IP Cases — 2019
339 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 12 · 339 total
Arihant Evergreen Agro Plast And Textiles Private Limited v.EPC Industries Limited
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed in 2004 alleging patent infringement. The plaintiff-respondent sought to take product samples on record via Order VII Rule 14 CPC, despite a significant delay of over 11 years. The appellants-defendants challenged this order, arguing the delay was unexplained and irrelevant to determining patent infringement.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd & Ors
Crocs Inc filed multiple suits alleging infringement of its registered designs (No.197685 and No.197686) by various defendants, including Bata India Ltd. Crocs claimed exclusive rights over the unique shape and pattern of its footwear designs, supported by extensive global trade and goodwill. The present appeal challenged the dismissal of Crocs' applications in these pending suits. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, directing that all related suits be listed together for further proceedings.
Dubai Islamic Bank v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned the refusal of trademark registration for 'Dubai Islamic Bank - The Better Way To Bank'. The court found that the Senior Examiner had incorrectly applied a foreign judgment, failing to consider the composite nature of the mark (including the slogan) and established Indian legal principles. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner's arguments regarding existing registrations and global use are properly evaluated.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
The Gujarat High Court rejected the application for stay of the suit (C/CS/2/2017) and proceeded to frame issues regarding alleged infringement of a suit patent. The court also issued directions to expedite the recording of evidence, directing the record to be transmitted to the District Court, Vadodara.
S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons v.The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons' writ petition, setting aside a decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on the registration of the 'SVS' trade mark for edible refined oil. The court ruled that the contesting respondents could not claim exclusive rights over the mark based on an ambiguous arbitration award, especially since the award did not specifically allot the mark to them. This decision reinforced the petitioner's right to use and register the mark.
N.Sathish Proprietor Om Tech Plastics v.Mr.C.Murali Kannan
N.Sathish filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr.C.Murali Kannan and others, initially alleging passing off related to plastic taps under the mark 'SIVA'. However, the judgment ultimately focused on copyright infringement claims regarding compilations. The court found that the plaintiff himself had copied material from earlier books, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani' constituted passing off and trademark infringement. The court recognized the plaintiff's long-standing reputation and exclusive use of the name since 1957. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant and awarding damages.
Flsmidth Private Limited v.Mr.S.Balaj Das
Flsmidth Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts regarding alleged copyright infringement in engineering drawings and passing off related to its 'O-SEPARATOR' product. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff had adequately established territorial jurisdiction for the Commercial Division of the Madras High Court against foreign respondents. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff failed to provide specific pleadings demonstrating how the defendants were amenable to the court's jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v.Celebrities Management Private Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a dispute over territorial jurisdiction concerning a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant challenged the court's authority, arguing that since both parties had connections to Mumbai, the case should have been filed there based on precedents like Sanjay Dalia. However, the court ultimately held that the interpretation of Sections 62 and 134 of the Trademarks Act, conferring 'additional jurisdiction,' is distinct from the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, thereby upholding the court's territorial competence.
M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals, sought a writ of mandamus compelling the State of Andhra Pradesh to implement instructions mandating the use of its patented anti-corrosion admixture inhibitor liquid, CONCARE, in RCC structures. The state argued that it only recommended 'CONCARE or equivalent products' and was not bound to procure from the petitioner alone. The court ruled that while policy decisions are generally beyond judicial interference, the respondents must ensure that if they choose to use an anti-corrosion agent, it must be a licensed product.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh And Anr v.Symed Laboratories Ltd
The execution petition sought to enforce a consent decree from 2015, which restricted Symed Laboratories Ltd from commercially exploiting RIVAROXABAN. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant had obtained a commercial license and made exports. The court addressed jurisdictional objections before disposing of the petition.
Sahaya Sujith Kumar v.A.Jordan
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the Patents Act because the respondent's patent rights were pending. The respondent argued the suit was an injunction based on breach of trust and non-disclosure agreement, not infringement.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Hasmi T.
Digigen Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Hasmi T. regarding the alleged infringement of their trade mark 'VIDVIE'. The court granted an interim order restraining the defendant from using the disputed trademark on mobile phone accessories until the final hearing.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was infringing upon their registered trademark (XXX label) through manufacturing and distribution of similar goods, as well as committing copyright infringement regarding the artistic work on the packaging. Furthermore, the suit included claims of passing off based on trade dress similarity.
