IP Cases — 2018
210 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 7 · 210 total
Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd v.Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt Ltd challenging a prior order that confirmed an ex parte interim injunction. The court upheld the injunction, finding that the respondent's registered trademark 'Doctor Brand Phenyle' had acquired distinctiveness and was associated with its phenyl disinfectant product. Despite the appellants' claims of rights via assignment deeds, the court found their use of 'Doctor Hazel' to be infringing, while allowing them to continue using 'Chemist brand germ troll.'
Lt Foods Limited v.Heritage Foods (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit filed by Lt Foods Limited against Heritage Foods (India) Limited. The stay was granted because both parties had pending cancellation/rectification applications concerning their respective 'HERITAGE' trademarks before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Crucially, the court clarified that while the main suit is stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, this does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing urgent interlocutory relief, such as an injunction.
Dhanpat Seth And Others v.M/S Nilkamal Plastic Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction and damages, alleging that the defendant infringed their Patent No. 195917 for a device used for manually hauling agricultural produce. The court examined the patent's validity and found that the invention lacked inventive step, as it was merely a substitution of bamboo with plastic in a traditionally known item (Kilta).
Syed Zakirali S/o Syed Jawarali v.Syed Zahidali S/o Syed Jawarali & Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal filed by Syed Zakirali against the dismissal of his civil suit concerning trademark infringement. The court held that Defendant No. 2 was illegally passing off goods as those of the plaintiff using disputed wrappers and labels ('322 pucca label' and '322 A.K.'). Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using these marks if the plaintiff renews them, and ordered to pay damages or render accounts of profits.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Comed Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed Torrent Pharmaceuticals' appeal against a lower court order that vacated an interim injunction. The dispute centered on whether Comed Chemicals' brand name, 'CODROXIL', infringed upon Torrent's registered trademark, 'DROXYL'. Despite arguments regarding phonetic and visual similarity, the court found no prima facie case for confusion, noting that both names originated from the generic drug 'Cefadroxil' and considering the nature of prescription-only pharmaceutical sales. The appeal was dismissed, directing the lower court to finalize the main suit promptly.
New Hope Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Pioneer Bakeries (P.) Ltd.
New Hope Industries challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to rectify its trademarks, Milka Wonder Cake. However, before the Madras High Court could rule on the validity of the marks, both parties entered into a Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated March 26, 2018. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petitions as withdrawn, resolving the dispute outside of judicial decree.
Krishnamachari Ramu v.Srinivasa Raja
The petitioners challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's order that revoked their patents (No. 193899 and 200285) concerning a novel method for preparing low glycemic sweets using Levulose/Fructose. The High Court found that the dispute required intricate scientific proof regarding the elimination of browning reactions, leading it to set aside the revocation order and remand the matter back to the IPAB.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Perfect Agro
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement involving Hakimuddin Bhemat and Perfect Agro. The court heard submissions from various parties, including an added respondent (Respondent No. 2), who claimed they were merely acting as intermediaries based on requisitions from Defendant No. 1. To clarify the supply chain, Respondent No. 2 was directed to file an affidavit disclosing the identities of third-party suppliers. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 provided an undertaking that they would cease using the plaintiff's trademark, while deadlines for other parties were extended.
Reliance Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Reliance Medipharma
The Gujarat High Court addressed appeals concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand name 'RELIANCE' in the pharmaceutical sector. While the court confirmed the lower court's decision refusing a broad injunction against the defendants using the name 'Reliance,' it partially allowed the appeal by specifically restraining the use of the derivative mark, 'Reliance Rx M,' for pharmaceutical products. This ruling highlights the nuanced approach courts take when balancing established trademark rights with specific usage limitations.
Klassic Wheels Private Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the cancellation of Design No. 229267, which covered a 'Wheel Rim' design. The grounds for cancellation were lack of novelty and prior publication. The court dismissed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence.
Vega Auto Accessories (P) Ltd. v.S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Vega Auto Accessories filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet for infringing its registered design related to helmets. The court examined whether the features of the defendant's helmet were substantially similar to the plaintiff's protected design. After detailed comparison, the High Court found that the defendant's product was an obvious imitation, thus confirming the ad-interim injunction in favor of Vega Auto Accessories.
Unknown v.Yogesh Mehra & Others
The plaintiffs argued that the court should not proceed with the civil suit while a statutory appeal was pending before the Statutory Authority. The defendant relied on a precedent (Dr. Aloys Wobben vs. Yogesh Mehra & others) which established rules concerning counter-claims and patent revocation petitions. The court accepted the defendant's submissions regarding the applicability of the precedent and listed the matter for arguments.
Star Television Productions Limited & Ors. v.Vaishali Saran & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Star Television Productions Limited, granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the 'HOTSTAR' brand through trademark misuse, copyright infringement of logos, and passing off. The court specifically ordered the transfer of deceptive domain names (hotstar.online and hotstarmovies.co) to the plaintiff, emphasizing that domain names function as commercial identifiers akin to trademarks in the digital age.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria alleging infringement of copyright, design rights, and passing off related to its popular brand HAJMOLA Anardana. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'KARORPATI Anardana' using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to its own. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the court found that the plaintiff successfully proved a likelihood of confusion leading to passing off.
