IP Cases — 2013
83 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 3 · 83 total
Union Of India v.Dr Ravindranath Pradhan
The Union of India appealed a single judge's order holding that the period of the petitioner's patent should be reckoned from 23.02.2001, not the original filing date of 19.06.1992. The dispute centered on whether procedural delays led to abandonment and how the commencement date should be determined under the Patents Act, 1970.
Kuber Khaini Private Limited v.Sopariwala Exports And Another
The Bombay High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Kuber Khaini Private Limited had adopted a deceptively similar trade-dress and label design to that of Sopariwala Exports. Although the Appellant used a different word mark ('Kuber' vs 'Afzal'), the court ruled that the adoption of the entire color scheme, get up, and descriptive elements constituted an attempt to trade on the Respondent's reputation. The judgment clarified that while a trademark disclaimer limits statutory infringement claims, it does not prevent a claim for passing off based on deceptive similarity.
M/S. Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.M/S. Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. filed a suit against Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks OMIDON and EMEDOM in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'OMEDO' to confuse consumers and erode goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting an injunction and damages.
M/S Coral Seal & Ceramics v.Sunil Sagar
The Delhi High Court upheld an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Coral Seal & Ceramics against Sunil Sagar. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting the high degree of deceptive resemblance between the products' marks, designs, and trade dress. Despite the defendant claiming prior use, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated early commercial activity through invoices, leading the court to make the interim injunction absolute pending the final trial.
Eatman Foods India Private Limited v.M/s Savorit Ltd.
Eatman Foods India Private Limited appealed the dismissal of its injunction application against M/s Savorit Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off due to the phonetic and visual similarity between their trade marks ('Tastee Masala' vs 'TASTII'). The respondent argued that the products were different, and since only the label was registered, no exclusive right could be claimed over individual words. The High Court upheld the single judge's decision.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v.Mukesh Kumar P. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (SPIL) against the defendants, finding that their use of the mark AMLOVATE constituted both trademark infringement and passing off against SPIL's registered mark, AMLOBET. The court affirmed SPIL's territorial jurisdiction despite the defendants' objections. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction and an order requiring the defendants to render accounts of profits.
Raj Kumar Saraf, Proprietor M/S. Bindal Food Products v.M/S. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria
This appeal challenged the order by the Copyright Board that expunged a copyright registration (No. A-66496/04) held by Raj Kumar Saraf for an artistic label used on 'Vijay Hingoli' products. The Respondent, M/S. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria, sought rectification based on prior use and ownership of the art work. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to establish valid authorship or continuous rights, particularly concerning alleged assignments and dates of publication.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & 3
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & others alleging patent infringement. The court framed multiple issues, including those related to the validity (novelty, inventive step) and infringement of the suit patents. Both parties agreed to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence.
Dgt Holding B.V. v.Ravi Scientific Industries
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring Dgt Holding B.V., finding no grounds to vacate the order restraining Ravi Scientific Industries from selling deceptively similar chess clocks. The court clarified that even if a design is registered under the Designs Act, a plaintiff can still pursue remedies for passing off and copyright infringement against competitors who are misusing their goodwill and trade dress. This ruling reinforces the availability of common law protections alongside statutory IP rights.
Reliability Engineering Industries v.Aesseal India Private Limited
The appeal arose from interlocutory applications filed regarding the alleged theft and misuse of proprietary rights, technical know-how, and confidential information related to mechanical seals. The plaintiffs sought various injunctions against defendants who were allegedly using their designs and trade secrets.
Asha Audio Company And Anr. v.Om Prakash Sonik & Ors.
Asha Audio Company filed a suit seeking royalties from a copyright society (Respondent No. 4), arguing that Section 19(9) and 19(10) entitle authors to equal shares of royalties, even outside cinematographic films. The dispute centered on the re-registration process of the society, where a show cause notice was issued regarding non-payment of royalties, leading the petitioner to seek an interim injunction against disbursement.
M/S Sos Oil Seals Private Limited v.M/S Super Seals India Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking amendments to the pleadings in a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'SS' logo. The court adopted a liberal approach, allowing the defendant to introduce evidence of their registered trademark 'SSIL' and permitting the plaintiff to clarify facts related to a family settlement that allegedly bars the defendant from operating in the seals business. This decision emphasizes judicial discretion in ensuring substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Union Of India
Shogun Organics Ltd. challenged the authority's power to grant registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for manufacturing insecticides (D-trans allethrin and Transfluthrin) using a patented process held by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that CIBRC should not allow 'me too' registrations without consent from the patent holder. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the authority is not obligated to consider patent rights when granting registration under Section 9(3) or 9(4).
M/s.Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt., Ltd. v.Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga
The Karnataka High Court addressed multiple writ petitions filed by M/s Vasudev Adigas Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Radhakrishna Adiga regarding the use of the 'Adigas' trademark. The petitioners sought an ad-interim injunction to prevent infringement, challenging a lower court order that allowed the respondent time to file objections. While the High Court did not grant the immediate injunction requested, it directed the trial court to expeditiously consider and dispose of the temporary injunction applications filed by the plaintiffs.
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran v.Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran filed appeals against APEDA for not providing satisfactory information regarding the file pertaining to the Geographical Indication (GI) registration of Basmati rice, including global protection efforts. The Commission ultimately ruled that APEDA had no disclosure obligation because the requested information involved commercially sensitive and subjudice matters.
