IP Cases — 2017
129 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 5 · 129 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.
Pepsico Inc & Ors. v.Dugar Spices & Eatables (P) Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc, granting a permanent injunction against Dugar Spices & Eatables for the illegal use and sale of counterfeit and look-alike snack products. The court found that the defendants were violating Pepsico's rights through deceptive similarity in trademarks (KURMURE, CRACKURE), logos, packaging design, and overall trade dress associated with the 'KURKURE' brand. Furthermore, the judgment included directions to customs departments to prevent the import of these infringing goods.
Philco Industries & Ors. v.The Dy. Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Philco Industries challenged the registration of a bowl design (No. 205014), arguing that it lacked novelty as it was common in trade and had been previously sold by them. The Deputy Controller rejected this cancellation petition, finding no cogent evidence of prior publication or use. The Calcutta High Court upheld the Controller's decision, agreeing that Philco failed to discharge its onus of proving prior art, thereby affirming the design registration.
Tryton Medical Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Tryton Medical Inc. challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to examine its National Phase Patent Application, which had been rejected due to a minor delay in filing. The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had previously allowed the appeal and directed the Controller to proceed with examination. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, mandating compliance with the IPAB's orders.
T.K. Shawal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
T.K. Shawal Industries Pvt. Ltd. challenged the registration of Design No. 252082, arguing that the scarf's surface pattern lacked originality and was anticipated by prior knowledge or publication. The court examined evidence regarding prior sales invoices and Wikipedia documents but found no cogent proof of novelty infringement. While dismissing the cancellation petition, the High Court noted an apparent clerical error in the certificate of registration date and directed the Controller to make the necessary correction.
yahoo inc v.mr rinshad rinu ors
Yahoo Inc sued Mr Rinshad Rinu and others for infringement of its YAHOO trademark in Class 39, alleging deceptive use in a trading name (yahookochi.com) and business operations. The defendants used the Yahoo mark and logo, claiming they had invested significantly in promoting it.
M/S. Munjal Showa Limited v.Commissioner Of Central Excise & St, Delhi (Gurgaon)
M/S. Munjal Showa Limited challenged demands for service tax levied on royalty payments made to M/s. Showa Corporation, Japan, concerning the transfer of technical know-how and IP rights (Patent, Utility model, Brand Service, Design, Trademark). The Tribunal ruled that since the relevant trademarks and designs were not registered in India under Indian law at the time, the services did not fall under IPR service as defined by the Finance Act, 1994. Furthermore, since the agreement was executed before the levy came into force, the demand was unsustainable.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation
The petitioners allege infringement of their patent for a method of evaluating gemstones by the respondents, who are accused of secretly using the patented components in their machines and devices.
Sarine Technologies Ltd v.Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation & 13
Sarine Technologies Ltd filed a suit alleging that the respondents willfully infringed its copyright in the 'AdvisorTM' rough gemstone planning software. The petitioner claimed the defendants developed and used pirated versions of the software to provide inclusion scanning services to third parties. The High Court issued an order directing the appointment of Commissioners to inspect the computer systems and hard disks of Respondent Nos. 1 and 12.
hindustan unilever limited v.shree mehta chemicals indore pvt ltd
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUFL) sued Shree Mehta Chemicals (Indore) Pvt Ltd for infringement of its registered trademark 'SURF/SURF EXCEL' and copyright in the artwork on its detergent powder packaging, alleging that Shree Mehta’s ‘SANAN’ detergent packaging used a deceptively similar colour scheme, getup, and artwork. HUFL claimed significant sales and reputation associated with the SURF EXCEL brand.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Guddu
Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully sought interim protection against Guddu, alleging that the respondent was manufacturing and selling soaps under the brand 'New Liberty' with trade designs, graphics, and color schemes deceptively similar to Lifebuoy. The court recognized the distinctive 'trade dress' of Lifebuoy in the competitive FMCG sector. Given the high potential for consumer confusion among unwary buyers, the Calcutta High Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the infringing goods and granted an interim injunction to preserve the petitioner's market reputation.
AVMH Corporation v.Subu Trade Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected a plea to dismiss a trademark suit. The respondent sought injunctions regarding their 'SACHA MOTI' trademark for food products, while the petitioners argued the suit should be dismissed due to parallel proceedings in the Delhi High Court and before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The High Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no illegality in allowing the suit to proceed.
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.
Paramount Surgimed Limited v.Paramount Bed India Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier ex-parte injunction granted in favor of Paramount Surgimed Limited. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's use of the 'PARAMOUNT' mark since 2009 and had not adequately demonstrated its use in the hospital bed sector. Given the established business operations of the defendants, the balance of convenience lay in their favor, allowing them to continue their trade.
