IP Cases — 2016
133 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 5 · 133 total
G.Senthil Kumar & Helikx Trust/Training Institute v.Helikx HR Training and Business Consulting LLP & Others
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition concerning the delay in disposing of an interim injunction application related to a trademark infringement suit. The petitioners had filed Original Suit No. 48 of 2016 alleging trademark infringement and sought a temporary injunction via I.A.No.66 of 2016. Recognizing the prolonged delays, the High Court issued a directive to the lower court to expedite the disposal of the application within two months.
Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd v.C.C.E., Jaipur I
The appellant, engaged in fertilizer manufacturing, was assessed service tax on agreements with foreign service providers for design and consultancy services. The Department argued these fell under IPR services. The Tribunal ruled that since the technical know-how and engineering designs were not recognized as IPR under any Indian law at the time of the agreement, there was no taxable IPR service.
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.
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.
Staar Surgical Company v.Polymer Technologies International & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Staar Surgical Company's suit against Polymer Technologies International, which alleged passing off of intraocular lenses. The court found that the defendant's current trademark, 'EYEPCL,' was entirely distinct and not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's brand name, 'VISIAN ICL.' Despite previous interim injunctions granted on a different mark used by the defendants, the court ruled that the new mark failed to meet the test of confusion, especially considering the specialized nature of the medical goods.
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.
Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories v.M/S Little Profit Trading Company
The Delhi High Court formally accepted an out-of-court settlement between the trademark proprietor, Gurnam Singh Trading As M/S G. C. Laboratories, and M/S Little Profit Trading Company. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the 'BLUE HEAVEN' trademark and agreed to pay Rs. 3.00 lacs as damages. Furthermore, the defendant committed to surrendering all rights in the infringing mark and disposing of existing stock by a specified date, leading to the suit being decreed based on these terms.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The defendant submitted that it had stopped manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' in November 2015 due to health hazards associated with Nitrobenzene. The court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed suit against SDS Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The court granted permanent injunctions in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the defendant was not manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' from November 2015 onwards.
M/S. Selvel Industries v.M/S. Om Plast (India)
The plaintiffs, M/S. Selvel Industries and M/S. Sears Industries, filed a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief in an infringement action against M/S. Om Plast (India). The dispute centered on whether the defendant's plastic container infringed upon the registered designs held by the plaintiffs. The court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to and infringed the plaintiffs' design.
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.
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.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited
The petitioner, CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd., filed four Notices of Motion alleging that the respondent, Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited, was repeatedly breaching prior restraint orders related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt motions,' noting they were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding the original infringement finding.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v.Sergi 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 related to a patent infringement suit. The judgment addressed these 'contempt Motions', which were tied to an ongoing appeal regarding CTR's patent on explosion and fire detection technology for transformers.
Kubota Corporation v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Kubota Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2342/CHE/2008), which concerned an 'operation parameter display system for working vehicle fitted with working implement'. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider the technical advancement over prior art and incorrectly applied Section 3(k).
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.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking procedural reliefs, including a fresh trial schedule and permission to examine additional witnesses. The case involves patent infringement allegations concerning mobile radio communication technology and questions regarding the FRAND status of the patents.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Lava International Ltd for alleged infringement of its patented technologies. The core dispute revolved around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G telecommunications standards used in mobile devices. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of infringement. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Lava from manufacturing or selling the infringing products, while dismissing a counter-application filed by the defendant.
Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.
Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.
M/s.Advaith Bio Remedies v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
M/s. Advaith Bio Remedies approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention regarding the undue delay in processing their trademark application for 'BIO CARE' (Application No. 3040849). The petitioner, which manufactures Ayurvedic medicines, argued that the prolonged wait was negatively impacting their business operations. The court intervened by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to prioritize and dispose of the pending application as expeditiously as possible.
Vardhman Properties Ltd v.M/S Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted temporary injunctive relief in favor of Vardhman Properties Ltd against M/S Vardhman Realtech Pvt Ltd & Ors. The court found that the defendants' use of the mark 'VARDHMAN' was phonetically and visually identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark, leading to a prima facie case for infringement and passing off. This interim order restrains the defendants from using the name in a manner that suggests an association with the plaintiff's established brand, allowing the main suits to proceed.
Teva Api India Pvt. Ltd. v.Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
The respondents sued the appellants alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 209816 for Sitagliptin. The appellants challenged the interim injunction, claiming their manufacturing and exports were solely for Research & Development (R&D) and obtaining global regulatory approvals before the patent expiry in 2022. The court dismissed the appeal but directed the parties to complete pleadings.
R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. Jasola New Delhi v.M/S Action Construction Equipments Ltd. Dudhola & 3 Others
The appeal challenged an order from the Additional District Judge which granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from manufacturing and selling registered designs for tower cranes. The appellant argued that since a ground under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 was raised as a defense, the suit must be transferred to the High Court under Section 22(4).
Skechers Usa Inc & Ors v.Pure Play Sports
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Skechers against Pure Play Sports, finding prima facie evidence of passing off. The court noted that the defendant's footwear was a substantial imitation of the plaintiffs' GOwalk 3 series, specifically citing copied trade dress elements like the unique outsole design and 'Goga Mat' technology features. This preliminary ruling suggests that the defendants were consciously imitating Skechers' distinctive look to mislead consumers about the source of their products.
Shomenath Roy Chowdhury v.Eskag Pharma Private Limited
This case involves a dispute over a patent held by Shomenath Roy Chowdhury for a therapeutic composition used in wound healing, marketed as 'Dresin'. The petitioner alleged that Eskag Pharma Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Sufrate TP', constituting infringement. While the petitioner sought an immediate injunction, the court recognized the need to hear the defense, which primarily argued that the ingredients were well-known in the medicinal field. Consequently, instead of granting an outright ban, the Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the respondent's stock.
Ahmed Hussain. B & Sebille Educations Private Limited v.Sh.Sunil Jethi & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition seeking rectification of the Trademark Register. The petitioners, owners of 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' in the education sector, successfully argued that the respondent's subsequent trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINZ,' was deceptively and phonetically similar to their prior registered mark. The court found that the adoption of the impugned mark was an attempt to deceive the public and capitalize on the petitioners' established goodwill, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
M/s Bharat Iron Foundry And Ors v.M/s Sadhu Singh & Sons Iron & Steel Rolling Mills
The Punjab-Haryana High Court overturned an interlocutory injunction that had restricted the defendants from manufacturing and marketing their products without 'collaboration' with the plaintiffs. The court found that the restrictive interpretation of the deed of assignment was unsustainable, especially given the parties' conduct over two decades where the mark was used independently. Consequently, the application for interim relief was rejected, allowing the appellants to continue their operations.
Solmec Earthmovers Equipments v.Registrar Of Trademarks
Solmec Earthmovers Equipments approached the Gujarat High Court seeking directions to restore or renew its trademark 'SOLMEC' (Registration No. 929232). The petitioner argued that a lack of proper documentation had delayed the filing, but confirmed that renewal applications were filed on the day of the petition. The court disposed of the Special Civil Application by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and pass an order regarding the pending renewal application.
Chandra Sekar v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Chandra Sekar challenged orders dismissing his two patent applications (Nos. 8846/CHENP/2011 and 8907/CHENP/2011) because the request for examination was filed late. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to calendaring errors and negligence on the part of the Indian agent, not his own.
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.