M/S. Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
M/S. Lucky Exports challenged an order rejecting its appeal against the cancellation of Design No. 202108, which covered a 'Coaster Brake Sub Assembly'. The core dispute revolved around whether this mechanical component was purely functional and therefore ineligible for design registration, or if it possessed sufficient aesthetic features to qualify. The court examined arguments regarding prior publication and novelty, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
Elder Projects Ltd. & Anr. v.Elder Pharmacia Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit filed by Elder Projects Ltd. against Elder Pharmacia LLP, finding that the claim of passing off lacked a genuine cause of action. The court relied heavily on evidence provided by the plaintiff's Managing Director, which revealed that the plaintiff had previously claimed rights over the 'ELDER' trademark based on mistaken advice and was not the registered proprietor. Consequently, the interim ex-parte injunction granted to the plaintiff was vacated, marking a significant setback for Elder Projects Ltd.
Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors v.Shogun Organics Ltd
The appeal was filed by the original defendants against a decree that found them infringing the plaintiff's patent for the process of manufacturing d-trans Allethrin. The appellants argued that the process was already known due to its registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that product registration does not equate to disclosure of the manufacturing process required for patentability.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Vetrivel Traders alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation related to edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Sun O Gold' on their product, mimicking the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and its associated trade dress. Although the suit initially sought various permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited v.Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr.
Shyam Steel Industries Limited filed a suit against Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr. alleging infringement of trademark and passing off. The Calcutta High Court accepted the plaint, noting that no leave was required under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. Given concerns about potential concealment of infringing products, the court dispensed with mediation provisions.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
The Delhi High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding trademark infringement. The core issue was that the Single Judge incorrectly compared the plaintiff's mark ('A') with a new defendant mark ('C'), instead of comparing it with the original relevant mark ('B'). Recognizing this procedural error, the Chief Justice granted a stay on the challenged order, preserving the status quo until the appeal is finally disposed of.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt Ltd
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed a Commercial IP Suit against Rainbow Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. concerning trademark infringement related to pharmaceutical preparations. The Bombay High Court granted leave and issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trade mark "MONTEKAZ" or any deceptively similar marks.
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V & Anr. v.Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co (WQD) & Anr.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a process patent related to 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate'. The application before the court sought contempt proceedings due to alleged violation of an earlier interim order. The court found that the defendant's manufacturing process was virtually identical to the patented process, thus violating the interim restraint.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
In a dispute concerning the trade mark 'LADLI/SABKI LADLI', the Delhi High Court addressed parallel proceedings related to trademark rectification. Recognizing that simultaneous litigation could lead to multiplicity of suits, the court permitted both parties to withdraw their respective pending rectification petitions. This decision aims to consolidate the issues and streamline the legal process for a comprehensive trial.
Unilever Plc. v.Masqati Dairy Products
Unilever Plc. filed a commercial IP suit against Masqati Dairy Products alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave and decreed the suit, restraining the defendant from using the similar mark 'CHOCO FEAST' in relation to frozen desserts.
Facebook Inc. v.Surinder Malik & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the trademark owner, Surinder Malik, against Facebook and Instagram regarding the unauthorized use of the 'DA MILANO' mark. The court clarified that while these platforms are intermediaries protected under Section 79 of the IT Act, they have a duty to take down infringing content once notified by the rights holder. This judgment sets clear operational guidelines for social media platforms concerning trademark infringement in India.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ahuvan Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Ahuvan Industries alleging infringement of its copyright in the SUNLIGHT label artwork and passing off through the use of deceptively similar trade dress and label marks by the Defendant's product, MEJOL. The Bombay High Court granted leave to appeal and decreed the suit.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged the actions of the Controller regarding a pending patent application (No. 3865/KOLNP/2007). The petitioner argued that since the Controller had reserved judgment without deciding on their request for cross-examination, they would be seriously prejudiced if the patent was granted without hearing their objections fully. The Court ruled that in adversarial proceedings before the Controller, the right to cross-examine is an indefeasible right under natural justice.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, issuing perpetual injunctions against the use of the impugned mark 'CHOCO FEAST' and ordering the destruction of infringing materials.
Arun Chopra v.Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court modified an existing interim injunction in the trademark infringement suit filed by Arun Chopra against Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's prior use and reputation in Delhi, the court balanced this against the Defendants' established presence in Nashik. The final order permits the Defendants to continue operating their existing outlets under certain names but strictly prohibits them from opening new branches or using the name 'Kaka-Ka Hotel', ensuring a status quo while the main suit proceeds.
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.