IP Cases — 2020
299 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 10 · 299 total
Makemytrip India Private Limited v.Wing In Travel Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Makemytrip against Wing In Travel Advisory and others. After hearing arguments, the court accepted an assurance from Defendant No. 1 that it would not bid for, adopt, or use Makemytrip's registered trademarks (MakeMyTrip/MMT) or any deceptively similar variants. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on these terms, without awarding damages or costs to the plaintiff. The court noted that the remaining defendants could not be proceeded against in the current form of the suit.
Kinjal Ramesh Savla v.Euphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit between Kinjal Ramesh Savla and Euphoric Innovations Pvt. Ltd., recognizing the complexity arising from conflicting trademarks ('Buckaroo' vs 'Walkaroo'). The court granted both parties leave to apply for rectification of their respective trademarks before the Appellate Board, ensuring that the underlying validity issues are addressed first. Furthermore, the defendant's application regarding perjury was adjourned until the main suit hearing.
Shalina Laboratories Private Limited v.Floris Biotech LLP
The dispute involved Shalina Laboratories Private Limited challenging Floris Biotech LLP regarding the use of the trademark FLOCLAV. The parties reached a settlement, with defendants providing undertakings and submitting new labels that were deemed distinctly different from the plaintiffs' artwork/trade dress.
Unilever Plc v.Rahul Goyal
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc (and its subsidiary Plaintiff no.2), filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Rahul Goyal for infringement of their trademarks (LAKME, U-Logo, etc.), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to cosmetic preparations. The court granted the interim relief, appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving trademark and copyright infringement concerning the brand SANDHI SUDHA. The court framed multiple issues, including whether the plaintiff owns the mark and packaging, and whether the defendants' use constitutes passing off or infringement. Crucially, recognizing the defendants held a registered trade mark (MEDSEA SANDHI SUDHA), the Court granted the plaintiff liberty to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) for rectification within 30 days. This decision sets a clear timeline, allowing the IPAB to potentially dispose of the matter quickly while protecting the rights of both parties.
Anhueser Busch Llc v.Rishav Sharma & Ors
Anhueser Busch LLC successfully obtained an ad interim injunction against Rishav Sharma and others in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory videos published on social media platforms were infringing its registered 'Budweiser' trademark and causing commercial disparagement by falsely depicting employees urinating in the beer. The court found a prima facie case existed, granting immediate relief to prevent further harm until the final hearing.
Aalamkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan v.Ishan Qureshi Trading As M/S. Inshan Gymholic
The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order in this trademark dispute, allowing the matter to proceed toward final disposal. The petitioner secured a stay on the previous trial court's injunction order, while simultaneously receiving assurances from the defendant that they would comply with the interim injunction and cease using the disputed trademark during the pendency of the case.
Minda Corporation Ltd. v.Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Minda Corporation Ltd. against Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's adoption of the 'STAR MINDA' mark was deceptively similar to their registered device marks, leading to a risk of consumer confusion and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
VELCRO BVBA v.VEILCRO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
In this Delhi High Court matter concerning the 'VELCRO' brand, VELCRO BVBA filed an application seeking an urgent hearing due to allegations that the defendant continued infringing its trademark despite existing interim injunctions. The court noted the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and directed notice to be issued to the defendants for a returnable appearance on November 23, 2020.
Maharshi Packaging Machines Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Maharshi Udyog Thru Partner, Bhagvat Vitthaldas Shah
The Gujarat High Court stayed a commercial trademark civil suit after hearing an appeal challenging the trial court's refusal to frame an issue regarding the validity of the plaintiff's trademark registration. The petitioner argued that since they had filed a rectification application under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the IPAB, the Civil Court should not have ruled on the matter unilaterally. The court agreed that the trial court needed to properly consider the pending statutory proceedings, leading to the stay.
M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S D S Foods And Ors.
The plaintiff, M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunction and recovery against its franchisees (defendants) for unauthorized use of the 'Sagar Ratna' trademark after termination of the franchise agreement. The defendants argued that the dispute was covered by an arbitration clause in the original agreement, making the court suit non-maintainable.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, regarding delays in proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3017984 (Opposition No. 969651). The petition sought a writ of mandamus to reject certain evidence and register the mark.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Provident Housing Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking a three-month adjournment under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. The court emphasized that for this provision to apply, the defendant must explicitly plead in their formal pleadings that the plaintiff's trade mark is invalid. Despite the defendant raising indirect challenges to validity in other documents, the court held that the absence of a direct plea meant the statutory requirements were not met, thus denying the request for time to file a rectification petition.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v.Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd.
