IP Cases — 2011
106 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 4 · 106 total
Pine Labs Pvt. Ltd. v.Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd.
Pine Labs, a software development company, developed an IOCL fleet card system for Gemalto Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arose when Gemalto sub-contracted the project to a third party (QCI Technologies), leading Pine Labs to claim ownership and protection of its source code under the Copyright Act. The court set aside the lower court's order, reinstating the injunction in favor of Pine Labs during the pendency of the suit.
Super Cassettes Industries Limited v.Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors.
Super Cassettes Industries Limited and Yashraj Films Private Limited filed suits alleging that India TV (represented by Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors.) had unauthorizedly broadcasted and exploited their copyrighted cinematographic films and sound recordings. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions to restrain the defendants from further infringement.
Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Bestech India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Single Judge's refusal of an interim injunction against Bestech India Pvt. Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the common Sanskrit word 'Ananda' had acquired sufficient secondary distinctiveness to protect the appellant's business goodwill in relation to housing. The court ruled that while the mark was registered, its public domain nature and the limited sales history were insufficient evidence to prevent the respondent from using it in a cognate field.
Music Broadcast Private Limited v.Indian Performing Right Society Limited
Music Broadcast Private Limited challenged the right of Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) to demand royalties for broadcasts made by the plaintiff at its FM radio stations. The plaintiff argued that it was legally bound only to pay PPL and acted under a mistaken belief of law when paying IPRS. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the question of law.
Alaknanda Cement Private Limited & Raghav Cement v.Ultratech Cement Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Alaknanda Cement and Raghav Cement, upholding the single judge's order granting a temporary injunction to Ultratech Cement Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ULTRATUFF CEMENT,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ULTRATECH CEMENT.' Furthermore, the defendants were deemed not to have approached the court with clean hands due to presenting prima facie fabricated invoices.
Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Bhupinder Jain
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent alleging infringement of registered trademarks ("Pari") and copyright. The lower court rejected the plaint on the ground that the courts in Amritsar lacked territorial jurisdiction. The High Court set aside this order, holding that under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the courts where the plaintiff carries on business have jurisdiction.
M/S Sancheti Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D.K. Electricals AC+ (and others)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim temporary injunction in favor of Sancheti Appliances Pvt. Ltd. against several defendants, including D.K. Electricals. The dispute centered on alleged passing off concerning the trademarks "PRETTY" and "WINNER," used for electrical appliances. The court found that Sancheti had established a prima facie case of prior usage and reputation for these marks since the 1980s. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using similar marks until the final disposal of the suits.
Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. v.Myspace Inc.
Super Cassetes Industries Ltd. filed a suit against Myspace Inc., alleging that the social networking platform was infringing its copyrights across thousands of songs and films. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' business model encouraged users to upload and share copyrighted material without authorization, causing significant royalty losses. The court addressed interim applications seeking injunctions to prevent further infringement.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Nizami Garments
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Levi Strauss & Company against Nizami Garments in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the deceptive similarity of the defendant's use of 'Levi's' marks on apparel. Consequently, the existing order denying an injunction was set aside, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize all infringing goods and relevant business records from the defendant's premises.
Champagne Moet & Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Champagne Moet & Chandon's appeal against a trademark registration granted to M/s Moet’s. The court found that despite the similarity in marks, the goods were distinct (Class 33 wines vs Class 29 meat products), making confusion unlikely. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish sufficient evidence of prior reputation or dishonest intent by the respondent, leading the court to conclude that the opposition was not within acceptable parameters.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Mr Anant Kanoi-Partner & 5
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunction and account of profits against the defendants under the Patents Act, 1970, alleging patent infringement. The court noted that twenty-three issues had been framed and agreed to allow parties to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence to expedite the final disposal of the suit.
M/S Giani Gurcharan Singh & Sons v.Madhusudhan Singh And Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Giani Gurcharan Singh & Sons, finding that the defendant infringed upon their registered trademark and engaged in passing off. The court held that the use of 'GIAN'S' by the defendants was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'GIANI'S', leading to consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and awarded punitive damages.
M/s.Bade Miya v.Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s. Bade Miya against Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam, finding that the defendant's use of 'Wah Bademiyan' was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'BADEMIYA'. The court emphasized the strong goodwill and reputation established by the plaintiffs over decades. While granting the injunction, the court allowed a two-week grace period for the defendant to change its trade name.
Smt K Nirmala Raghava Rao v.N G Subbaraya Setty
This Karnataka High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and royalty recovery related to perfumes. The petitioner sought to stay a subsequent suit, arguing that the issues were identical to an earlier case where the trademark was assigned to a bank. However, the court ruled that the two suits involved distinct legal claims—one concerning injunction/royalty prior to assignment, and the other regarding damages post-termination of the agreement. Consequently, the writ petition seeking a stay was dismissed.
Malhotra Book Depot v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malhotra Book Depot, mandating the Union of India to restore and renew its trademark registration. The court found that the removal of the mark was illegal because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory 'O-3' notice required under Rule 67 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. Furthermore, the court held that restoration should not be viewed as a penal measure and that procedural lapses by the government do not bar the petitioner's right to renewal.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. challenged the cancellation of its registered design by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr., which was based on alleged prior publication. The High Court found the basis for this finding questionable and granted a stay on the impugned order.
