IP Cases — 2020
264 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 9 · 264 total
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Visat Beverages (Od)
The plaintiff, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd., filed an interim application alleging that the defendant, Visat Beverages (Od), was infringing its registered trademarks and copyright related to its popular fruit drink 'JEERU'. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's product bore a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's mark and label. The court granted temporary relief in the form of an injunction and appointed a Court Receiver.
Pharmacyclics Llc. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a commercial suit filed by Pharmacyclics Llc. against Alkem Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Patent IN 262968. The court noted that the plaintiffs had other related suits pending before different benches regarding the same patent. Consequently, the court ordered the listing of the current suit for further consideration.
Sahil City Sports v.Cricket Academy Of Pathans Pvt. Ltd
Sahil City Sports filed a petition to set aside an ex parte arbitral award passed against it. The original award directed Sahil City Sports to pay damages and permanently restrain it from using the respondent's brand name 'Cricket Academy of Pathans'.
Lalit Babbar & anr. v.Remson Prime Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others
The court heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the suit. The plaintif argued that since the relief was an injunction valued at Rs. 130/-, it should be transferred to the District Judge (Central) as the commercial court lacked minimum pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the court found that the dispute related to a trademark ('REMSON PRIME') and thus fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
H Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drug Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their patent (IN 227963) by manufacturing and exporting substantial quantities of the anti-depressant drug Vortioxetine. The court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, considering the allegations of export and potential use under Section 107 of the Patents Act.
Cipla Limited v.Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd
In a trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the parties, Cipla Limited and Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd, to engage in formal mediation. Following successful settlement talks on two of the three trademarks, the court facilitated further negotiations for the remaining mark. This order underscores the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex IP conflicts.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The commercial suit for patent infringement regarding the drug Sitagliptin was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Plaintiffs) and Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1). The court accepted the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited v.Ram Dev Industries And Anr.
Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to initiate a civil suit against Ram Dev Industries & Anr. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were infringing upon their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court examined the petition, noting the combined cause of action for infringement and passing off. Consequently, the court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, allowing the petitioner to proceed with the suit.
Browns and More India Pvt. Ltd. v.Brown Wall Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The applicant/plaintiff filed an interim application against the defendants. The court heard arguments and accepted a statement from the counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 3 that the FIR registered on their behalf, which formed the basis of the suit invoking Section 60 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 read with 106 of Patents Act, would not be pursued.
M/S Sami -Sabinsa Group Limited v.Union Of India
M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited filed a writ petition seeking an interim order to stay the execution of a notice and requesting that respondents refrain from opposing their pending patent applications. The court subsequently granted leave for the petitioners to withdraw the petition.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the procedural actions taken by various respondents, including the delayed service of Counter Statement and taking on record evidence in an opposition proceeding (Opposition No. 969651). The petitioner sought directions to reject the opposing evidence and register their trademark application.
Mr. Hemant Bandodkar v.Vertellus Speciality Materials (India) Pvt.Ltd.
The court disposed of two interim applications by consent. The primary order mandated the appointment of a Local Commissioner, appointed by IIT Bombay, to inspect Defendant No.1's plant and document its manufacturing process layout and machinery, which is claimed to be confidential proprietary information/trade secret. Additionally, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing a Written Statement was allowed.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
Interdigital Technology Corporation sued Xiaomi alleging infringement of several Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The current judgment addresses an interlocutory application regarding the establishment and structure of a Confidentiality Club necessary for handling commercially sensitive documents during the patent infringement proceedings. The Court constituted the club, accommodating Xiaomi's objection to a 'two-tier' system.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Balaji Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an Interim Application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Balaji Enterprises for alleged trade mark infringement and passing off related to flour products. The court found a sufficient prima facie case, noting that both marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally indistinguishable, leading to inevitable consumer confusion.
Essdee Industries Through Proprietor v.Esbee Electrotech LLP
This writ petition challenged an order by the District Court that allowed the plaintiff to withdraw a composite suit involving claims of trademark/passing-off infringement and registered design infringement. The defendant argued that raising a defense under Section 19 of the Designs Act mandated the transfer of the entire suit to the High Court. However, the Bombay High Court held that since the plaintiff sought withdrawal—not further prosecution—the District Court retained its jurisdiction to permit the split. The court clarified that while Section 22(4) governs the continuation of the suit upon raising a cancellation defense, it does not prevent the court from allowing the plaintiff to withdraw and file separate suits for distinct causes of action.
