IP Cases — 2012
77 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 3 · 77 total
Ms. Sakshi Mathur v.Dr. Nand Kumar & Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare (AIIMS)
Ms. Sakshi Mathur filed an appeal seeking certified copies of question booklets, OMR answer sheets, answer keys, and marks/rank from the AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination, 2011. The respondents claimed these materials were intellectual property exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and that a fiduciary relationship existed under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected these claims, ruling that the information was not exempted and directing the PIO to provide the requested copies.
M/s Skol Breweries Limited v.State Of Haryana And Others
The Punjab-Haryana High Court ruled in favor of M/s Skol Breweries Limited, setting aside an excise department order that denied fee exemptions. The court held that since the petitioner had filed an application for trademark registration based on a valid assignment deed as early as May 27, 2005, the effective date of ownership was retroactive. Consequently, the State's demand for franchise and registration fees from that period was deemed incorrect, necessitating the matter be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawhar Thadani v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declarations regarding patent ownership, transfer orders, injunctions against both parties, disclosure of transactions, and payment of profits earned by the 2nd Defendant from the patents. The Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court based on the valuation of the suit for court fees. The Court ultimately held that it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit.
M/S Micolube India Limited v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries & Ors
M/S Micolube India Limited filed a suit against Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries for infringement of its registered container design. The dispute centered on the similarity of the designs, with both parties holding registrations from the same office. The defendants challenged the validity and scope of the plaintiff's rights, raising complex legal questions regarding concurrent registration and the applicability of passing off alongside statutory design law. Given the judicial inconsistency in existing precedents, the court decided to refer these fundamental issues to a larger bench for an authoritative ruling.
Suresh Kumar Jain v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Suresh Kumar Jain challenging the rectification order passed by the IPAB against his trademark 'Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)'. The court upheld the finding that the registration was obtained on a false basis because the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim of using the mark since 1995. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the name is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness, reinforcing the principle that trademark registrations must be based on truthful representations.
United Spirits Ltd. v.Invincible Entertainment Pvt.Ltd.
United Spirits Ltd. sought an urgent injunction against Invincible Entertainment Pvt.Ltd., alleging that the film 'Kismat Love Paisa Dilli' disparaged its registered trademark 'Black Dog' whisky. The Plaintiff argued that the use of the phrase in promotional clips infringed upon their brand reputation. However, the Bombay High Court refused the ad-interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the Defendants, especially since they had already agreed to delete the objected scenes and dialogues.
The Press Trust Of India Limited v.Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.)
The Press Trust Of India Limited filed a suit against Navbharat Press (Bhopal Pvt. Ltd.) alleging unauthorized copying and reproduction of its proprietary news articles in their publications, 'Central Chronicle' and 'Navbharat'. The plaintiff asserted that as the owner of copyright in the content created by its employees, it held exclusive rights to reproduce and disseminate the work. Despite issuing legal notices, the defendants continued the alleged infringement. The court found that the defendants' publications were verbatim copies or colorable imitations of the plaintiff's copyrighted works. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining further infringement and awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5 lac to the plaintiff.
Sudarshan Karle v.Halasya Ramanathan
The appellants challenged an order that restrained them from transferring and commercializing technologies covered by several chemical patent applications. The appellants subsequently informed the court that the Patent Office found their claims did not constitute an invention, leading them to drop the patent pursuit. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal.
Indecon Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v.Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant (Indecon Structurals) filed an appeal challenging the trial court's dismissal of its suit alleging infringement and passing off related to its unique 'Aquarius' tile design. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who claimed copyright over the design drawing, could obtain injunction against the defendant for manufacturing identical tiles, especially since the design was registered in favor of the respondent.
M/S Friends Overseas v.Swadi Product U.K. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Friends Overseas against Swadi Product U.K. Ltd. and others, finding a prima facie case of infringement. The court held that the defendants had misappropriated the plaintiff's well-known mark 'SWADI HOMEMADE,' copying its artistic get up, layout, and trade dress. This action was deemed likely to cause confusion among consumers, thus warranting the continuation of the existing restraint order until the final disposal of the suit.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited
The appeal challenged orders passed by the District Court regarding a patent infringement suit concerning fire systems. The plaintiff claimed its method patent was superior to Defendant No. 1's mechanical device and alleged infringement of its patent by 'SERGI 3000'.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Sun Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTEN') and Emcure Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTINEX'). Although the plaintiff was the prior user, the court ultimately found that 'SUSTINEX' was not deceptively similar to 'SUSTEN'. The judgment emphasized phonetic distinctiveness, noting a clear audible divide in 'SUSTINEX', leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's notice of motion.
Super Cassetts Industries Ltd. v.Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.
Super Cassetts Industries Ltd. appealed against the Delhi High Court's order which held that the Copyright Board could grant an interim compulsory licence under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Supreme Court examined whether such an interim power could be implied by law or if it required express statutory authorization.
John Distilleries Limited v.Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd
John Distilleries Limited filed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter was manufacturing and selling liquor in bottles deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered bottle design (Design No. 214542). The High Court examined the matter and found that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Cipla Ltd. v.Union Of India and Others
Cipla Ltd. challenged the grant of Patent No. 209251 by filing an application for revocation. The Controller subsequently revoked the patent based on the Opposition Board's recommendation. The Supreme Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that it violated the principle of natural justice because the parties were not provided with a copy of the Opposition Board's report.
Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation v.Deputy Director of IT, C/o S.R. Batliboi & Co
The petitioner, Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding its revenue receipts from licensing Microsoft products. The core issue was whether these payments constituted taxable royalty income in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT decision and held that although the amount constitutes royalty, it is not assessable in the petitioner's hands.
Smithkline Beecham Plc. v.Sunil Sarmalkar
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Smithkline Beecham Plc. against Sunil Sarmalkar concerning alleged infringement and passing off of trademarks PARAMAX and PANAMAX, as well as copyright infringement related to a 'Swirl device.' The court emphasized that mere trademark registration is insufficient; the plaintiff must prove actual use and sales to establish distinctiveness and proprietary rights. Furthermore, the court held that the swirl pattern was likely a design element for passing off purposes rather than an original artistic work qualifying for copyright protection.
M/S Invitation Banquet v.M/S Jolly Invitation Banquet
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Invitation Banquet, finding that the defendant was infringing upon its trademark and copyrights through passing off. The court recognized the plaintiff's extensive goodwill and prior adoption of the 'Invitation' mark for banquet services. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting the plaintiff an injunction and awarding damages.
Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd v.Nusun Genetic Research Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd against Nusun Genetic Research Ltd. Despite arguments regarding different business lines (FMCG tea vs. hybrid seeds) and distinct product categories, the court found that the defendant's use of 'MARVEL' in its seed products created a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff's established trademark. The injunction restricts the defendant from using the mark 'MARVEL' across Classes 30 and 31 until the final disposal of the suit.
Sopariwala Exports & Anr v.Kuber Khaini Private Limited
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of tobacco under the trademark 'AFZAL', filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed their registered trademarks and copyrights by using a deceptively similar label. The court found that the defendant's label was a deceptive imitation of the plaintiff's established mark and granted interim injunctions.
Bea Systems Inc. v.Deputy Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bangalore
The dispute concerned whether payments received by M/s. BEA Systems Inc., from its Indian subsidiary for the distribution of 'shrink-wrapped software' constituted royalty, leading to tax deduction at source requirements. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' view that the payment was indeed royalty.
The Applicant (Naga Industries) v.M/S. Lachmi Marain Traders And Others
The Madras High Court dismissed the applicant's requests for an interim injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that despite the similarity between 'NAGA' and 'AAGA', there was no convincing prima facie case, noting that the respondent had been using their mark openly since 2006 with significant advertising expenditure. Furthermore, the court highlighted the delay in the applicant filing suit (only after receiving a cease and desist notice in 2011) as a critical factor against granting immediate relief.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited
The plaintiff (CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited) filed a patent infringement suit against Defendant No. 1 (Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited) concerning fire systems patents. The appeals challenged interim orders passed by the District Court, particularly regarding injunctions and sales restrictions. The Bombay High Court quashed these impugned orders, holding them to be ad-interim and subsisting, allowing the original suit to proceed.
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd & 2
The suit concerned the dispute between Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Akums Drugs regarding the manufacture of Diclofenac Sodicum Injection. The High Court modified an earlier ex-parte interim relief, based on a consensus reached by both parties in a previous appeal, extending the injunction until June 19, 2012.
M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Service Tax
Hero Honda appealed a Service Tax order confirming tax liability based on the Revenue's view that permitting third parties (BPCL, Tide Water, Savita Chemicals) to use its trade marks ('Hero Honda', 'Hero Honda 4T') constituted taxable Intellectual Property Services. The Tribunal ultimately ruled that the demand was largely barred by limitation because there was no evidence of suppression or malafide intent on the part of the appellant.
Salzer Electronics Ltd v.Sg Controls And Switchgear
The petitioner, Salzer Electronics Ltd., filed applications seeking an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing their registered patent (No. 198122) related to Integral Cam Operated Rotary Switches, alleging identical manufacture and use of product and trade dress. The respondents countered by challenging the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited (and Dr. Issac Mathai) v.Defendant/Respondent (unnamed in excerpt)
The Madras High Court granted interim injunctions in favor of Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited against the respondent. The court found that the respondent's use of deceptively similar marks like 'SOWKHYA' and associated domain names constituted trademark infringement and passing off, despite arguments regarding prior usage or delay. This ruling underscores the importance of registered trademarks in protecting service-based businesses from unauthorized imitation.
United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by United Biotech Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to remove its trademark FORZID from the register. The court found that the respondent, Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, had successfully demonstrated a likelihood of confusion between their earlier registered mark ORZID and the appellant's mark FORZID in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment reinforces the principle that even sophisticated buyers can be misled by deceptively similar marks operating in the same field.
M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. v.The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range I, Kochadai, Madurai
The dispute involved the classification of a lump sum royalty paid by Fenner (India) Ltd. to Fenner, U.K., for the use of the 'FENNER' trade mark. The Assessing Officer treated this payment as capital expenditure, but the Tribunal partially allowed both sides' appeals on different grounds.
M/s.Whirpool Of India Ltd. v.M/s.Videocon Industries Ltd.
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of consumer products including washing machines, sought an interim injunction against the defendant for infringing two registered designs (Nos. 223833 and 223835) and for passing off its product. The court found that the defendant's product was a deceptive imitation based on the 'judged solely by eye' test, making a prima facie case for infringement.
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.