IP Cases — 2018
224 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 8 · 224 total
Wockhardt Limited v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Supreme Court rejected Wockhardt Limited's appeal against a High Court Division Bench order that had granted an interim injunction based on passing off. The court found that the Division Bench correctly applied the triple test for passing off, establishing reputation and likelihood of confusion due to the minimal difference between the trade names. Despite arguments regarding acquiescence and prior conduct, the Supreme Court held that the balance of convenience favored the original judgment, thereby upholding the protection of Torrent's trademark.
Vocco Consultants And 2 Ors. v.Vicco Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial suit concerning the trademark 'VICCO'. While the original suit was stayed pending a rectification application before the IPAB, the court took proactive steps to address the core dispute. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court framed an additional issue specifically questioning whether the Defendant's registration of the mark 'VICCO' is bad in law and liable for invalidation.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries v.M/S Pearl Thrmoplast Pvt. Ltd.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging violation of its registered design (No.245-249) concerning a 'Jug'. The defendant challenged the suit, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as their primary business operations were outside Jodhpur. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that since the infringement and sale of the goods occurred within the court's jurisdiction (Jodhpur), part of the cause of action arose there, thereby establishing the court's competence to hear the matter.
Skullcandy Inc v.Shri Shyam Telecom & Ors
Skullcandy Inc filed a suit against Shri Shyam Telecom and other entities, including the e-commerce platform Shopclues.com, alleging infringement of its 'SKULLCANDY' trademark through the sale of counterfeit products. The core legal dispute centered on whether the online marketplace could claim immunity as an intermediary under the IT Act. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Skullcandy, finding that the website's operational features—such as guaranteeing 100% genuine products and maintaining a 'Replica' category—demonstrated a role beyond that of a passive intermediary.
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.
Texmo Industries v.Mr.Kantilal Solanki
The Madras High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Texmo Industries against Mr. Kantilal Solanki, finding clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that since both parties used the identical mark 'TEXMO' on the same product—agricultural pumps—the use by the defendant constituted a direct violation of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (Nos. 315049 and 315050). Consequently, the suit was decreed granting permanent injunctive reliefs to protect Texmo Industries' brand integrity.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd. The suit, which alleged passing off based on similar trade names, was decreed with a permanent injunction. Although the plaintiff initially sought damages and surrender of goods, they subsequently withdrew those specific prayers after the defendant provided an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit seeking protection against the infringement of its patent (No. 271425), which covers automated technology for locating inclusions in rough diamonds. The plaintiffs claimed their invention revolutionized the diamond industry by providing accurate 3D imaging and cutting plans to maximize stone value. While the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient for granting a temporary injunction, it issued specific interim restraints against the defendants regarding bubble removal devices and sales of infringing machines.
Sri Bishnupada Biring v.Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Biring
The Calcutta High Court noted a prima facie case raised by the petitioner concerning procedural flaws and patent discrepancies in the commissioner's report. Consequently, the matter was directed to be heard as a contested application. An interim order granting a stay on the impugned order and related proceedings was issued.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Modi Powder and Soap Company & Ors
The petitioner filed a notice of motion regarding the execution of an ex-parte ad interim injunction order. The court found that local police authorities refused to assist the Court Receiver, and the defendants also obstructed the seizure and sealing of the impugned goods. Consequently, the court passed further orders directing the concerned parties to appear before it.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against New Dindigul Thalappakattu Biriyani. The original suit sought permanent injunction and damages for passing off the plaintiff's trade mark, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' However, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to withdraw the case, resulting in its dismissal without costs.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Sationers
This case involves a dispute over design rights concerning a pen. The defendants filed an application seeking to amend their written statement, claiming that they had subsequently received a Certificate of Registration for Design No. 282909 in Class 19-06. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment, arguing it was mutually destructive and that the trial had already commenced. However, the court allowed the amendment, finding that the registration was a subsequent development and not fundamentally contradictory to the earlier pleas.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.R. R. Trading Company
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed a Notice of Motion against R.R. Trading Company alleging that the defendant was using a label mark and trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive BROOK BOND RED LABEL/RED LABEL for tea products. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from passing off their goods.