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. filed a commercial IP suit alleging that Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on its registered designs for snack food products. The core dispute centered on whether the Defendant's product, 'Rumbles', utilized an identical or substantially similar design to Frito-Lay's protected ridge design. The court examined the prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting interim relief.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Honour Lab Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Honour Lab Limited was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN (an API for diabetes treatment). The plaintiffs sought interim relief against the defendant's alleged commercial supply of the patented API.
M/s Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. v.S.D.Containers
M/s Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. filed a suit before the Commercial Court at Indore against S.D.Containers for infringing their registered designs related to rigid plastic packaging lids and containers. The respondent attempted to transfer the civil suit to the Calcutta High Court under Section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that due to the establishment of Commercial Courts at the District level in MP, the Commercial Court at Indore possessed the necessary jurisdiction and was competent to hear the matter.
Eih Ltd. v.Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed challenges to the court's territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement dispute brought by EIH Ltd. against Sahana Realty Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of 'THREE SIXTY WEST' and 'OBEROI' infringed their established luxury brand rights. The court ultimately dismissed the applications challenging its jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action arose within Delhi due to consumer confusion and business activities in the region.
Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited v.Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications concerning the sale of trademarks ('Religare', 'SRL', and 'Fortis') owned by a Judgment Debtor. While some parties conceded no objection to the sale, others vehemently opposed it due to existing charges or lack of information. The court granted time extensions to opposing parties to file affidavits detailing their stance on the trademark sales, ensuring all stakeholders are heard before proceeding with any auction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Everest Organics Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Organics Limited for infringing its registered patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was developing and preparing to commercialize an infringing product. Based on the prima facie case presented, the Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
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.
UPL Limited v.Modern Insecticides Limited
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its statutory rights by exporting and intending to manufacture a product covered by patent IN 244551. The composition in question is a synergistic herbicide comprising Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Sungro Seeds Ltd v.Sk Tripathi & Ors
Sungro Seeds Ltd filed a suit alleging that its ex-employees misappropriated confidential information, including parent lines and breeding strategies for its hybrid cauliflower 'Katreena', which was then used by a competitor to market an identical variety named 'Riya'. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of trade secrets and unfair competition. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that without prior registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act), the plaintiff could not maintain a suit to restrain infringement.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Brainlink International, Inc. & Anr.
In a dispute concerning the domain name www.hindustan.com, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between Ht Media Limited and Brainlink International. The court suggested that if the defendants agree to pay an agreed lump sum in costs, they will withdraw all oppositions filed against the plaintiff's trademarks and also drop their suit in the USA. This arrangement aims to bring a definitive end to the ongoing disputes between both parties.
Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Office of the Trade Marks Registry
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Kannur Lulu Sarees And Textiles Pvt. Ltd against various IP authorities, including The Controller General of Patents and Designs. The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the case, which was subsequently granted by the court. This dismissal allows the petitioner to pursue their rights through other appropriate legal channels.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited. v.Global India Entertainment Production
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application seeking a temporary injunction against the unauthorized use of 'Miss India' and 'Mr. India' by defendants organizing similar beauty pageants. The court found that while the words themselves are generic, their combination with other elements creates distinctiveness, supporting the plaintiffs' claim of trademark infringement and passing off. Although the initial relief was not granted immediately, the court allowed the defendants to propose concrete modifications to their titles for future consideration.
Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. v.Mahadev Confectionery & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters concerning trademark disputes between Ds Confectionery Products Ltd. and Mahadev Confectionery & Ors. In the main suit, the matter was adjourned to allow further negotiation regarding a proposed change of trademark by the defendants. Separately, the court issued notice for an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, setting a date for the defendant's reply.
Popsockets Llc v.Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Popsockets LLC sought remedies against Flipkart India Private Limited for allegedly selling products under an infringing mark. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders on November 12, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and permitted the issuance of summons to all defendants, while also noting the dispute regarding whether Flipkart itself was infringing by selling the product under the disputed trademark.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.T.V.S.Motor Company Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant was infringing his Patent No.182682, which covered a specific four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the TVS Flame -125cc. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit due to his severe health conditions.
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.
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.