IP Cases — 2019
328 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 11 · 328 total
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's order regarding a patent application, arguing that prior arts were not adequately considered. The court examined the matter and held that since there are efficacious alternative statutory remedies (post-grant opposition or revocation), the writ petition would not be entertained.
M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. v.M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. to appoint Local Commissioners in the execution phase of a trademark infringement suit against M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd. Despite initial rejection by the Trial Court, the High Court emphasized that permanent injunctions related to pharmaceutical products require strict enforcement due to public interest and consumer safety. The appointed commissioners were directed to seize infringing goods bearing the mark CTZ-10 and inspect sales accounts.
Pfizer Inc v.Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents covering Sunitinib and Axitinib. The parties subsequently reached a settlement through mediation before the Delhi High Court.
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents' orders that restricted its right to cross-examine expert witnesses during a post-grant opposition filed by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the patentee, having filed objections under Rule 58, was entitled to challenge the veracity of the opponent's experts through cross-examination. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Onyx, quashing the restrictive orders and allowing the cross-examination without imposing any condition regarding the filing of evidence by the patentee.
Mr.Mohammed Niyamathullah v.Mr.Mohammed Hidayathulla
This civil suit was filed by Mr. Mohammed Niyamathullah seeking a permanent injunction against defendants for infringing his copyright in the Tamil feature film, “Pongadee Neengalaum Unga Kadhalum.” The core of the dispute revolved around an Assignment Deed executed on 09.10.2013, where the plaintiff provided financial assistance to the defendant (who was venturing into film production) and subsequently acquired the entire copyright under default clauses. Despite the defendants' claims of forgery and lack of funds, the court found that the assignment deed was validly established through evidence, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Prashant Properties Limited v.Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd
The petitioner, an operational creditor, entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with the respondent to use a family of marks in lieu of securing an outstanding debt. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from suspending this PUA. The appellate court stayed this injunction, arguing that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the IBC and Companies Act. The High Court set aside the stay order, finding that the suit was maintainable as a collateral security agreement.
Rmans Tours & Travels P Ltd. v.Varuna Associates
Rmans Tours & Travels P Ltd. filed a civil suit against Varuna Associates alleging copyright and trademark infringement. The suit claimed that the defendant was using INDAQUA labels, which substantially reproduced the plaintiff's Rmans label in identical color scheme and layout. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the civil suit.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Popular Trading Company
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Popular Trading Company alleging trademark infringement, passing-off, and copyright violation concerning their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Gold Drops' in relation to the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Gold Winner'. Although the initial suit sought various injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached a Joint Compromise Memo.
Durga Dairy Ltd. v.M/s.Laxmi Food Products
Durga Dairy Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s.Laxmi Food Products seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning their 'DURGA' brand. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'LAXMI DURGA'. However, despite being granted sufficient time, the plaintiffs failed to file an application to amend the cause title due to a change in company name. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the civil suit for default.
Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited v.M/S Genentech Inc And Ors.
This case involves a dispute between Reliance Life Sciences (the appellant) and Genentech/Roche (the respondents) concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug TrastuRel. The respondents sought an injunction against TrastuRel, alleging inadequate testing under Indian regulatory guidelines despite the original patent having lapsed. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, granting an interim stay on the restrictive order, thereby allowing Reliance to continue its manufacturing and marketing operations.
Capt. (Retd) Shibu Issac & Force 1 Guarding Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Force 1 Security Services
This Madras High Court judgment records a settlement between the plaintiffs (owners of 'FORCE 1') and the defendant ('Force 1 Security Services'). The suit, originally filed for trademark infringement and passing off, was resolved through a Memorandum of Compromise. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant agreed to cease using the infringing marks, withdraw their pending trademark application, and refrain from challenging the plaintiffs' rights in the future. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these mutually agreed-upon terms.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd v.Narasu's Sarathy Industries
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd against a lower court order. The company successfully argued that it is the exclusive owner of the 'Narasu's' trade mark, dating back to 1926. Given the risk of irreparable injury and loss of goodwill due to the respondents granting licenses to third parties, the Court issued an interim injunction. This order mandates that the respondents cease all licensing or assignment activities related to the trademark until the final disposal of the civil suits.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.RVS Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.RVS Traders alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and associated copyright, specifically concerning the use of the deceptively similar mark 'SPS Gold' on edible oil products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and directions for destruction of infringing materials. However, before the final judgment was passed, both parties entered into a Compromise Memo to settle all disputes.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.SP Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.SP Traders alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'Gold Winner' and violation of copyright related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Shree Gold' and passing off inferior products as the plaintiff's brand. Although the initial claims involved trademark, passing-off, and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached a compromise.