Lens. Com, Inc. v.Ju J Friend International
The Delhi High Court reviewed an arbitration award concerning a domain name dispute under NIXI's INDRP. The court struck down the arbitrary direction to confiscate the disputed domain name, ruling that such power was outside the scope of the policy. However, the court clarified that merely cancelling the registration does not automatically grant ownership to the petitioner; the complainant must independently prove their rights in the generic term 'lens'.
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.
Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited v.Millennium & Copthorne International Limited
The Bombay High Court granted a limited ad-interim relief to Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited, protecting its use of the name 'Hotel Millennium Park' and associated domain. The court ruled that pending the final suit, the Defendant must provide at least 7 days prior written notice before initiating any legal action claiming infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff. This decision provides immediate protection against groundless threats while the main litigation proceeds.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Lupin Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Lupin Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's trade mark, TRI-VOBIT, was structurally and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, TRIVOLIB. Despite arguments regarding prior use of 'VOBIT,' the court ruled that the full marks must be compared, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off.
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.
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.
Riyaz Chowdhary v.Parfums Parour And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark rectification dispute concerning the mark 'LOMANI'. The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to remove the trademark, arguing that he was denied natural justice because the application for rectification was not served upon him until seven years after it was filed. Recognizing this procedural lapse, the Court set aside the IPAB's order and mandated a fresh hearing, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to contest the removal of his registered mark.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Habiganj Agro Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the interim injunction granted to Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against Habiganj Agro Ltd., finding that the defendants failed to establish a compelling case for vacating the order. Despite arguments regarding 'proposed to be used' status and prior ownership claims, the court noted evidence of slavish imitation in the defendants' packaging materials. The interim injunction remains active for 16 weeks while the main suit proceeds.
M/S Bombay Plaster Industries v.M/S Jagdamba Plaster
M/S Bombay Plaster Industries appealed a trial court order that rejected its application for a temporary injunction against M/S Jagdamba Plaster, alleging infringement of its 'Hi-Tech' trademark and copyright. The appellant claimed its label had acquired significant goodwill and was being deceptively copied by the respondents using similar labels like 'Hi-Techi' and 'I-Tek'. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no manifest error in the trial court's decision regarding the temporary injunction, while directing the lower court to expedite the main suits.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd.
The Madras High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananada Vilas Biriyani Hotel against T.S.Thalappakettu Briyani & Fast Food (P) Ltd. The suit, which alleged passing off based on similar trade names, was decreed with a permanent injunction. Although the plaintiff initially sought damages and surrender of goods, they subsequently withdrew those specific prayers after the defendant provided an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks.
M.Kumaaravel / M/s.Vel Chakra Coffee Private Limited v.Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Madras High Court, M.Kumaaravel sought permanent injunction and damages against Ashok Nagar Madras Coffee House for passing off their establishment as similar to 'Madras Coffee House.' However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiffs formally moved to withdraw the suit. The court accepted this request, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit.
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.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Systopic Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited to frame a new issue in its ongoing suit against Systopic Laboratories Limited. The core dispute involves the similarity between the trademarks 'STORVAS' and 'ORVAS'. Crucially, the court permitted the framing of an additional issue questioning the validity and potential cancellation of the defendant's trademark registration (No. 1328403). This decision was influenced by recent Supreme Court dicta emphasizing the necessity of addressing pleas of invalidity.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was selling products identical or obvious imitations of their protected designs, including the Aqua Safe bottle and Eco Flip Top bottle. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on the interim relief. Consequently, the court allowed the injunction application for the plaintiff while dismissing other related applications.
M/s Crocs Inc.Usa v.M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Crocs Inc.Usa, filed suits seeking permanent injunction against various defendants for infringing its registered designs (Nos. 197685 and 197686) related to footwear. The court heard and disposed of the interim injunction applications in favor of the defendants.
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.