IP Cases — 2011
102 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 4 · 102 total
Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd v.M/S Bonjour International & Anr
The plaintiff, Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd, claimed that the defendant was infringing its registered design (Design No. 194990) used on water jugs sold under 'Nayasa'. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages against the defendant, M/S Bonjour International & Anr, who contested the novelty of the design. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and restrained the defendant from using the impugned design.
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.
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.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Controller's dismissal of its application to cancel several registered toothbrush designs. The appellant argued that these designs lacked novelty, were prior published, or were merely functional/trade variants. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that design 176343 was original and new based on its unique combination of shape, configuration, ribs, and etchings.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant filed an appeal seeking cancellation of several registered toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked originality, were mere trade variations, or were prior published. The respondent argued that the designs possessed novelty in their shape and configuration, particularly when combined, and that the Controller's original finding was correct. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the registration.
Dr. B. Sahu v.State Of U.P. & Ors.
The petitioner, an Executive Director, challenged a complaint case alleging that selected candidates had stolen secret formulas and information from the respondent company. The petitioner argued that any violation of contracts or IP rights was a civil matter, not criminal. The court agreed, holding that allegations of secrecy theft are subject to civil suit.
Mayil Traders v.Thiyagarajan
Mayil Traders, a long-established firm, filed an appeal against a judgment that favored its opponent, Thiyagarajan. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's use of 'RAGAM' and similar packaging for cigars constituted trademark infringement against Mayil Traders' registered mark 'RATHAM'. The court found that the marks were visually and phonetically too close, leading to potential consumer confusion.
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.
Champagne Moet And Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Champagne Moet And Chandon's appeal against an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision regarding trademark registration. The dispute centered on whether Respondent No. 3 could register the mark 'MOET’S,' which was similar to the Petitioner's established brand, MOET & CHANDON. The Court ultimately accepted the defense of acquiescence, finding that the Petitioner had failed to challenge the use and subsequent registrations by the respondent over a long period, thereby allowing the registration to proceed.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancellation of a registered design. The appellant argued that the design was prior published, evidenced by sales and advertisements from 2003-2005. The High Court set aside the Controller's order due to non-appreciation of material evidence and remanded the matter back to the Controller for consideration of merits.
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 Loreal v.Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Loreal against Mr. Rajesh Verma & Anr., finding that the defendants were infringing upon Loreal's registered trademark 'L'OREAL'. The court determined that the use of the identical mark on similar cosmetic goods constituted both trademark infringement and passing off, noting a clear case of triple identity (same mark, same goods, same market). Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction against the defendants, although claims for damages were rejected due to lack of evidence.
Entertainment Network India Ltd v.Super Cassettes Industries Ltd & Ors.
This appeal challenged various orders passed by a single Judge and the Copyright Board concerning copyright works. The core legal issue addressed was whether an order passed by one tribunal or court could be automatically applied as a precedent to another case, especially where the factual matrix differed.
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.
United Brothers v.Aziz Ulghani
The Delhi High Court addressed two complex trade mark disputes involving the identical mark 'UNITED' used by United Brothers (UB) and Aziz Ulghani (AU). In one matter, UB sought to cancel AU's registration for electric flat irons, but the court upheld the IPAB's dismissal of this petition, citing laches and acquiescence. Furthermore, regarding AU's application for household appliances like mixer grinders, the Court concurred with the earlier finding that there was a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace due to the similarity of goods sold by both parties. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed both petitions, allowing both registrations to continue.
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.
United Breweries Ltd v.Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd
The Karnataka High Court addressed the complex interplay between design infringement and passing off in a dispute involving breweries. The court emphasized that while an action for design infringement is possible under specific conditions, the primary focus of the case involved establishing passing off. The judgment highlighted the distinct legal tests required for each claim, noting that passing off requires demonstrating deception by the public regarding the source of goods.
Pathiath Babu Rajendran Gowari Rajendran and Another v.Asst. Registrar of Trade Marks & 2
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeals challenging orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the rectification of trade mark 'PRIYA'. The court found that IPAB had properly appreciated the facts and evidence, noting that the petitioner waived their right to introduce belated documents due to laches. Consequently, the petitions seeking to quash the IPAB's orders were dismissed, and the interim stay granted in favor of the petitioners was vacated.
Mr.S.Vijayaraghavan v.Mrs. Sellappappa Keeran
The applicants sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent from copying, recording, or publishing works belonging to Late Pulavar Keeran, claiming they had purchased the exclusive rights. The respondent filed a suit asserting her title as owner of the copyright through inheritance. The court examined whether the oral agreement constituted a valid transfer of copyright.
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. 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 under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created while its director, Mr. Saraswat, was employed with them, making the subsequent use by his new company improper.
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 under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created during the employment of Mr. Chandresh Santosh Kumar Saraswat, who later joined the respondent company. The High Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that the prior publication ground was not properly considered.
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.
K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.K. C. Dass
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd., finding that the respondent, K. C. Dass, was engaging in passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar stylized mark. Although the defendant's business (readymade garments) was different from the plaintiff's (sweetmeats), the court held that adopting the same unique artistic style and font created sufficient confusion in the market. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted an injunction preventing the respondent from using the plaintiff's distinctive stylistic presentation of its trade name.
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.
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.
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 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.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Union Of India
Nippon Steel Corporation challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to allow an amendment to its patent application's priority date. The Petitioner, which holds world-class technology in medium-high grade steel, had missed the deadline for filing a Request for Examination (RFE) due to a docketing error at its attorney's office. The Petitioner subsequently sought to amend the priority date to extend the RFE window. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that once an application is deemed withdrawn under Section 11-B(4), the Controller cannot entertain any amendment, regardless of the reason for missing the deadline.
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.
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.