IP Cases — 2015
134 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 5 · 134 total
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.
Societe Des Produits Nestle, .S.A. v.Sapan Kumar Bhatia & Ors
In this Delhi High Court case involving Nestle and Sapan Kumar Bhatia, the parties reached an amicable out-of-court settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants acknowledged Nestle's ownership rights over the 'MAGGI' trademark, domain name (www.maggi.in), and copyright in the logo and label. Consequently, the court allowed a compromise application, decreeing the suit based on the agreed terms, which included a final payment of ₹2,00,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Mr Abhijeet And Anr
The case involves a dispute regarding the commercial launch of the product 'RIVAROXABAN' which is subject to the patent IN 211300 held by the plaintiffs. The defendants stated they are not proposing to launch the product during the patent's lifetime.
Symphony Limited v.Roman Marketing & 12
The Gujarat High Court granted interim relief in favor of Symphony Limited concerning the manufacture and sale of aircoolers. The court considered an agreement involving the custody of a cooler mould and referenced a prior restraint order from the Mumbai High Court against one of the respondents for trademark infringement and passing off related to the design. This decision provides immediate protection to the plaintiff while the appeal proceeds.
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.
Novartis AG v.Union of India
Novartis AG challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which allowed a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Wockhardt Limited. Novartis argued that the IPAB exceeded its jurisdiction and violated procedural rules by permitting additional grounds and documents in the patent revocation case. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding it within its powers to regulate procedure based on principles of natural justice.
Societe Des Products Nestle, S.A. v.Essar Industries
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses an application filed by Nestle (the plaintiff) seeking to amend its plaint to enhance the valuation of a commercial dispute. The suit, originally concerning passing off, was valued low, but due to re-assessment of potential damages and profits, the plaintiffs sought to increase the value significantly. The court ultimately allowed the amendment, emphasizing that courts should adopt a commercial angle when considering such applications, provided a valid case for amendment is made out.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the jurisdictional scope of an ongoing patent infringement suit (CS No.3812/2014) between Novartis Ag and Cipla Ltd. The core issue was whether the case, despite its low pecuniary valuation, should be transferred to a subordinate District Court under the Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2015. The court ruled that because the defendant had filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, the matter must remain before the High Court's Commercial Division, irrespective of the suit's value.
Retail Royalty Company v.Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited
The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal concerning trademark infringement between Retail Royalty Company and Pantaloons Fashion & Retail Limited. While the court found that the word marks ('AMERICAN EAGLE' vs 'URBAN EAGLE') were not deceptively similar, preventing a full injunction on the name, it did find that the associated 'Eagle Devices' were deceptively similar. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from using the infringing devices and limited to using only the mark 'URBAN EAGLE', without adding qualifiers like 'AUTHENTIC'.
Sh. P.C. Roy and Smt. Samita Roy v.The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Government of India; M/s S & S Chemical Works
The plaintiffs, who developed a Thermo Reactive Plastic foam Resin based on phenol formaldehyde compositions, sued the Ministry of Defence and M/s S & S Chemical Works for violating their trade secrets. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants leaked this confidential information to defendant no. 3, allowing it to manufacture similar goods. The court found that the plaintiffs successfully proved the leakage of trade secrets but failed to prove the issue regarding rendition of accounts.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
Shogun Organics Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of its patent No. 236630, which covers the product D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit due to market evidence showing widespread infringement by the defendants. Given that the defendants had challenged the validity and filed a revocation counter-claim, the court allowed the amendment, thereby enabling the continuation of the litigation.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & Ors v.Dr.Bps Reddy & Ors
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants regarding infringement of Patent No. 203937 concerning DASATINIB API. The court addressed three applications: one to implead Hetero Labs Ltd., one to delete Dr. BPS Reddy, and one to implead Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland as the assignee. All three applications were allowed.
Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v.Union Of India
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Rhizome Distilleries, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark. The court held that the IPAB erred by applying grounds for refusal—which should have been raised at the time of initial registration—to a rectification application filed much later. Given that the petitioner had used the mark and faced prior objections which were withdrawn, the High Court found the subsequent attempt to cancel the mark was legally unsustainable.
Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. v.Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for amendment of the cause title, recognizing that the rights in the trademark 'ZOLAM' had been transferred from Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited via a sanctioned scheme of arrangement. The court found the plaintiff's case unimpeachable and ruled that the successor company was entitled to continue the legal proceedings without delay.
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.