IP Cases — 2017
129 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 5 · 129 total
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.
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.
M/s.Mahesh Value Products Private Limited v.Bhagwati Rubber Industries
The suit was filed by M/s. Mahesh Value Products Private Limited against Bhagwati Rubber Industries, alleging infringement and passing off related to their registered trademark 'Stumper' and associated copyright. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages concerning the use of the mark 'Slamped'. However, despite multiple opportunities, the plaintiffs failed to appear before the court for recording evidence.
Female Health Company Uk Plc v.Hll Lifecare Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the patent granted for a female condom manufactured by the respondent. The petitioner is contesting the validity and implications of the patent.
Female Health Company Uk Plc v.Hll Lifecare Limited
Female Health Company Uk Plc filed an application seeking interim measures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging that Hll Lifecare Limited was violating confidentiality related to the manufacturing of its FC2 female condom. The court examined evidence regarding alleged product resemblance and breach of agreements. Ultimately, the court found no prima facie case for violation of confidentiality or infringement, concluding that the balance of convenience did not favor the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Adit (It) 3(2), Mumbai v.First Advantage P. Ltd, Mumbai
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision holding that payments made by First Advantage Pvt. Ltd. for using CSPi software from FADV US were not 'royalty' subject to TDS. The core dispute was whether limited access to copyrighted software constitutes royalty or merely payment for a copyrighted article.
M/s. Eris Life Science Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Micro Labs Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of staying a trademark infringement suit when a rectification application concerning the registered mark is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The court clarified that the right to file for trademark rectification is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed by requiring prior leave or prima facie satisfaction from the civil court. Given the similarity between the marks and the pendency of the IPAB proceedings, the suit was stayed.
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.
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.
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.