Ravi Visvesvaraya Prasad v.Rajneesh Kapur
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging plagiarism and violation of his copyright after publishing an original article on computer software. The defendants argued that since the cause of action accrued in November 1992, the subsequent legal proceedings were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
N. V. Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) order which allowed the registration of the trade mark 'HERO' for cigarettes. The petitioner argued that the IPAB erred by interfering with the Registrar's discretionary decision and misinterpreting legal principles regarding trademark priority and special circumstances. The High Court ultimately set aside the IPAB's order, confirming the Registrar's refusal to register the mark.
Mohan Lal Proprietor Of Mourya Industries v.Sona Paint & Hardwares
This judgment addresses complex legal questions arising from two suits concerning intellectual property rights. Specifically, it examines whether a holder of a registered design can sue for infringement against another party who also holds a registered design. The court also deliberated on the interplay between statutory remedies under the Designs Act and common law actions like passing off, particularly when the design is used as a trademark.
Micolube India Limited v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries & Ors.
This judgment addresses complex questions regarding the interplay between statutory design rights and common law remedies like passing off. The court ruled that a suit for infringement of a registered design is not maintainable against another registered proprietor if the registration covers the same features. Furthermore, while the remedy of passing off cannot be joined with the design infringement suit concerning the shape itself, it remains available in alternative to prevent consumer confusion arising from trade dress or trademarks.
Super Cassettes Industries v.M/S. Rachana Television Pvt. Ltd.
Super Cassettes Industries filed a suit against M/S. Rachana Television Pvt. Ltd. for the unauthorized use and broadcast of its copyrighted musical works and sound recordings on the defendant's news channel, NTV. The plaintiff alleged that despite initial attempts at amicable resolution, the infringement continued. After the court proceeded ex parte due to the defendant's absence, it found that the plaintiff had successfully proven the facts of infringement.
The Coca Cola Company And Anr. v.Rajesh
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The Coca Cola Company, granting an injunction and ordering the transfer of the domain name 'cokestudio.in'. The court found that the defendant's registration and use of this identical domain name infringed upon Coca-Cola's registered trademarks (COKE STUDIO) and constituted passing off. This judgment reinforces the principle that a domain name can possess all the characteristics of a trademark, allowing rights holders to protect their goodwill online.
F Hoffman La Rochee Ltd & Anr v.Cipla Ltd.
This appeal involved disputes between Roche and Cipla regarding Patent No. 196774, which covered a cancer treatment drug ('Polymer A'). While Cipla had raised counterclaims seeking revocation based on non-disclosure (Section 8), the Division Bench addressed whether to stay the IPAB proceedings pending the outcome of cross-appeals in the High Court.
Tata Sons Ltd. v.Amit Mahna & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd., confirming that the 'TATA' mark is a well-known trademark entitled to high protection. The court found that the defendants were engaging in both infringement and passing off by using a similar mark ('TATA GOLD') on pressure cookers, thereby attempting to free-ride on the established goodwill of the Tata Group. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions, an order for destruction of infringing goods, and an award of compensatory damages.
Marico Limited v.Adani Wilmar Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed Marico Limited's application for an interim injunction against Adani Wilmar Ltd, which sought to stop the broadcast of competitor advertisements. Marico alleged that Adani Wilmar's 'Fortune' ads disparaged its 'Saffola' brand with false health claims. However, the court emphasized that advertisers must be given latitude in their messaging and held that unless claims are totally unsubstantiated, courts should avoid a hyper-technical view. The decision allowed the advertisements to continue pending final adjudication.
Jagdale Industries Limited v.Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Jagdale Industries Limited appealed an order dismissing its application for leave to sue Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding alleged infringement of Patent No. 247946, which covers a fruit juice based electrolyte energy drink. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence or causal link showing that a part of the cause of action arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Wockhardt Limited
Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. appealed against the dismissal of its interim injunction application, alleging that Wockhardt Limited was infringing their registered trademark "METO" with "METOX". The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not maintain the suit because the required assignment deed procedure under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had not been completed.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, alleging infringement of its patent on the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's product infringed their patented composition and brand names (JANUVIA/JANUMET). However, the court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead necessary circumstances regarding prior unsuccessful applications for related patents.
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited v.Union of India
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited challenged an order directing it to change its corporate name due to perceived resemblance with another entity. The dispute centered on whether the similarity in names, particularly involving the 'VOV' mark used in cosmetics, mandated rectification under the Companies Act. The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing that mere similarity is not sufficient grounds for mandatory rectification and directing a fresh hearing.
Adai Mehra Production Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sumeet P. Mehra and Mr Puneet P. Mehra
This case before the Bombay High Court involved Adai Mehra Production Pvt. Ltd. challenging an interim order passed by an arbitrator concerning the remake rights of the classic film 'Zanjeer'. The dispute centered on the ownership and licensing of the original film's intellectual property, specifically its copyright in the screenplay. The court ultimately set aside the restrictive interim measures while allowing the petitioner to proceed with the film's production, provided certain financial conditions were met and subject to the final arbitration outcome.
M/S Harjee Foods & Anr v.M/S Barbino Enterprises Pvt Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the confectionery marks KIDO and KIDCO. While finding that the defendant's use of the unregistered mark KIDCO constituted passing off due to high likelihood of consumer confusion, the court did not find infringement against the registered mark KIDO. Consequently, the suit was decreed in part, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants using KIDCO in India, but dismissing the claim for damages because an interim injunction had already been in place.
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.