IP Cases — 2017
138 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 5 · 138 total
Modi- Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The court found that the IPAB overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. Citing Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court held that the use of an associated trade mark can be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark. Consequently, the court set aside the IPAB's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Dy.CIT-LTU, Centre-1 v.Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses incurred by TCS Ltd. on imported software due to non-deduction of TDS, arguing that the payment constituted 'royalty'. The Tribunal examined whether the purchase was for acquiring a copyrighted article or merely goods for trading purposes.
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v.HRCN Cable Network
Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited filed a suit against HRCN Cable Network alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its vast repertoire of copyrighted music, sound recordings, and cinematographic films. The plaintiff demonstrated ownership through assignment deeds and copyright certificates, proving that the defendant was illegally broadcasting their content on cable television networks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against further infringement and awarding the plaintiff compensation amounting to Rs. 16,20,000/-.
Atul Narsibhai Patel v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.
The petitioner appealed against the cancellation of his registered seal design (Design No. 200628). The dispute centered on whether the design lacked novelty or originality due to its similarity to features depicted in an earlier tender document published by the Gujarat Electricity Board. The High Court upheld the Assistant Controller's decision, finding that the prior publication defeated the right of registration.
Praveen Kumar Maakar v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark applicant, Praveen Kumar Maakar, setting aside an order that deemed his application for 'FRONTIER BAKERY' abandoned. The core issue was whether he received a Notice of Opposition filed by M/s Frontier Bakery Pvt. Ltd. Despite evidence showing dispatch to a related service, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim that he never received the notice. Consequently, the applicant was granted an eight-week window to file his counter-statement.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. appealed against an order that proceeded with the cancellation of registered designs based on prior publication, despite a previous settlement between the parties. The court held that as between the settled parties, one is bound by their acknowledgement of ownership and validity.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Suru International Pvt. Ltd v.B.Braun Melsungen AG
Suru International Pvt. Ltd filed a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 210062. The Madras High Court set aside the IPAB's order to the extent that it had remanded the matter back to the Controller General of Patents & Designs, directing the IPAB to decide the issue de novo.
Mohd Anesur Rahaman v.Mosarraf Hossain And Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Mohd Anesur Rahaman, to amend his plaint in a trademark dispute. The amendment was necessary because the plaintiff had successfully registered the 'ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL' trademark during the pendency of the suit. This allows the plaintiff to formally pursue infringement claims based on the newly secured registration. The court emphasized that such amendments are allowed under principles of justice and equity to ensure all rights are properly adjudicated.
A. Ebrahim v.M/S. Ojin Foods Pvt. Ltd.
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction in an infringement suit. The defendant argued that relief of passing off should only lie where they ordinarily reside, but the trial court found it was ancillary to the main trademark infringement claim. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding, noting that since both trademark infringement and passing off were sought, the jurisdictional issue could not be definitively settled at this stage. Consequently, the original petition challenging the jurisdiction order was dismissed.
Atul Narsibhai Patel v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner appealed against the cancellation of Design No. 211639 (a seal for packaging). The Assistant Controller cancelled the registration finding that the design was not new or original because its features were strikingly similar to prior published and registered designs, specifically nos. 179570 and 205871.
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
The plaintiff, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for patent infringement against Xiaomi Technology. The current application sought the constitution of a confidential club to allow filing of highly sensitive patent licensing agreements necessary for determining FRAND issues.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Anr v.Sandeep Chohan Alias Sandeep Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Drs Logistics regarding the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS' and associated domain names. The court granted a mandatory injunction directing the deletion or transfer of an offending domain name to the plaintiff. Furthermore, due to the defendants evading court proceedings while continuing their infringing activities, the court awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- plus interest.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Lupin Ltd And Anr
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals against the refusal of interim relief. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning the medicinal preparation DEXORANGE, whose packaging and trade mark were copied by the respondents (Lupin Ltd And Anr). Despite strong claims regarding identical artistic work and deceptive similarity, the court found no immediate case for injunction after an 11-year delay in seeking relief. However, the court directed that the original suit be expedited, keeping all core issues of infringement and passing off open for future adjudication.
ITC Ltd v.Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd & Ors.
ITC Ltd filed a composite suit against Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank, alleging infringement and passing off due to the bank's use of 'ITC' as an abbreviation in its name. The respondents sought revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, primarily arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because no part of the cause of action arose within Calcutta. However, the High Court found that a true reading of the plaint showed the suit was maintainable and granted leave to proceed with both claims jointly.
Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. v.Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.& Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed an intra-Court appeal filed by Samsung Leasing Ltd & Ors. challenging an order that allowed amendments to a trademark infringement suit. The court first ruled on the technical issue of jurisdiction, confirming that since the original suit involved intellectual property rights (trademarks), it fell under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because an order allowing an amendment of the plaint is not specifically enumerated as appealable under Order XLIII CPC.
