IP Cases — 2020
264 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 9 · 264 total
Carneige Institute Of Washington v.Fenix Diamonds Llc
The application sought to execute a Letter Rogatory from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York, requesting deposition testimony, facility inspection, and document production related to patent infringement litigation concerning CVD diamonds. The court partially granted the request by appointing a Principal District Judge in Surat to record witness evidence.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Vision Prime Tech Pvt Ltd
In a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on September 4, 2020. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents while also accepting assurances from the defendant. Crucially, the defendant agreed to withdraw its pending trademark application and provided statements denying the use of the impugned mark in the market. These procedural steps move the case toward a resolution based on the parties' commitments.
Sanjay Lalwani v.M/s.Jyostar Enterprises
Sanjay Lalwani filed an Original Application seeking an interim injunction against M/s. Jyostar Enterprises and others to prevent the alienation and telecasting of copyright and satellite rights for the film “PSV GARDA VEGA”. The applicant claimed that a subsequent assignment of these rights was in contravention of his original Deed of Assignment. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the application, holding that disputes concerning copyrights are generally considered non-arbitrable under established Supreme Court precedents.
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.
FMC Corporation v.Modern Insecticides Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its valid Indian Patent (IN 201307) related to the insecticide Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The plaintiffs, who are co-owners of the patent, claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and exporting the compound, thereby violating their intellectual property rights. Based on the prima facie case presented by FMC Corporation, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
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.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jindal Industries Private Limited against Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr. The court rejected an application seeking to delete a defendant, noting that the defendant was involved in filing the relevant trademark application for 'JINDAL POWER.' Furthermore, the court disposed of another procedural application regarding the plaint's filing requirements and maintained the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction until further orders.
Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Dream11 Team
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Dream11 Team, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the defendant was slavishly adopting identical trademarks and logos, causing consumer confusion. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark or similar logos, and the court ordered the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend/block the infringing domain name www.dream11team.com.
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.
Harjit Kaur & Ors. v.Jaywantjit Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the trademark 'CAMPA,' which is registered to Plaintiff No. 2 (Campa Beverages Pvt. Ltd.). The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, despite not being a shareholder or director, was filing numerous new trademark applications using the CAMPA prefix and managing brand operations. While the court allowed an exemption from filing original documents, it primarily focused on procedural steps for the main suit. Crucially, the court established that Defendant No. 1 is bound by his statement that he has not commenced use of the mark until a final decision is rendered in the ongoing litigation.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Amul Franchise.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. against various parties operating fraudulent websites using the 'AMUL' trademark. The court found that these entities were impersonating and deceiving the public by offering fake dealerships, jobs, and distributorships, thereby causing irreparable harm to the brand. Furthermore, the registrars of the infringing domains were directed to immediately suspend or block the sites, while banks holding accounts related to the fraudulent operations were ordered to disclose account holder details.
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. v.MICRO LABS LIMITED
The plaintiff, AstraZeneca, filed a suit alleging infringement of its genus (IN 147) and species (IN 625) patents for the drug DAPAGLIFLOZIN (brand name FORXIGA). The defendant, Micro Labs Limited, was accused of manufacturing, selling, and seeking approval for generic versions. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Kumar Garments
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kumar Garments alleging that the latter was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas's registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys, leading to the decreeing of the suit.
Astrazenca Ab v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
Astrazenca filed a suit alleging that West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. was manufacturing the drug Dapagliflozin, which is protected by Astrazenca's patents (IN '147 and IN '625). The defendant entered an undertaking acknowledging the validity of the patents and agreeing not to infringe them.
M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries v.Pramod Kumar & Anr.
