IP Cases — 2016
136 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 5 · 136 total
Ok Play India Limited v.Mayank Aggarwal & Ors
Ok Play India Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights—including trademark 'OK PLAY', copyrights in drawings, and common law design rights—against several defendants for manufacturing and selling deceptively similar toys. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could assert IP rights over their toy designs without formal registration under the Designs Act. The court ultimately ruled that since the plaintiff had not obtained design registration, they were unable to secure interim injunctions against the alleged infringement.
Department Of Income Tax v.Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health ...
The appeal was filed by the Department of Income Tax against an order regarding assessment year 1997-98. The core dispute involved whether the Rs. 4.5 crore compensation received by Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health upon termination of the 'ENO' and 'Fruit Salt' trademark license agreement constituted a taxable income or capital receipt.
Aura Synergy India Ltd. v.M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction request filed by Aura Synergy India Ltd. against M/S New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd., concerning the use of the trade name 'AURA' for metallic false ceiling products. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' application. The judgment highlighted that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts and made misstatements regarding their business history and relationship with the defendants, leading to the vacation of the ex-parte injunction.
Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd v.Haridwar Cables Network
The plaintiff, Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Haridwar Cables Network, was infringing its copyrights by broadcasting T-Series' repertoire (sound recordings, films) on its cable network without obtaining a license. The court found the defendant guilty of copyright infringement and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
M/S Impact Metals Ltd., Bollaram v.M/S Msr India Ltd., Hyderabad
The Civil Revision Petition arose from a lower court's dismissal of an application seeking arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents sought permanent injunction and damages based on alleged infringement of proprietary technology, designs, trade secrets, and trademarks. The Court held that the entire dispute was arbitrable under the Manufacturing Agreement.
Eveready Industries India Ltd v.Roshanlal Jain & Anr
In this trademark dispute, Eveready Industries India Ltd filed a suit alleging both trademark infringement and passing off against Roshanlal Jain & Anr. The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint subject to seeking leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The court granted leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and directed the defendants to respond regarding the application for Clause 14 leave, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. sought an injunction against Royal Palms (India) Pvt. Ltd. for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to hotel branding. The court, while acknowledging the Plaintiff's claim, balanced it against the Defendants' established business success and prior use of similar marks.
Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. v.Registrar Of Plant Varieties And Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed challenges against the validity of Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers' Rights Act. The petitioners, including Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., argued that this section allowed for abusive practices by enabling competitors to challenge genuine proprietary plant varieties. The court found that the unguided nature of the power in Section 24(5) posed a significant danger of abuse, potentially harming innocent breeders and farmers. Consequently, the High Court declared Section 24(5) void.
Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appeal challenged the Controller's order dated March 28, 2008, which cancelled three design registrations (184135, 184136, and 184137) belonging to Reckitt Benckiser. The appellant argued that the cancellation proceedings were flawed due to denial of cross-examination. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice and upholding the Controller's decision.
The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd.
This case involved disputes between The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (a Copyright Society) and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. concerning the use of copyrighted musical and literary works on FM radio stations. Both parties challenged an arbitral award dated December 6, 2011, before the Bombay High Court. The core legal battle centered on whether the claims regarding licensing and royalty refunds were arbitrable or required adjudication by a Civil Court. The court ultimately set aside part of the original award concerning the claimant's right to broadcast due to lack of jurisdiction, while dismissing the petitioner's (claimant's) arbitration petition.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four notices of motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit concerning explosion and fire detection technology for transformers. The court examined these 'contempt motions' but ultimately dismissed all four applications.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.Fun Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Fun Cable Network for infringing its extensive repertoire of copyrighted music and films. The plaintiff alleged that the cable operator used T-Series content without obtaining necessary licenses, despite prior communication and legal notices. Given the defendant's failure to enter an appearance or file a written statement, the court proceeded ex parte.
Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr Sanjay Kapur & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the tea seller, Mr. Sanjay Kapur & Anr., finding that Devagiri Farms Pvt. Ltd. had infringed upon their trade dress. The court held that despite minor variations, the overall get-up and striking similarity between the packaging—specifically the fabric sleeve used over a rectangular cuboid packet—was likely to deceive an ordinary purchaser. This judgment reinforces that the overall visual impression of a product's packaging is a critical factor in assessing trade dress infringement, even when trademarks are displayed.
Manugraph India Limited v.Simarq Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors.
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed preliminary issues concerning jurisdiction in two separate suits involving intellectual property rights. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action arose outside its local limits, citing precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court clarified the jurisdictional regimes under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, emphasizing that while plaintiffs have options to file suit, they cannot abuse these provisions by filing in a remote location lacking both defendants and a cause of action. Consequently, the court held that it possessed jurisdiction over both suits.
The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars Of University of Oxford v.Rameshwari Photocopy Services
The dispute concerned Rameshwari Photocopy Services copying and binding pages from copyrighted academic publications (Oxford/Cambridge University Press) for students at Delhi School of Economics. The High Court set aside the previous judgment, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the scope of permitted photocopying.