M/s Hotel Swagath v.M/s Hotel Swagath East Court
The appellant, M/s Hotel Swagath (registered partnership firm), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s Hotel Swagath East Court for infringing its registered trademark and passing off. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application, which was subsequently challenged in this appeal.
Bhushan Goyal (Proprietor, Chanda Softy Ice Creams) v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Mars Incorporated
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Bhushan Goyal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and Mars Incorporated. The petitioner had sought to quash an order related to the renewal of a trademark registration granted to Mars Incorporated. However, before any substantive ruling on the merits, the petitioner voluntarily moved to withdraw the petition, leading to its dismissal.
K.Manivannan v.The Chairman Intellectual Property Appellate Board, The Controller of Patent & Designs, M.Mani
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 204322, granted to M.Mani (the third respondent), arguing that the invention was already publicly available or anticipated by his own earlier work. The petitioner sought revocation of the patent before the High Court.
Shahajanand Laser Technology Ltd v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel
This judgment from the Gujarat High Court addresses a Civil Application filed by Shahajanand Laser Technology Ltd against Bharat Bhogilal Patel. The court considered that since the respondent had already initiated a suit alleging patent infringement, and given his commitment not to issue trademarks conflicting with his patent rights, interim relief was deemed necessary and subsequently granted. This order disposed of the civil application while maintaining the ongoing appeal proceedings.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd v.Amit Kotak
Kent Ro Systems Ltd filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and selling water purifiers whose design infringed upon their registered designs. The plaintiffs also sought relief against the online marketplace, eBay (Defendant No. 2), for facilitating this infringement. While the court granted an injunction in favor of Kent Ro Systems against the manufacturer, it ultimately declined to impose proactive screening or vigilance duties on the e-commerce intermediary, citing that such a requirement would be an unreasonable interference with its business rights.
Krishna Plastic Industries v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Krishna Plastic Industries appealed against an order allowing the cancellation of its registered design for a 'plastic seal'. The High Court found that the Deputy Controller failed to properly examine and reason regarding the distinctive surface pattern, which was claimed as the source of novelty. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Park Jeong Tae v.Hem Kund Sprayers
The plaintiff, Park Jeong Tae, sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, Hem Kund Sprayers, for infringing his registered patent (No. 254374) related to an injection moulded cleaning solution pump for chemical sprayers, marketed as 'Super-2000 Gold Sprayer'. The plaintiff also alleged passing off and copyright infringement on packaging. Based on a prima facie case, the court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner.
M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.
M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited filed applications seeking temporary injunction against Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd., alleging infringement of a registered design and passing off. The Madras High Court examined the claims under the Designs Act, 2000, and found that the petitioner's design did not satisfy the necessary legal tests in this context. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications for temporary injunction but directed both parties to file relevant documents and monthly sales statements as part of the ongoing suit.
Holland Company Lp And Anr. v.S.P. Industries
The plaintiffs claimed ownership and copyright over the industrial drawings of the Automatic Twist Lock (ATL) system, alleging that the defendant copied these drawings to manufacture spare parts for ATL devices used by Indian Railways. The court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly given that the drawings were published and available in the public domain.
Subhas Chand v.Mahesh Chandra Agrawal & Others
Subhas Chand, proprietor of M/s Panchhi Petha Store, filed a suit alleging that defendants were infringing his registered trademark and copyrighted labels by using 'New Panchhi Petha Store'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar colors, imagery (lady with umbrella), and trade name was intended to deceive consumers. Given the plaintiff's established reputation and goodwill in manufacturing quality sweets like Petha and Dalmoth, the appeal succeeded, upholding the finding of infringement.
Monsanto Technology Llc And Ors. v.Nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.
Monsanto Technology LLC and its affiliates filed a suit against Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the defendants continuing to market and sell Genetically Modified Hybrid Cotton Planting Seeds despite the termination of sub-license agreements. Plaintiffs claimed violation of both registered patent (No. 214436) and trademarks (BOLLGARD/BOLLGARD II). The court, while addressing interim applications, issued directions mandating the defendants to tender or pay a trait fee, render detailed sales accounts, and comply with licensing guidelines.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Www.Timeseducation.Co & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Triumphant Institute Of Management, to implead Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byju's) as a necessary party in its trademark infringement suit concerning the domain name 'timeseducation.co'. The court found that the proposed defendant had an admitted association with the impugned domain via a telephone number linked to them, making their presence essential for a just decision. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint and subsequently deleted two original defendants from the array of parties.
M & K Technologies v.Hi-Tech Carbons and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
M & K Technologies filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's order cancelling design registration no. 190949. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the High Court due to the appellant failing to appear and filing a memo stating there were no instructions.
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.