IP Cases — 2015
129 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 5 · 129 total
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Maury Diginet Pvt Ltd, an MSO operating in Bihar. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was extensively using its repertoire of copyrighted music and films on its cable network channel without obtaining necessary licenses. Despite repeated notices, the defendant continued the infringement, leading to the court proceeding ex-parte. The Delhi High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting punitive damages and costs due to the willful nature of the violation.
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc And Anr v.M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction against M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. However, following a decision by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Delhi Courts lacked territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arose in Mumbai. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the Bombay High Court.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Mercury Electronics & Anr
The dispute concerns the validity of several registered patents. The defendant challenged the validity of these patents in their counter-claim. The court addressed the legal issue of who must prove the patent's invalidity.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute centered on whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court ruled that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at that location, they must file there.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
The dispute concerned the proper territorial jurisdiction for filing a suit related to copyright infringement. The appellant (IPRS Ltd.) argued that Section 62 of the Copyright Act conferred a right to file a suit where it carries on business, regardless of the cause of action's location. The Supreme Court ultimately held that while a plaintiff can sue where they carry on business, if the cause of action also arises there, they must file in that place, dismissing the appeals.
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v.Sanjay Dalia & Anr.
This Supreme Court judgment addressed complex issues surrounding territorial jurisdiction in IP litigation, specifically interpreting Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The core dispute revolved around whether a plaintiff could file an infringement suit where they carried on business, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court clarified that while a plaintiff can sue where they operate, if the cause of action also arises at their location, they must file there.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal v.M/S Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd.
Revenue appealed an order regarding the recovery of demurrage and detention charges from a patent holder (Shri S. Ramkumar) who had executed a bond during customs clearance suspension due to alleged infringement by dual SIM mobile phones. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commissioner (Appeals)' order was correct in allowing the enforcement of the bond for recovering these ancillary liabilities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr.D. Shah
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Mr. D. Shah and others for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937. The patent covers DASATINIB, an anti-cancer molecule used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Given the defendants' admission of infringement and the risk of irreparable harm, the Delhi High Court allowed the injunction applications, maintaining the status quo during the trial.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v.Mr. J.D. Joshi
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company filed two suits seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for infringing its Indian Patent No. 203937, which covers the anti-cancer drug DASATINIB. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants intended to launch generic products violating their exclusive patent rights. Given the prima facie evidence of infringement and the irreparable harm the plaintiff would suffer, the court granted an interim injunction to maintain the status quo during the trial.
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd v.Krishna Mehta & Ors
Eicher Goodearth Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Krishna Mehta & Ors, alleging that the defendants were illegally imitating and selling products featuring motifs and designs similar to those owned by Eicher Goodearth. The plaintiff claimed ownership of various designer collections like Serai and Falcon, asserting their rights under copyright and design laws. The court examined the similarity between the parties' products and the alleged deceptive use of intellectual property.
Jasper Motors Private Ltd. v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw & Ors.
The plaintiffs, holding a patent for an eco-friendly, battery-operated rickshaw design, alleged that the defendants were illegally importing, exporting, and selling the patented idea. Despite the lack of representation from the defendants, the court found them liable for infringing the patent.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited sought an interim injunction against Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark and tag line infringement regarding their glucose-based energy products. Wipro claimed that the defendant's use of 'VOLT' and similar tag lines was a deliberate attempt to trade on its goodwill associated with 'BOLTS.' However, the Madras High Court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, finding that Wipro had not established a prima facie case at this stage. The court held that the issue of protecting descriptive taglines like 'ANYTIME ANYWHERE' requires extensive evidence and must be decided during the full trial.
M/s.Simco Thread Mills v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, Geographical Indications, Designs
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/s.Simco Thread Mills regarding the delay in processing its application for a change of constitution related to its registered trademark, SIMCO (label). The court directed the relevant Trademark Registry officials to process Forms TM-24, TM-33, and TM-34 pertaining to the trademark expeditiously, ensuring compliance with legal procedures. This ruling provides relief by mandating timely administrative action from the IP authorities.
Bharat Balar v.Rajendra Distributors
The appeal concerned a suit filed by Bharat Balar alleging infringement of their registered design and passing off against Rajendra Distributors. The court facilitated an agreement between both parties to expedite the trial process and set aside certain adverse observations made in a previous common order.
United Phosphorus Limited v.Ajay Garg And Another
United Phosphorus Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patents Nos. 190476 and 202013, along with claims for damages. The defendants challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party conducted business in Delhi. The Court ultimately ruled that since no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, the plaint was returned to be filed in the appropriate forum.
