IP Cases — 2008
83 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 3 · 83 total
Shri Kanishk Gupta v.Liberty Footwear Company
Shri Kanishk Gupta filed an application before the IPAB seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Liberty Footwear Company. The core dispute involved discrepancies in the registered mark's representation, specifically concerning its association with another trademark (323656) and the spelling/display of 'RICARDO'.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for an interim injunction, finding that the defendant's use of 'Sugar Free' did not constitute passing off. The court held that the expression was used descriptively to indicate the absence of added sugar in the Ayurvedic tonic, rather than as a trademark attempting to mislead consumers into believing it was connected to the plaintiff’s products. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for a prima facie case of misrepresentation or injury to goodwill.
M.G.M. Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Customs
The Tribunal upheld the Customs department's decision that various payments made by the franchisee (M.G.M. Entertainments) to the foreign franchisor were part of the transaction value of the imported goods. These fees, including franchise fee, license fee for technical know-how, and royalty, were deemed necessary conditions for the sale and use of the licensed products.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, The Trade ...
Pidilite Industries Limited appealed against an order rejecting its interlocutory petition seeking to take further evidence in opposition proceedings. The dispute centered on the use and protection of their well-known trade marks ('FEVI', 'FEVICOL') against a similar mark ('FEVIDIP').
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.
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.
Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Crossword Agro Industries And ...
Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha appealed an order from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad. The appeal concerned Nissan's opposition to a trade mark application filed by Crossword Agro Industries for goods related to engines and pumps. The IPAB allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant's evidence be taken on record and the matter decided on its merits.
Hind Mosaic And Cement Works And Anr. v.Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation
The appellants, who held a patent for a PVC pipe joint system, filed a civil suit alleging infringement by the respondents. The appeal challenged the Single Judge's order rejecting an interim injunction. The High Court restored the ad-interim relief, finding that it was a fit case to grant interim relief.
Lahari Recording Company Limited v.Music Master Audio Video Manufacturing Co.(P) Ltd.
Lahari Recording Company Limited filed a suit seeking declaration of its ownership over audio rights and permanent injunction against infringement. The appellant/5th defendant challenged the grant of permanent injunction, arguing that it had stopped manufacturing cassettes after the assignment period expired. The High Court set aside the injunction granted by the single judge, finding no conclusive evidence of post-expiry exploitation.
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.
Rana Steels v.Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the ex parte interim injunction granted in favor of Rana Steels against Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd., despite the defendant's application for vacation. The court found that Rana Steels was entitled to protection regarding its registered trademark 'RANA' used on steel rolled products. While acknowledging the existence of a similar mark ('RANA tor') held by the defendant, the court upheld the injunction, limiting its scope specifically to Class 6 goods and related products. This decision reinforces the immediate protective measures available to a plaintiff seeking relief against alleged trademark infringement.
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. And Anr.
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. for infringing its registered design of a D Shape Tablet. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing tablets with identical shape and configuration, thereby exploiting the unique aesthetic innovation protected under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, the court granted temporary injunctions to protect the registered design.
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.
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.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal And Ors. v.Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the registrability of the surname 'AGGARWAL' as a trademark for sweets and namkeens. The court clarified that while a surname is prima facie not distinctive, it can be registered if evidence of acquired distinctiveness is provided. Crucially, the High Court found that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had erred by focusing solely on establishing 'user' rather than addressing the core issue of distinctiveness under Section 9 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to allow for a proper assessment of distinctiveness.
Hind Mosaic and Cement Works and Another v.Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation and Another
The court framed issues in a civil suit concerning alleged infringement of Patent No. 203004 held by the plaintiff (Hind Mosaic). The defendant (Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation) contested the patent's validity and scope, leading to an oral order setting the next hearing date.
The International Association of Lions Clubs v.The Association of Lions India
The International Association of Lions Clubs filed a suit against The Association of Lions India, alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were wrongfully adopting their registered trademarks, specifically 'LION', and engaging in acts of passing off by using similar names. Furthermore, they alleged copyright infringement through the adoption of insignia and substantial copying of the Plaintiffs' Constitution and By-Laws. The suit also included claims regarding defamation due to negative reports published by the defendants.
Casio India Co. Limited v.Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Casio India Co. Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Ashita Tele Systems Pvt Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's registration and use of the domain name www.casioindia.com was identical and confusingly similar to Casio's registered trademark. Citing the principle of passing off in the digital age, the judgment established that unauthorized use of a famous brand name in a domain name can mislead the public, even if the original distribution agreement has ended.
Adobe Systems Incorporated v.Sh. Rohit Rathi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated, finding that the defendant's use of the domain name www.adobeinc.org constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized 'ADOBE' as a well-known mark with trans-border reputation, noting that the defendant's attempt to ride on Adobe's popularity was mala fide. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions against further use of similar names, a mandatory order for domain transfer, and punitive damages.
Dabur India Ltd. v.K.R. Industries
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the alleged infringement of copyright in product packaging between Dabur India Ltd. and K.R. Industries. Dabur claimed that K.R.'s tooth powder packaging was an imitation of its copyrighted artistic work, which included specific color schemes and feature arrangements. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to hear this composite suit, given that the respondent was based in Andhra Pradesh.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Alembic Limited
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. challenged an ex-parte injunction passed by the lower court against it, which restrained the use of its trade mark GEMIMAC due to alleged similarity with Alembic Limited's reputed trade mark GERIMAC. The appellant argued that the injunction was granted without issuing prior notice or recording adequate reasons, violating procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Gujarat High Court admitted the appeal and intervened, restricting the scope of the injunction until a proper hearing could take place.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Kesar Medicaments And Anr.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Kesar Medicaments and others, alleging that their product, SIGNAL HCV, infringed on the plaintiff's Patent No. 194638. The patent covers a 'fourth generation' diagnostic device for detecting Hepatitis C Virus antibodies in human serum. The court examined the technical specifications of both devices, noting similarities in core components and identical sensitivity/specificity reports. Finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the Delhi High Court granted the temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's patent rights.
M/S. Shand Pipe Industries Ltd v.M/S. Hind Mosaic & Cement Works & Ors
The petitioner appealed against an interim relief granted by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench failed to analyze the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, specifically Sec. 13(4) read with Secs. 47 and 48, concerning the effect of a counter claim and patent registration. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
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.