a trademark dispute concerning the mark BUDDHA-BAR. The respondent, George V.Records, Sarl, successfully argued that the mark had acquired trans-border reputation and was being infringed upon by the appellants/defendants who adopted an identical name for music albums. Despite the defendants raising several defenses regarding prior use and lack of evidence, the court found sufficient prima facie material to protect the respondent's goodwill until the final trial.
Pernod Ricard S.A France v.Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Pernod Ricard successfully obtained an interim injunction against Rhizome Distilleries in a trademark and passing off dispute. The court found that the defendant's use of 'IMPERIAL GOLD' and imitation of the plaintiffs' trade dress constituted deceptive similarity, leading to confusion among consumers. Given the prima facie case strength and the likelihood of irreparable harm, the court granted immediate relief.
M/S International Film Distributors v.Shri Rishi Raj
This appeal addressed a dispute over the distribution rights of the cinematographic film 'Kohinoor'. The plaintiff had acquired extensive negative and video rights from the Official Assignee. However, the defendant asserted pre-existing theatrical rights for specific overseas territories dating back to 1961. The court found that while the plaintiff's rights were confirmed on an 'as is where is' basis, they were not absolute or exclusive. Consequently, the interim order was modified to allow the defendant limited commercial exploitation in their contracted regions, while maintaining protection for the plaintiff in India and other excluded territories.
Atul Rawal T/A M/S. Navin Polycon v.Sb Equipments
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Navin Polycon against Sb Equipments regarding the use of deceptively similar detergent trademarks. The court found that the appellant had established a prima facie case as prior users of the 'SUPER BRIGHT' mark and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction. This ruling prevents the respondent from manufacturing or selling confusingly similar products until the final disposal of the suit.
M/S Spinner Marketing v.The Kerala State Electricity Board
The petitioner, holding a patent for tamper-proof meter security seals, challenged the Kerala State Electricity Board's decision to award a supply tender to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent relied on having a design registration and argued that the product was not a new invention. The court ultimately dismissed the petition.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v.Cipla Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceuticals against Cipla regarding the use of the trademark THEOBID-D. Despite arguments from the defendant citing statutory requirements for registered assignment, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to protection based on prima facie rights and the potential irreparable injury caused by continued infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The order restrained the defendant's associates from using the disputed mark during the pendency of the suit.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning patentability issues involving crystal modification of an N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative. The core issue was the absence of a qualified Technical Member in the Intellectual Property Appellant Board (IPAB).
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd. v.Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.
RTB challenged IPRS's claim that it held exclusive rights to grant licenses and demand payment for the broadcast of sound recordings. RTB argued that its business was being threatened by IPRS, which claimed copyright over underlying works. The court ultimately granted a quia timet injunction restraining IPRS from initiating proceedings against RTB.
Bell Products Private Limited v.M.K. Gupta, Proprietor (Sri Balaji Industries)
Bell Products Private Limited filed contempt appeals alleging that M.K. Gupta violated an interim injunction related to their 'bell' trademark and copyright. The core legal dispute revolved around whether an appeal was maintainable against the dismissal of a contempt petition. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant had willfully suppressed facts and acted in mala fide conduct, thereby justifying the imposition of costs.
Magma Fincorp Limited v.Babu Murty Filley & Another
Magma Fincorp Limited filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs. The court granted an interim order restraining the respondents from dealing with or changing the identity of the specified equipment for three months, while allowing them to use it in their usual course of business.
Deccan Bottling & Distilling Industries Private Limited v.Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Deccan Bottling & Distilling Industries Private Limited against a temporary injunction granted in favor of Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Limited. The dispute centered on alleged passing off and trademark infringement related to country liquor labels ('Paru Santra' vs 'Sakhu Santra'). While the trial court had found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity, the High Court upheld this finding, confirming that the plaintiff (respondent) had established a sufficient case for injunction based on the visual impression of the competing marks.
The Chancellor Masters & Scholars Of The University of Oxford v.Narendera Publishing House And Ors.
The plaintiff, a publisher, alleged that the defendants infringed its copyright by reproducing contents from its academic mathematics textbooks in guide books. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain this infringement. However, the court found that while the plaintiffs' texts lacked step-by-step solutions, the defendants' guides provided them, making their work 'transformative' and amounting to a 'review' under Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
Shiva Tobacco Company v.Madan Lal Jain
The plaintiff, Shiva Tobacco Company, sought a restraining order against the defendant for allegedly infringing its registered trade mark 'TIGER' used on chewing tobacco. The plaintiff demonstrated long-standing use of the mark since 1955, while the defendant claimed prior usage since 1963. The court found that a prima facie case existed in favor of the plaintiff and granted temporary injunction.
Glaxo Smith Kline Plc v.Controller Of Patents & Designs
The dispute concerned the application for Exclusive Marketing Right (EMR) under the Patents Act. After the relevant chapter was repealed by amendment in 2005, the appellants challenged the High Court's decision which had allowed appeals based on the argument that no further consideration of EMR was possible post-amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that due to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the vested right to challenge earlier orders remained alive.
Parle Products Private Limited v.Surya Food & Agro Limited
Parle Products Private Limited appealed a single judge's order that revoked its leave to sue against Surya Food & Agro Limited. Parle alleged that Surya was pirating its registered biscuit packet designs, which were protected under the Designs Act, 2000. The lower court had denied leave based on jurisdictional concerns and lack of proof of sales within its area. However, the Madras High Court set aside this order, holding that since the suit involved questions of difficulty and importance, these matters could not be decided merely in an application to revoke leave.
ADC GmbH v.Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd.
The plaintiffs, including ADC GmbH and Krone Communication Ltd., filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd. alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling junction box casings identical to those protected by Indian Patent No.164857. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement.
Hardev Singh Akoi v.Jasdev Singh Akoi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hardev Singh Akoi regarding the trademarks associated with 'THE IMPERIAL' Hotel. The court found that since both parties were joint owners of the word mark and the lion device logo, unilateral changes or unauthorized use by one owner (the first defendant) could injure the rights of the other. Specifically, the defendants were restrained from altering the original lion device logo to include an elephant motif or using deceptively similar marks without the plaintiff's consent.
J.Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Controller of Patents & Desig. & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed the confusion arising from the postponed commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The dispute involved pending pre-grant opposition appeals filed by Span Diagnostics Limited challenging a rejection order by the Controller of Patents.
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.