Nikitasha Home Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Pradeep Kapahi
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction granted to the respondent, Pradeep Kapahi, regarding the use of the trademark 'Niki Tasha' for home appliances. The court found that while the appellant (Nikitasha Home Appliances) claimed prior usage, they failed to provide substantial documentary evidence proving use before 2007. Conversely, the respondent demonstrated continuous use since 2007. Consequently, the appeal challenging the injunction was dismissed.
M/S Stellar Information Technology Private Ltd v.Mr Rakesh Kumar & Ors
The Plaintiff, a data recovery company, filed an application seeking an interim injunction against its former employees (Defendants) for allegedly using confidential information, trade secrets, and client lists to compete with the Plaintiff. The Defendants argued that any restrictive covenants in their employment agreements were void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, leading the court to dismiss the application.
Abro Industries, Inc v.Dhirish Nimbawat & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Abro Industries, Inc., finding that Defendant No. 3 had engaged in the offense of passing off by using deceptively similar marks and packaging to mislead the public. Despite the plaintiff waiving the claim for damages, the court decreed the suit against Defendant No. 3 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement after being served through publication. The judgment confirms the existing interim injunction.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr. v.Techno Plast & Ors.
Dart Industries Inc, through its licensee Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement of their proprietary designs and copyrights related to the popular 'Tupperware' storage containers. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants were copying these unique designs, leading to confusion in the market. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove the distinctiveness of the product shape for trademark purposes, thereby lacking prima facie strength in their claims regarding design protection, copyright infringement, and passing off.
ITC Ltd v.Britannia Industries Ltd
ITC Ltd successfully obtained an interim injunction against Britannia Industries Ltd in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Britannia's Nutri Choice Digestive Zero biscuit packaging was deceptively and confusingly similar to ITC's Sunfeast Farmlite Digestive - All Good packaging, leading to a prima facie case of passing off. While granting the injunction, the court provided flexibility, allowing Britannia to adopt its international packaging or change the blue color scheme to another distinctive color, ensuring business continuity while protecting ITC's trade dress.
M/S Dharti Soap Factory v.M/S Navchetan Detergent Product
The Gujarat High Court addressed an application for review filed by M/S Dharti Soap Factory against a previous order concerning Section 142 of the Trademark Act. The court found that since the subject matter was already being litigated in related civil and trademark suits, any observations made under Section 142 were merely interpretations of law, not errors of fact. Consequently, the application for review was rejected as devoid of merits.
State (Nct Of Delhi) v.Rajesh Nandwani
The State filed a Revision Petition challenging the Trial Court's order that discharged the respondents in a case concerning copyright violation (FIR No. 69/2009 PS EOW). The core dispute revolved around whether the registered artistic label/packing of the product was still protected by copyright, given its long-term commercial use and industrial manufacturing process.
Merus N.V v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Merus N.V appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 467/CHENP/2011 by the Assistant Controller, which had been based on non-patentability grounds (Section 3(i) and 3(j)). The appellant argued that the amendments were permissible as they merely refined the claim to nucleic acid molecules while retaining the core invention. The High Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the scope of amendments.
DLF Limited v.G Webbook And Anr
DLF Limited successfully concluded its trademark dispute against G Webbook And Anr through an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this compromise, where the defendants acknowledged DLF as the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'CAMELLIA' and 'CAMELLIAS'. Furthermore, the defendants committed to refraining from using similar marks like 'GRAND CAMELLIA', effectively resolving the infringement claims.
M/S Bright Enterprises Private Limited & Anr v.Mj Bizcraft LLP & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by M/S Bright Enterprises Private Limited against MJ Bizcraft LLP. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the use of 'PRIVEE' due to similarity with their mark 'MBD PRIVE'. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the generic word had acquired a secondary meaning specific to them in the hotel industry. Given the lack of evidence supporting distinctiveness and the principles allowing for summary dismissal of doomed suits, the suit was dismissed.
Visakha Chemicals v.The Central Government Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an IPAB order regarding trademark invalidity. The judgment affirmed the Full Bench's ruling that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on pleas of trademark registration invalidity, even within the context of an infringement suit. Furthermore, the court clarified the conditions under which an infringement action may be stayed pending rectification proceedings, emphasizing that a civil court must find the plea prima facie tenable before staying the suit.
Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd v.Centek Limited
The suit concerning patent infringement was pending between Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd and Centek Limited. The parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement, which involved the plaintiff undertaking not to use Boron steel or its equivalent for manufacturing single piece centralizers.
A.P. Organics (P) Ltd., Ludhiana v.Assessee
The assessee claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as revenue expenditure for using the brand name "RICELA" from Ricela Health Foods Ltd., but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed it, treating it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payment was merely a license fee and thus a revenue expense.
ITC Ltd. v.Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
The court addressed a matter involving ITC Ltd. and Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd., where the defendant applied for the revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The court noted that the defendants' application was crucial, especially regarding whether the plaintiff could take advantage under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Serji Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner (CTR) filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent (Sergi) was repeatedly and contumaciously breaching prior restraint orders issued in a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent for explosion and fire detection technology.
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.