IP Cases — 2011
106 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 4 · 106 total
M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. against M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MK' and its similar firm name was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, despite the defendant claiming trademark registration. This decision reinforces the principle that established goodwill and reputation can outweigh subsequent registrations if consumer confusion is a risk.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its application seeking specific information from the Controller of Patents. The court admitted the petition after hearing counsel for both parties, noting that no interim order was sought at that stage.
krizm hotels private limited v.vaishnavi estatesp ltd
M/S Krizm Hotels Private Limited (Lemon Tree hotels) sued M/S Vaishnavi Estates(P) Ltd for trademark infringement, alleging the defendant's use of 'Lemon Tree Apartments' for residential apartments created confusion and diluted the plaintiff’s hotel brand. The plaintiff claimed significant investment in their Lemon Tree hotel chain and sought an injunction to prevent further use of the mark.
Sergi Transformers Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited v.CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited
The applicant challenged the District Judge's order which prevented them from filing a counterclaim seeking revocation of a patent. The dispute involved an infringement suit filed by respondents against the applicant. The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, holding that the trial judge erred in interpreting Section 104 of the Patents Act.
Anu Ambraile Proprietrix M/s.AA Impex Company v.The District Collector Tiruvallur
Anu Ambraile challenged various orders related to the cancellation of her property mark registration and the subsequent seizure/confiscation of red sanders wood. The court ultimately found that the initial seizure and confiscation were void, upholding the judgment that the petitioner was not involved in illegal exports.
M/S S M K A Enterprises v.M/S Suchita Industries
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of M/S S M K A Enterprises, granting a permanent injunction against M/S Suchita Industries for infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Tiny Care'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks and products was deceptive, causing confusion among consumers. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting established brand goodwill in the competitive FMCG market.
Indofill Organic Industries Ltd. v.Mr.Amar Vakil & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indofill Organic Industries Ltd., granting permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendants regarding the use of the domain name 'Indofil.com'. The court found that the defendants' actions, particularly altering the website content to suggest financial distress, constituted malicious infringement and caused damage to the plaintiff's trademark reputation. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the domain name to Indofill and awarded damages.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to uphold the registration of several toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked novelty and were merely trade variants. The court found that certain registered designs were not original or new, particularly when compared to earlier published designs, leading to the setting aside of the Controller's order.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents, challenging the decision that its registered design could not be cancelled. The appellant argued that the design had been prior published and that the Controller failed to consider crucial evidence from a suit filed in Ludhiana. The High Court set aside the Controller's order due to non-appreciation of materials and remanded the matter for further consideration.
M/S K.E.Burgmann A/S v.H.N.Shah & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S K.E.Burgmann A/S, granting a perpetual injunction against H.N.Shah & Ors. (Defendant No. 2). The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the 'KE' trademark and logo by the defendants after the termination of their joint venture relationship. The court found that the defendants were improperly using the mark on products and business materials, giving the impression of affiliation with the plaintiff. Consequently, Defendant No. 2 was restrained from using the 'KE' logo in India.
Miss.Kajal Aggarwal v.The Managing Director, M/s.V.V.D. & Sons P.Ltd.
The actress, Miss. Kajal Aggarwal (Appellant), filed an appeal against the refusal to grant interim injunction, alleging that the Respondent used her image and profile for promoting their hair oil and coconut oil products after the one-year endorsement agreement expired. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the right to use the actress's profile is limited by the contract duration, thus granting the injunction.
Electronic Machine Tools Limited v.Power Engineers
Electronic Machine Tools Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its registered patents (Nos. 188585 and 190675). The trial court rejected the plaint, finding no cause of action against the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaint did disclose a triable issue.
Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore
Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. transferred its intellectual property rights (trade marks, designs, and copyrights) related to 'Kwality' biscuits to M/s.Britania Industries Ltd. for ₹30 crores. The Assessing Officer taxed this receipt as long-term capital gains, arguing that the transfer included the right to manufacture. The Tribunal ultimately held that the right to market was distinct from the right to manufacture.
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. v.Tvc Sky Shop
Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. filed two suits alleging infringement of copyright and passing off against TVC Sky Shop and Asian Sky Shop. The plaintiffs claimed their health equipment design, 'AB KING PRO,' was protected by both a US patent/design registration and Indian copyright law. However, the court noted significant disputes regarding whether the functional drawings qualified as aesthetic copyrighted works or merely ornamental designs under the Designs Act. Ultimately, due to the plaintiffs' failure to appear despite applications for counsel discharge, the suits were dismissed in default.
Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. v.Word Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network
Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. challenged Word Of God Fellowship Inc., claiming infringement and passing off related to its registered trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK'. The appellant sought permanent injunctions against downlinking, distribution, and use of the mark in India. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the respondent was honestly using their pre-existing global business name. Furthermore, the court held that since the program was originally designed by the respondent, they retained original ownership rights, preventing restrictions on their usage.