M/s.Micro-Pak Ltd. v.Radhika Sales
M/s. Micro-Pak Ltd filed a civil suit against Radhika Sales alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'Micro-pak' and associated copyright, particularly concerning anti-microbial stickers and moisture management products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of counterfeit goods, and damages for passing off. Ultimately, the parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo, leading to the court decreeing the suit in terms of this settlement.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Somasundaram Ramkumar
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Flipkart Internet Private Limited against Somasundaram Ramkumar for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'FlippingKart' with mala fide intent to deceive consumers and spoil Flipkart's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions against the use of the infringing mark and declaring 'FLIPKART' a well-known trademark.
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited v.M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries
M/s.TVS Srichakra Limited filed a suit against M/s.Nemson Rubber Industries alleging infringement of its well-known trademark, "O TVS TYRES," and associated copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, damages, and account of profits. However, the court ultimately decreed the suit only for the specific prayers related to permanent injunctions after receiving an undertaking from the defendants.
Mr.T.Chitty Babu v.M/S.Sakthivel Builders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Mr. T. Chitty Babu and M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendants' use of the 'SB' logo constituted infringement and passing off against their registered 'AH' trademark. The court held that the similarity in color scheme and stylized script created a likelihood of confusion among the public, leading to the decree of permanent injunctions and an award of damages.
Corum Hospitality And Another v.Hotel Varuna And 3 Others
This Bombay High Court judgment addressed procedural matters in a commercial IP suit involving trademark disputes between Corum Hospitality and Hotel Varuna. The court accepted undertakings regarding the filing of Vakalatnamas and set out timelines for addressing office objections to the notice of motion. Furthermore, an intervener sought permission to join the proceedings concerning alleged infringement of the 'Bar Stock Exchange' trademark, which was granted procedural allowance.
Royal Dryfruit Range v.Royal Taste Dry Fruits
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Commercial IP Suit involving Royal Dryfruit Range versus Royal Taste Dry Fruits. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendant, Royal Taste Dry Fruits, to remove the disputed mark 'ROYAL' from its signage and packaging, as well as withdraw its trademark application. A short extension was granted for compliance, effectively settling the immediate dispute through mutual agreement and judicial acceptance of the undertakings.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. v.Varun Sood
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. filed a suit against Varun Sood and others alleging infringement of their design rights and passing off related to water purifier products. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages concerning the use of deceptively similar designs (ESSENCIA/SPARKLE) compared to their registered designs (KENT WONDER/EKNT SUPREME). Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual settlement, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.
M/S Ever Bake v.M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/S Ever Bake's petition challenging the rejection of its application to dismiss a trademark infringement suit. The respondent, M/S Everbake Bakers Private Ltd., had filed a suit claiming violation of their registered 'EVER BAKE' trademark. Although the petitioner argued lack of territorial jurisdiction because they operated in Assam, the Court upheld the trial court's decision. Citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the High Court found that since the respondent's registered office was in Delhi, the suit was correctly filed within the proper jurisdiction.
Cargill India Pvt Ltd v.Gati Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Cargill India Pvt Ltd's application to frame an issue concerning the validity of Gati Ltd's registered trademark, 'GATI Nature Fresh Apples.' Despite Gati Ltd arguing that Cargill was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the registration, the court rejected these objections. The judgment clarified the procedural mechanism under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, allowing the plaintiff time to pursue rectification proceedings before the IPAB, thereby keeping the core validity question alive in the litigation.
M/s. Hotel Sealord v.M/s.Hotel New Sealord
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s. Hotel Sealord against M/s. Hotel New Sealord, alleging passing off and trademark infringement based on similar names. Although the plaintiff sought permanent injunction and damages, the court noted that the parties had reached an amicable settlement prior to judgment. Consequently, the Civil Suit was decreed strictly according to the terms outlined in the Memo of Compromise signed by both parties.
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.
A.Kumar v.Radhakrishnan
A.Kumar filed a civil suit against Radhakrishnan and two other companies, M/s.Ashcom and German Refilling Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of their trademarks and passing off concerning inkjet, laser, and toner cartridges. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits. However, on the date of hearing, no counsel appeared for A.Kumar, leading the Madras High Court to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution.
Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. v.Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories Private Ltd., declaring them the exclusive proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT against Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court found that despite a past manufacturing agreement, which was subsequently terminated, the defendant had no right to claim ownership or make false propaganda about the mark. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from making such claims and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for its patented drug, Ceritinib. Natco Pharma challenged this by relying on an order from the Controller revoking the patent due to lack of novelty. The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.HOTEL NAMMA AACHI
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, V. Dhadapani, and S. Ravichandran
This civil suit was filed by S. Sudhakar and Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. against Sree Sai Raama Oil Mill, alleging infringement of the registered trademark "UDHAIYAM" and copyright violation concerning their oil products. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages for passing off. However, before a final judgment on merits, the parties reached an amicable settlement.
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.