Sartaj Singh Pannu v.Gurbani Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
Sartaj Singh Pannu filed a petition seeking orders to restrain Gurbani Media Pvt. Ltd. from releasing the film 'Nanak Shah Fakir' without giving him credit as the sole Director. The court examined the service agreement and concluded that, at the present stage without further evidence, it was not possible to conclusively hold that Pannu was the sole director or that he had been coerced into waiving his rights.
M/s Best IT World (India) Private Limited v.M/s Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ)
Best IT World (iBall) filed an information alleging that Ericsson, a major holder of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), was abusing its dominant position. The allegations included refusal to identify infringed patents, forcing the Informant into onerous Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and imposing royalty rates contrary to FRAND terms.
Jyoti Kapoor v.Kunal Kohli
The Plaintiffs, claiming to be the author and first owner of the copyright in the original screenplay 'R.S.V.P', filed suit alleging infringement of copyright and breach of confidence against the Defendants for producing a film titled 'Phir Se' using their script without consent. The court found that the Plaintiffs had a strong case and granted an ad-interim injunction to prevent the release of 'Phir Se'.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
Kanishk Sinha challenged the implementation of an amended notification under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which brought 'E-rickshaws' within its ambit. The petitioner also claimed infringement of his patent related to technology for battery operated e-rickshaws.
The Delhi Network Of Positive People v.Union Of India
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the practice of pharmaceutical companies abusing Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that filing identical divisional patent applications was used to keep patents alive and obstruct access to affordable medicines, particularly ARVs for HIV/AIDS patients. While acknowledging the merit in the grievance regarding process abuse, the court ultimately held that it could not issue directions requiring the Executive to amend statutory rules or interfere with the domain of administrative procedure, instead directing the respondents to consider rule amendments as a representation.
M/S Ganesh Tea Centre v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning an impugned search certificate issued under the Copyrights Act, which was challenged by M/S Ganesh Tea Centre due to alleged prior rights in an identical mark. The court directed the Registrar to continue the underlying trademark proceedings while simultaneously staying the issuance of any registration certificate related to the disputed mark. This interim order protects the petitioner's interests pending a full determination of the conflicting IP claims.
M/S. Jai Durga Electricals v.Mex Switchgears Pvt Tld.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing specific directions to expedite the trademark matter. The court mandated that the Deputy Registrar re-hear the parties and allow them to lead fresh evidence. Furthermore, strict timelines were set for both petitioner and respondent to file their respective evidence in reply and rebuttal, ensuring a structured path toward final adjudication.
Symphony Ltd v.Wim Plast Ltd & 2
Symphony Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the piracy of its registered designs for Air Coolers. The defendants were accused of marketing and selling products with identical design, shape, and configuration. The court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of the plaintiff, leading to the continuation of the interim relief.
Suresh Kumar Garg v.Pramod Kumar
Plaintiff, a sole proprietor manufacturing edible oil under M/s Aggarwal Oil Mills, filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendant for infringing his trade mark numeral 1. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and use since 1981, while the defendant argued that '1' is a common expression and denied any similarity or deception.
M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Nalli Silk House A/C
This Madras High Court case involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between M/s. Nalli Chinnasami Chetty and Nalli Silk House A/C. The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading the court to dispose of the suit based on the compromise memo. Under the agreement, the defendant committed to changing its business name from 'NALLI SILK HOUSE' to 'NALLAPPA SILK HOUSE' and ceasing all use of the infringing trademark by December 31, 2015.
M/S.Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant challenged the refusal of design registration (Application No. 233798) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller overlooked previous judicial observations regarding consistent application of registration parameters and incorrectly assessed the originality of the bottle design.
Amit Jain v.Ayurveda Herbal & Ors
Amit Jain filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ayurveda Herbal and others for infringing his registered designs used on plastic bottles and tubes for cosmetic products. The plaintiff claimed ownership through assignment of several design registrations. However, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the designs were not novel or protectable under Section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff was penalized for failing to disclose details of a prior withdrawn suit.
M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. v.Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai
The dispute concerned whether the royalty paid for music embedded in master CDs should be included in the assessable value when M/S. K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. manufactured duplicate CDs on a job work basis. The appellant argued that since they only copied the content and did not exploit the intellectual property, no royalty could be charged. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant.
M & H Management Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Shankar
M & H Management Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for passing off their goods and services by using the 'Anantara' trade mark, which is held by the plaintiff. The court partly decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions but rejecting the claim for damages.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Vignesh Refineries
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed suit against M/s.Vignesh Refineries alleging infringement of its registered trademark (GOLD WINEER) and copyrighted pouch design. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of 'SKS GOLD' packaging, which was deemed infringing by the plaintiff. Both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, amicably settling their differences.
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.