Polydrug Laboratroies P.Ltd v.Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Polydrug Laboratroies P. Ltd appealed against a judgment where its evidence was not taken on record. The appellant argued that the Controller had the power to extend time for filing evidence under Rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2003. The Supreme Court agreed with this view and set aside the impugned judgment.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v.M/S Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a passing off suit filed by Ranbaxy Laboratories against Intas Pharmaceuticals regarding the alleged similarity between their drug trademarks, 'NIFTRAN' and 'NIFTAS'. While the plaintiff sought an interim injunction, the court did not grant a blanket injunction. Instead, it directed the defendant to maintain complete accounts of sales and profits from the product sold under 'NIFTAS', and imposed specific restrictions on packaging types used by the defendant pending further proceedings.
Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v.Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the trademark 'KRISHNA' in dairy products. The court ruled that a common word, even if associated with a deity like Lord Krishna (who is linked to milk and butter), cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Furthermore, the court held that when a defendant uses a disputed mark prefixed by other words ('PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA'), confusion regarding the source of goods is unlikely, provided those prefix words are given equal prominence as the core trademark. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the interim relief granted to the respondent.
Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v.Radico Khaitan Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute between Carlsberg and Radico Khaitan regarding the use of the numeral '8' in their respective alcoholic beverage trademarks. Radico claimed infringement and passing off, arguing that Carlsberg's use of 'PALONE 8' was confusingly similar to its registered mark '8 PM'. However, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of Carlsberg, finding no prima facie evidence of consumer confusion or actionable similarity between the two labels. The court emphasized that mere use of a common numeral or color combination is insufficient for an injunction.
Nokia Corporation v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Corporation challenged the Deputy Controller's order which rejected its National Phase Application because it was filed after the stipulated 31-month deadline. The petitioner argued that Rule 138 allowed for a one-month extension and condonation of delay. The High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the application should be decided on merit under Rules 137 & 138.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Mr. Aditya Pandey And Anr.
IPRS filed suits alleging copyright infringement by defendants, including Synergy Media and CRI Events. The dispute centered on the scope of rights held by IPRS regarding public performing rights for literary and musical works versus the rights held by phonographic societies concerning sound recordings. The court issued interim directions clarifying that both IPRS and PPRS licenses are necessary if a performance involves both types of copyrighted material.
Rainforest CAFÉ, Inc. v.Rain Forest Cafe
The plaintiff, Rainforest CAFÉ Inc., a US-based restaurant chain owner, filed a suit against local defendants for using the identical mark 'RAINFOREST CAFÉ' and its associated logo/tagline in connection with their restaurant business in Delhi. The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the plaintiff's trade marks and copyrights.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
This case involves Glaverbel S.A., which filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Mirox New Generation Ecological Mirrors' (MNGE mirrors). The plaintiff sought permission to introduce an amended version of Patent No. 190380, which had been allowed in a previous related suit. However, the court ruled against this request, emphasizing that while the amendment might be clarificatory, it cannot be relied upon in the current litigation unless formally recorded and notified by the Patent Office, as the pleadings in the present case relate only to the unamended patent.
M/S.Avanti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Arjan Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
M/S. Avanti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. appealed against an order passed by a learned single Judge refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for restoration of an appeal under Section 36 of the Designs Act, 2000. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned order was not appealable before the Division Bench.
M/S Bhatia Industries & Others v.M/S Pandey Industries & Others
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the defendants were infringing their registered trademark 'TIYA' and passing off their goods. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that all their business activities were confined to U.P. The High Court examined the plaint averments and found sufficient grounds to establish territorial jurisdiction, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their suit to clarify the cause of action in Delhi.
Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd. v.Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kunj Aluminium Private Ltd.'s appeal, upholding the rejection of its trade mark application for 'Philips' in respect of non-electrical pressure cookers. The court found overwhelming evidence that Koninklijke Philips Electricity Nv had established extensive goodwill with the mark since 1950 across related goods like electrical appliances. Given the similarity of the product categories and the common consumer base, the court concluded that Kunj Aluminium was engaging in commercial dishonesty by trading upon Philips' established reputation.
New Hariom Industries & Anr v.Dandi Salt P. Ltd.
New Hariom Industries challenged the registration of an FIR, alleging that the search warrants were improperly obtained against unknown individuals despite knowing the Petitioners' business presence. The Respondent, Dandi Salt P. Ltd., maintained that the goods were unidentified at a railway yard and that they held valid copyright over their unique packaging/label since 2000. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that because the goods were lying unidentified, the search warrants were justified, and furthermore, evidence collected during an illegal search remains admissible in trial.
Respondents/Plaintiffs v.Applicant/Defendant
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774 related to the cancer drug EROLTINIB HYDROCHLORIDE (TARCEVA). The defendant subsequently filed an application to revoke the leave granted by the court, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that since the defendant approached the IPA Board in Chennai with a revocation petition, a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Federation Of Industries Of India v.Mr. G. Kesavalu Naidu @ Kesavan
The plaintiffs, representing manufacturers of steel pipes, filed a suit against the defendants who had obtained copyright registrations for drawings of these pipes. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using these registrations to threaten and extract money from them. The court ultimately ruled that no valid copyright subsisted in the mere concept or idea of the pipe drawing.
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.