Dharam Chand Ladha Mal v.Subhash Sabun Udyog & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dharam Chand Ladha Mal, finding clear similarity between the trade dress of the defendants' products (NIROKHA) and the plaintiff's registered trademark (NAULAKHA). The court granted permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and passing off. Furthermore, it directed each defendant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr v.Pindrop Music App Private Limited
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction favoring Mr. Shammi Narang & Anr against Pindrop Music App Private Limited. The court found that both parties held registered trademarks, but crucially, they operated in different classes (Class 41 for the plaintiff's studio services and Class 42 for the defendant's mobile application). Citing Section 28(3) of the Trademarks Act, the court ruled that since the marks were not used in the same class, infringement could not be established at this stage. The ruling prioritized the balance of convenience in favor of the growing startup.
McDonalds India Pvt. Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi
This batch of cases addressed the tax implications of franchise agreements under various state sales tax laws. The core dispute centered on whether the royalties received by franchisors for allowing franchisees to use their brand system constituted a 'transfer of the right to use goods' (trademark). The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the franchise agreements only grant a limited right to use, and do not constitute an outright transfer of IP rights. Consequently, the tax demands levied on these transactions were quashed.
Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd v.ITC Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging passing-off and infringement, claiming that the appellant's use of the mark 'ITC' in its banking business was unfair. The court ruled that since the plaintiff had its registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, the court possessed the necessary authority to hear the action under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Euro-Solo Energy Systems Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited, finding that Euro-Solo Energy Systems Limited had infringed upon its intellectual property rights. The court determined that the defendant's dry-cell batteries were deceptively similar to Eveready's products, specifically noting the adoption of the exact color scheme and substantially similar trade dress. Consequently, a clear case of passing off was established, leading to a decree for the plaintiff.
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.
Versalis Spa v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
Versalis Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN7854/CHENP/2011) by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute was whether the process for hydrolyzing lignocellulosic biomass was inventive, given that the claims were challenged as lacking inventiveness and technical advancement over cited prior arts.
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.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. appealed an order concerning the cancellation of registered designs. The core issue was whether a party could challenge the design's validity when there was a prior settlement agreement acknowledging the rights of the petitioner. The court held that between the parties, the settlement bound them, setting aside the impugned order.
Shahajanand Laser Technology Ltd v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel
The Gujarat High Court addressed a civil application related to an ongoing patent infringement dispute. Considering the respondent's existing suit alleging patent infringement and his commitment not to issue trademarks conflicting with his rights, the court confirmed the previously granted interim relief. This decision maintains the status quo while the main litigation proceeds.
Holland L.P. v.A.D. Electro Stell Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, owners of patented Automatic Twist Locks (ATLs), filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of their copyright in the proprietary drawings. The defendant challenged the claim, arguing that the specific design drawing used by the railways had become part of the public domain and was not exclusively owned by the plaintiff.
Vimal Electric Company & v.Vimal Agro Products Pvt Ltd
The appellants filed an Appeal From Order challenging a Commercial Court's decision that allowed the respondent's application and ordered the return of the plaint. The original suit was for passing off action based on the use of the 'VIMAL' trade name. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction based on the causes of action pleaded.
Kanishk Sinha v.State of West Bengal
The petitioner, a patentee, challenged actions of the State regarding e-rickshaws, asserting that defendants were infringing his patent on echo friendly vehicles. The court affirmed the petitioner's status as a patent holder and held that any license granted by the State in violation of the existing injunction would be void ab initio.
M/S. Iritech Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner sought to quash the 'deemed to be withdrawn' status of its Indian National Phase Patent Application (No. 5272/DELNP/2008) due to a clerical error in the application number being typed as 6272/DELNP/2008 in Form No. 18 and supporting documents. The respondents argued that the correction was sought after the statutory period expired, making it impossible for the Controller to act. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the error clerical and restoring the application.
Saregama India Limited v.Whackedout Media Pvt. Ltd.
Saregama India Limited filed a suit alleging copyright infringement against Whackedout Media Pvt. Ltd., claiming ownership over musical and literary works and sound recordings. The core legal dispute revolved around the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, specifically whether its territorial reach was established under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent despite the defendant challenging it based on Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. The court ultimately dismissed the application to revoke leave, affirming that the averments in the plaint provided sufficient grounds for the court to assume jurisdiction.
Anuradha Doval v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenged the cancellation of a registered design for a 'Bottle Cap' (Design No. 222799). The private respondent argued that the shape and configuration were not new or original, citing prior published art documents, including magazine issues from 2009. The court ultimately upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the impugned design was substantially identical to existing publications and lacked novelty.
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.