Matrix Laboratories Limited v.F.Hoffman La Roche Ltd.
This appeal involved Matrix Laboratories Limited challenging an order that granted leave to sue regarding alleged infringement of Patent No. 196774, which covers Erlotinib Hydrochloride. The core dispute centered on whether the appellant's filing of a revocation petition before the IPA Board in Chennai created sufficient territorial jurisdiction for the Madras High Court to hear the suit. The court ultimately ruled that merely approaching the IPA Board does not automatically confer cause of action or jurisdiction, especially when the appellant's primary operations are elsewhere.
Penn Racquet Sports v.Mayor International Ltd
This case involves an execution petition filed by Penn Racquet Sports (the Decree Holder) seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against Mayor International Ltd (the Judgment Debtor). The dispute originated from two Trademark License Agreements (TLAs) granting the use of the 'Penn' trademark. Although the judgment debtor raised objections regarding alleged breaches by the decree holder, the Delhi High Court dismissed these objections. Consequently, the court held that the foreign award was enforceable under Chapter I Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Drums Food International Pvt. Ltd. v.Euro Ice Cream & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled against Drums Food International in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'HOKEY POKEY'. The court held that even if a plaintiff starts using a mark after a defendant has filed an application for registration, the plaintiff cannot succeed in a passing off or infringement action. The judgment strongly affirmed the priority given to registered marks under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that registration provides a robust legal shield against subsequent users.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs which allowed the patentee to submit a reply statement after missing the statutory deadline. The petitioner argued this contravened the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court admitted the petition and stayed further proceedings pending its final hearing.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed applications seeking permission to reserve its right to lead evidence concerning the invalidity of Bajaj Auto Limited's Patent No.195904, which was central to a suit challenging infringement by the product TVS Flame. The court found that due to the interconnected nature of the facts and issues in both suits, a joint trial was necessary.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application for their registered design. The core issue was whether the design, which was created while Mr. Saraswat (a director) was employed with the appellant company, could be considered prior publication when he later used it for his respondent company.
M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Limited v.M/s. Sri Ganesh Video
The plaintiff, M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Limited (T-Series), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for illegally manufacturing and marketing VCDs of three specific Kannada films (Parvathi Kalyana, Sampathige Saval, Giri Kanye) which the plaintiff claimed to have acquired exclusive copyright rights over. The court found that the defendants willfully infringed the plaintiff's copyright and consequently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Sheila Cine Arts v.Gemini Pictures Circuits Private Limited
The plaintiff, a cine film production firm, sued the respondent (a laboratory) for damages after copies of their film 'Manasu' were illegally pirated from the laboratory. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court appellate bench found that the defendant's employees were involved in video piracy and held them vicariously liable.
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited v.Mastech Corporation And 2 Others
M/s.Ajuba Solutions (India) Private Limited filed several applications seeking temporary injunctions against Mastech Corporation and others for alleged infringement of copyright, business interference, defamation, and inducement of clients and employees. The court dismissed all the applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, noting that damages were already claimed.
M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. v.Abhipray Securities Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. against Abhipray Securities Private Limited and others. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity between 'ABHIPRA' and 'ABHIPRAY'. Despite the defendants arguing lack of jurisdiction or non-similarity, the court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that confusion in business warrants protection even if adopted innocently.
Rohit Khattar & Anr. v.Cookie Singh
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Rohit Khattar & Anr., finding that the defendant's use of 'CHOR BIZZARE' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against their established brand, CHOR BIZARRE. The court noted that despite a mere misspelling, the similarity was sufficient to create confusion among consumers regarding the origin of the restaurant services. Consequently, the plaintiffs were granted permanent injunctions and awarded damages.
Johnson Enterprises v.Johnson Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Johnson Enterprises, upholding a prior order that granted an interim injunction to Johnson Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The core issue was whether the appellant had used the 'JOHNSON' trademark for electric water geysers since 1999, and if so, when the respondent became aware of this use. The court found that the limited evidence (twelve invoices spanning 1999 to 2006) was insufficient to prove that the respondent had knowledge of the appellant's continuous use prior to 2006, thus confirming the injunction.
M/s.Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v.M/s.Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar
Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd., the registered owner of the trade mark 'NAKODA' for milk products, filed appeals challenging the dismissal of its applications for temporary injunction. The Respondents argued that they were prior and long-term users of the mark since 1978, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. v.P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. against P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders, finding that the defendant's use of 'MARVEL TOUCH' was likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff under its registered mark 'MARVEL' in Class-30 goods like tea and spices. This ruling underscores the protection afforded to established brands against deceptively similar marks, even during preliminary proceedings.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.B.P.Singh Tyagi
Pfizer successfully sued B.P.Singh Tyagi and his company for trademark infringement and passing off related to their cough syrup product. The Delhi High Court found that the defendant's mark, OREX, was phonetically and deceptively similar to Pfizer's registered mark, COREX. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and awarded punitive damages.
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.