IP Cases — 2017
138 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 5 · 138 total
M/S Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd. challenging the removal of its 'GURUJI' trademark. The core dispute centered on whether a mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, was properly served before the mark's cancellation. The Court upheld the Single Judge's finding that since the notice was sent by post and addressed to the proprietor, it was deemed legally served under Rule 15 of the Rules, thereby validating the removal.
Ferrero Spa & Anr. v.Shri Maa Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ferrero Group against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to its iconic 'Ferrero Rocher' brand. The court found that the defendant had copied not only the registered word mark but also the unique trade dress, including the crushed gold wrapper and fluted cupcake holder. Given the well-known status of the Ferrero Rocher trademark, the adoption by the defendants was deemed fraudulent, leading to a permanent injunction against all infringing activities.
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.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Vinod Jadhav
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp sought confirmation of an existing ex parte ad interim injunction against Vinod Jadhav and others, alleging that they were infringing on their registered patent for the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs established that they held a valid patent (No. 209816) and had previously secured a permanent injunction in a related suit. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly made out a prima facie case and confirmed the interim order, noting the defendants' attempts to delay the matter.
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.
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.
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.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors
Bayer challenged Natco's (and Alembic's) exports of SORAFENIB/SORAFENAT, which were covered by a Compulsory Licence, arguing these exports infringed the patent. The core legal question was whether Section 107A allowed for such exports for regulatory purposes.
M/S. M. B. Exports Limited v.The Controller Of The Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner, M/S. M. B. Exports Limited, approached the Calcutta High Court regarding an application for cancellation of Design No. 244214. The court directed the respondent (Controller) to produce all related proceedings within two weeks and adjourned the matter.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr. v.Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant alleging imminent infringement of copyrights in component drawings and registered designs related to their 3DX Backhoe Loader. The defendant filed applications seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it lacked a cause of action, particularly after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew an injunction order. The court dismissed the defendant's applications, noting that the issues required a full trial.
Abhoy Kumar Jain v.Vrajlal Manilal & Company And Others
The Delhi High Court intervened in a dispute over trademark rectification, setting aside an ex parte order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner successfully argued that the original decision failed to consider their statement of defense and material evidence. Consequently, the court restored the petitioner's mark 'Tufan' on the register and remitted the case back to the IPAB for a fair reconsideration, emphasizing procedural fairness over substantive merits.
M/s.Agsar Match Industries v.M/S.Edison Paints By Its
The Madras High Court confirmed a lower court's finding that M/S.Edison Paints was engaging in passing off by using a deceptively similar mark (Double Stag) for red oxide and colour oxide. The court emphasized that even if the products were technically different or had minor packaging variations, the similarity of the core trademark image—the stag—would lead the target audience (civil contractors/masons) to believe both products originated from the same company or sister concerns. This ruling strongly protects established goodwill against confusing imitation.
M/S Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers v.Bhagwan Das Khanna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Plaintiff sought to strike out two specific issues related to a partnership deed. The Plaintiff argued that since the Defendants had not raised any counterclaims or filed a declaration suit concerning the partnership structure, these issues were irrelevant to the core controversy of trademark infringement. The Court directed the Defendants to file a reply within four weeks and subsequently a rejoinder, keeping the litigation moving forward.
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.
Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. v.Surya Roshni Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a Hollow Section Pipe. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the design lacked novelty, was common to trade, and was based on pre-existing prior art. The court dismissed the interim application in favor of the defendant.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Wockhardt Limited And Anr
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning an action in passing off brought by Torrent Pharmaceuticals against Wockhardt. The court analyzed the 'classical trinity' of passing off, focusing on misrepresentation and reputation. Ultimately, the judge found that Torrent failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off due to the long co-existence of the rival products without any demonstrated confusion or deception. Consequently, the interim injunction sought by Torrent was dismissed.
Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v.Fiit Jee Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd., a well-known aerospace and defense entity, against Fiit Jee Limited & Anr. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were dishonestly adopting the prestigious 'BRAHMOS' trademark for educational services, causing confusion among students who believed their tests were affiliated with the renowned company. Citing the strong prima facie case, the court ruled that allowing continued use by the defendants would cause irreparable loss to Brahmos’s goodwill and reputation.
M/S All Well Formulations v.M/S Swathi And Co.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal, upholding the trial court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of M/S All Well Formulations. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Turky Plus Olive Oil' and its unique tin design by the defendant. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar, noting that the plaintiff's current suit was based on a registered mark, unlike a previous unsuccessful attempt concerning an unregistered mark. Consequently, the trial court was directed to expedite the final decision of the underlying infringement suit.
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.