M/S.J.K.Oil Industries v.M/S. Adani Wilmar Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a composite suit involving both trademark infringement and passing off, contingent on a pending trade mark rectification application. The court ruled that while Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act applies specifically to infringement suits, allowing the stay there, it does not apply to claims of 'passing off.' Consequently, the suit for infringement was stayed until the final decision of the rectification petition, but the parallel suit for passing off must continue and be decided on its own merits.
Rajesh Kalra v.Safeops. Surgical Care & Anr
Rajesh Kalra filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safeops. Surgical Care and others for infringing his registered design of 'Pre-Cut Eye Drape'. The plaintiff claimed novelty in the unique shape and configuration, which included a pre-cut aperture for surgical use. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the core feature—the pre-cut aperture—was purely functional and dictated by utility rather than aesthetic appeal.
Christian Louboutin Sas v.Abubaker & Ors.
Christian Louboutin Sas filed a suit against Abubaker & Ors., alleging trademark infringement and passing off based on its registered mark 'RED SOLE,' which refers to the red color applied to ladies footwear soles. The core dispute centered on whether this specific color shade could be protected as a trademark, especially when the defendants were using their own wordmark 'VERONICA.' The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that the use of a single color does not qualify as a trademark under relevant provisions and that Section 30(2)(a) disentitled the plaintiff from claiming infringement or passing off.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.R-3 Organics Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim protective order in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against R-3 Organics Limited. HUL alleged that the respondent was manufacturing and selling detergent powder under 'PARAS STAIN FIGHTER' with labels deceptively similar to HUL's well-known trademark 'SURF EXCEL.' The court found a prima facie case of infringement regarding both the registered trade mark and the copyright in the distinctive getup and color scheme, leading to an order for inventory and seizure of infringing goods.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the rejection of its Patent Application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant contended that the rejection order failed to objectively test the application or discuss relevant prior art (Exhibit D1).
Somashekar P Patil (Appellant) v.D V G Patil (Respondent)
This Karnataka High Court appeal addressed a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off between two parties sharing the surname 'Patil'. The appellant sought to maintain an interim injunction against the respondent for using 'Patil Fragrances', claiming it infringed his registered mark. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that the respondent's use of the name was bona fide. The judgment emphasized that Section 35 of the Trademarks Act protects a person's right to use their own surname in business, especially when their specific product brands are distinct.
Sarine Technologies Ltd v.Utpal Mistry
The court heard an application regarding a counterclaim filed by the defendants seeking revocation of a patent. The court held that based on Supreme Court precedent (Aloys Wobben), the counterclaim was not maintainable. Consequently, the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, leading the court to order the original suit be re-transferred to the District Court.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.
This appeal involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a registered design for a mixer grinder base unit. The appellant, M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., challenged an order that had granted an injunction against them based on copyright infringement. The court examined both designs side-by-side and found no substantial similarities, noting distinct differences in shape and configuration between the two tripod bases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous interim orders.
M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Registrar, Trademarks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg challenging the Registrar's decision to treat its trademark applications as abandoned. The court held that since the impugned orders were passed by the Trademark Registrar, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was not a Writ Petition under Article 226, but rather an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
Asugar Engineering Services v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition filed by Asugar Engineering Services, directing the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to reconsider a trademark rectification application. The court found that the IPAB's original order was flawed because it failed to provide adequate opportunity for both parties to contest the issues of non-use and classification. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and remanded back to the IPAB for a fresh hearing, ensuring due process is followed.
Balbir Singh & Company v.Mex Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of a district court in New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the suit filed by the respondent on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the court held that the plaint's averment that the defendant was clandestinely selling infringing goods within Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under both the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act. Consequently, the petition seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
Shamnad Basheer v.Union Of India
This writ petition challenged the process and implementation timeline concerning changes to the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined issues related to Section 146 and Section 122 of the Act, which govern patent working. After reviewing an affidavit from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, the High Court accepted the detailed sequential timelines proposed by the Union of India for completing the necessary stakeholder consultation and legislative amendments.
Country Inn Private Limited v.Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc. seeking permission to proceed with a trademark rectification petition aimed at cancelling the plaintiff's 'COUNTRY INN' registrations. The court found the defendant's attempt to derail the ongoing infringement suit frivolous and an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with significant costs awarded against the defendant.
Marico Ltd. v.Mrs. Jagit Kaur
Marico Ltd. appealed against the Copyright Board's dismissal of its rectification petition, challenging Mrs. Jagit Kaur's copyright registration for the 'NIHAL UTTAM' label. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work was not original but a substantial and colorful imitation of Marico's established 'NIHAR COCONUT OIL' label. Given this clear infringement and lack of originality, the High Court set aside the Board's judgment.
Canara Bank v.N.G. Subbaraya Setty
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute involving Canara Bank and N.G. Subbaraya Setty concerning the use of the trademark 'Eenadu'. The core legal questions revolved around whether the bank's actions, such as selling agarbathies using the trademark, violated the Banking Regulation Act. Furthermore, the court examined the applicability of res judicata when a prior judgment was based on an assignment deed that was prohibited by law under the Trade Marks Act.
Pradeep Sharma & Anr v.UPL Ltd
The petitioner challenged an order restraining him from infringing the respondent's patents related to synergistic herbicidal compositions (Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron). The dispute centered on whether the composition used by the appellant fell within the scope of the plaintiff's patented claims. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's finding that prima facie, the defendant's product was covered by the suit patent.
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.