Chutraram Nemaram Gehlot v.Rajaram Magharam Tak
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking ad-interim relief against the Defendant for infringement of registered Trade Marks ('Prem Dulhan') and copyrighted artistic work ('PREM DULHAN GREEN LABEL'). The court found prima facie evidence establishing that the Defendant's use of 'DABANG DULHAN' is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks. Consequently, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Dexpo Intelectual Properties Services Ltd. v.Nilesh Patel
The dispute between Dexpo Intelectual Properties Services Ltd. and Nilesh Patel was amicably settled through Consent Terms dated 26th November, 2020. Both parties agreed to the terms, leading the court to allow the Leave Petition (L) No.9822 of 2020.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Saphnix Life Science
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application seeking relief against Saphnix Life Science for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark, ARTEFAN. The court examined the evidence showing that the defendant was using an identical trade mark on similar pharmaceutical preparations. Based on the prima facie case established by the plaintiff, the ad-interim injunction was granted.
M/S Asugar Engineering Services & Anr. v.Weld Trade Pvt. Ltd. and M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to implead M's Sharp Technoengineers Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant in the trademark infringement suit, recognizing that this new party was also infringing the 'AZUCAR' mark. The court found it necessary for the cause of action against them. Furthermore, the court extended existing interim orders to include the newly added defendant. This procedural step ensures all parties involved in the alleged trademark violation are properly before the court.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Nitin Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute where the AMUL Federation alleged that videos produced by Defendant No. 1 were scandalous, disparaging, and specifically targeted their brand using trademark elements like the 'AMUL Girl' mascot. The core issue revolved around whether the content constituted fair use or targeted defamation against the Plaintiffs. While the Plaintiff argued the targeting was evident through specific advertisements shown in the video, the Court directed the Defendant to provide detailed affidavits regarding the sources of their investigative journalism, allowing the Plaintiffs to adequately address the allegations.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ektarfa Garments Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ektarfa Garments Private Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff indicated that the defendants had expressed interest in settling the matter. The court acknowledged these overtures and scheduled the case for further hearing on December 8, 2020, allowing time for settlement discussions.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Vintage Distillers Ltd.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Vintage Distillers Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning alcoholic beverages. The dispute arose from Vintage Distillers' adoption of the mark 'VINTAGE MOMENTS,' which Radico Khaitan argued was confusingly similar to its established and widely used brand, 'MAGIC MOMENTS.' The Delhi High Court found that Radico Khaitan had made out a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an interim injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The core dispute revolved around procedural violations in Opposition No. 969651 concerning Trademark Application No. 3017984, specifically regarding the delay in serving documents and taking on record evidence.
S.D. Containers Indore v.M/S. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal challenged a High Court order that had directed the transfer of a design infringement and cancellation suit from Indore to Calcutta. The suit involved registered designs for containers and lids, where the defendant sought cancellation based on lack of originality. The core legal question was whether the Commercial Court in Indore or the High Court held jurisdiction over such matters. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court's order, holding that since the entire cause of action arose within Madhya Pradesh, the suit must be heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, affirming the competence of the local court.
International House Of Pancakes LLC. v.IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of International House Of Pancakes LLC. (Plaintiff) against IHOP Cake N Bake & Ors. (Defendants). The plaintiff, a global brand owner of 'IHOP', sought protection against the defendants' use of the identical mark. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss, thereby protecting the established reputation of the trademark.
Inkpot Films Private Limited v.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Inkpot Films Private Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against various telecom and cable companies for infringing the copyright of its cinematographic film, "Is Love Enough? SIR". The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the entire suit and connected applications before the Madras High Court.
RB Health (Us) Llc v.Dabur India Limited
RB Health (US) LLC filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, alleging infringement of their registered soap bar design (No. 271671) and the tort of passing off through similar trade dress and taglines. The plaintiffs sought to prevent Dabur from manufacturing or selling a competing soap bar under the brand 'SANITIZE'. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for an injunction, noting that such cases heavily depend on specific facts rather than merely analogical precedents.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Xiaomi Inc & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents concerning UMTS enhancement (HSPA, HSPA+) and LTE technologies used in mobile phones by Xiaomi Inc & Ors. The court issued several orders regarding interim applications, including granting an ad-interim injunction request and directing the defendants to maintain Rs. 1000 crores in bank accounts.
Anil Rathi v.Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the dispute concerning the 'RATHI' trademark. The court restrained Defendant No. 4 from granting new licenses related to the mark until further hearing, providing immediate relief to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court mandated that certain defendants maintain and file detailed accounts of sales made under the 'RATHI' trademark during a specified period, while also allowing for the impleadment of proposed parties.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order passed during Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act. The respondent argued that the patent was already registered and other remedies, including Post-Grant Opposition, were available.
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.