In a significant resolution for brand owners, M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries successfully secured a decree against Pramod Kumar & Anr. through a comprehensive mutual settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'ROBOTOUCH' trademarks and agreed to cease all use of the mark or deceptively similar marks in relation to wellness products. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing existing trademark registrations and opposition filings related to ROBOTOUCH, ensuring peaceful conduct of the plaintiff's business.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs sought revival of an earlier interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations comprising 'Ceritinib'. The court noted that the initial order was suspended due to the suit patent being revoked. However, since the IPAB subsequently stayed the revocation order, the court revived the original ad interim relief.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Shiv Chetna Hosiery
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Shiv Chetna Hosiery was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas' registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash certain respondent orders and obtain a declaration that patent IN 235625 has lapsed. The court noted the contention regarding delay and latches, which needs to be decided first.
Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning trademark infringement between Road Master Autotech Pvt. Ltd. and Milan Roadmaster Corporation & Ors. The dispute centered on the use of similar trade names like 'Road Faster' and 'Milan Road Master.' Through a settlement, the respondents agreed to cease using the disputed marks and withdraw their applications for registration. Consequently, the court disposed of the appeal, allowing the appellant to proceed with seeking a decree in the underlying suit.
McDonalds Corporation And Anr v.National Internet Exchange Of India And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of McDonald's Corporation against various defendants accused of fraudulent activities. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiffs, recognizing that the defendants were misusing the 'McDonald's' trademark, Golden Arches Logo, and associated domain names to offer fake franchise opportunities. This crucial order restrained the defendants from infringing on McDonald's intellectual property rights and directed them to freeze relevant bank accounts.
M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal v.Evergreen International (Through Its Proprietor)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Hari Chand Shri Gopal against Evergreen International. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting that despite no phonetic similarity between 'GOPAL' and 'KRISHNA', there was clear conceptual similarity and deceptive trade dress. This ruling temporarily halts the defendant's sale of similar chewing tobacco products until the full trial.
Montblanc Simplo Gmbh v.Montblancindia.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued crucial interim directions in favor of Montblanc Simplo Gmbh against alleged counterfeiters. Recognizing ongoing illegal activities, including the sale of fake products using the registered trademark and the use of an infringing website, the court ordered the immediate freezing of specific bank accounts linked to the defendants. Furthermore, it directed the domain registrar (GoDaddy) to suspend the problematic website, www.virtuindia.co.in, protecting public interest while the main litigation proceeds.
Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. v.M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction favoring Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. against M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's distinctive trademark (FK/) and associated artistic logo/trade dress for manufacturing and selling bearings. Given that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in its favor, the court issued a restraining order against all defendants from dealing in the infringing goods until further hearing.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.M/S. Mobil House
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation against M/S. Mobil House, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark 'Mobil' for lubricant oils, while the defendant was using it in their trade name, causing market confusion. Consequently, the defendant was immediately restrained from using the disputed mark across all platforms until further hearing.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which rejected its Patent Application. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked reasoning, failed to consider foreign patent grants for the same invention, and did not properly analyze the prior art cited against the claimed invention. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Cleanchem Laboratories Llp
The plaintiffs, owners of Indian Suit Patent IN 209816 for SITAGLIPTIN, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was selling and dealing in SITAGLIPTIN without a license. The court found prima facie evidence of violation and granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. v.Alexi Pharmicia & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd. against Alexi Pharmicia & Anr. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Danone's proprietary rights, including its registered trademark 'PROTINEX,' trade dress, and associated copyrights, by the defendants who were selling a deceptively similar product under the mark 'PROTILEX.' The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Network18 Media & Investments Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, Tv Today Network Limited alleged that Network18 Media & Investments Limited was slavishly copying its marks, including "DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI" and "AGENDA AAJ TAK." While the court allowed procedural applications for both parties, it also noted disputes regarding the abandonment of certain marks. Crucially, the defendant provided an undertaking to refrain from using the registered mark 'DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI' pending further judicial review.
ABP Private Limited & Anr. v.Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata & Ors.
The petitioners challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks for allegedly treating several trade mark applications as 'abandoned' without following the prescribed statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the procedure laid down in Section 132 and Rule 38(4) and (5) was not followed, despite the petitioner sending a reply to the objection.
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.