IP Cases — 2020
264 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 9 · 264 total
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Jigs Chemicals Limited
Astrazeneca sued Jigs Chemicals Limited for infringing its patents covering the anti-platelet drug TICAGRELOR. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was commercially advertising and offering to sell API TICAGRELOR. Based on the defendant's admission regarding the exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Astrazeneca.
Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya v.A. Hafsabi & Anr.
The plaintiff, Kamruddin I. Mehsaniya, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against A. Hafsabi & Anr. for infringement and passing off related to his brand KIMIA (wet dates). The plaintiff holds registered rights in the word mark KIMIA and its original artistic label. The court found that the defendants' use of 'KIMAA' and 'KEEMA' under pirated artwork was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion.
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.
Japan Tobacco v.D.Jhamnadas
This Delhi High Court order addresses a complex dispute between Japan Tobacco and D.Jhamnadas, involving multiple IP claims. While the defendant relies on their registered trademark 'CAMEL,' the plaintiff asserts claims based on copyright and passing off. The court allowed the suit to proceed despite the pending Supreme Court appeal regarding the trademark registration, directing both parties to file detailed written submissions.
Genentech Inc And Others v.Drugs Controller General Of India And Others
This case involves an application by Defendant No. 3 seeking to restrict the participation of the plaintiffs' internal expert, Dr. Samir Sagitrao, in the inspection of confidential clinical and pre-clinical test data related to a biosimilar drug. The court ultimately dismissed the applicant's request, emphasizing that defendants have a right to defend the suit without being deprived of opportunity due to non-disclosure.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Union Of India & Anr
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the exclusive use of the geographical name 'GOA' in relation to gin. Following a partial rectification by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which limited exclusivity only to the label mark, Radico Khaitan Limited challenged this decision. The court issued an interim order staying the IPAB's judgment, clarifying that the partial rectification does not grant public domain status to the word 'GOA,' thereby protecting the petitioner's statutory rights against third-party misuse.
Vishnu Kant & Ors v.Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark infringement suit, Vishnu Kant & Ors vs Eduvision Traders And Printers Private Limited & Ors. The court settled several key issues, including whether the plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the trademark 'CURRIMAKERS' and their entitlement to injunctions and rendition of accounts. The parties were directed to file witness lists and affidavits within specified timelines, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial.
Shemford Schools Private Limited & Anr. v.R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Shemford Schools Private Limited against R.R.R Education And Charitable Trust. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off of the registered trademark 'SHEMFORD' by the defendants, who were operating schools under similar names like 'SHAMFORD'. Given the virtual identity between the marks and the potential for consumer confusion in the educational sector, the court found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss without immediate protection.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a patent infringement suit concerning several Ericsson patents related to 2G, EDGE, and 3G technology. The court framed issues regarding whether the patents are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), whether there is infringement by Gionee, and whether the plaintiff complied with FRAND commitments.
Lupin Ltd. v.Union Of India And Ors.
Lupin Ltd. challenged the NPPA's stance that it should have sought prior permission before launching an FDC drug (Empagliflozin and Metformin Hydrochloride), relying on a product patent exemption under Para 32(i) of DPCO, 2013. The court recognized the legal ambiguity regarding whether prior approval or mere intimation is required to avail this exemption.
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.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., finding that Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited infringed upon its registered trademarks and committed passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'EDREAM 11' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'DREAM 11', especially given that both platforms offered identical paid fantasy sports services online. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark.
Tulsyan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. v.R.R. Enterprises & Ors.
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement related to rice products, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. The court directed the defendants (D1 and D2) to provide a detailed reply affidavit within three weeks regarding the supply chain of the impugned goods. Additionally, an application by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 seeking permission to sell non-infringing packaging was dismissed as withdrawn. The suit remains listed for issue settlement on April 28, 2020.
Cde Asia Limited v.Jaideep Shekhar & Anr.
Cde Asia Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Jaideep Shekhar and others for infringing its patent (No. 307249) and registered design (No. 262629) related to material classification systems used in mining and sand aggregate production. The defendant challenged the plaint, arguing that the suit was premature as it was filed before the one-year period required for post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act had lapsed. Additionally, the defense contested the court's territorial jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the application challenging the plaint, allowing the infringement suit to proceed.
Roche Products (India) Private Limited v.Cadila Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs, including Roche Products and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, challenged the validity of drug approvals granted by the DCGI and DoB to Cadila Healthcare Ltd. for its biosimilar product 'Trastuzumab'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given the regulatory framework, specifically concerning appeal provisions under the Drugs Rules.
M/s.ADD PRINT [INDIA] ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v.M/S.LAMBA MARKETING SYSTEMS AND M/S.LAMBA STAMPS AND SIGNS
This civil suit was filed alleging infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks ('SUN STAMPER') and designs (Box type pre inked rubber Stamp, Reg. No. 207586) by the defendants using 'STAMP ONE'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages against the alleged infringers. However, despite multiple opportunities to depose its witness over a period of nearly twelve years, the plaintiff failed to appear in court.
Novartis Ag v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
The plaintiffs own the patent for the compound 'NILOTINIB', which is valid until July 4, 2023. The defendant announced the launch of a product based on NILOTINIB, which the plaintiffs claim infringes their patent.
Izhar Ali & Anr. v.M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar, Palri Bagh, Bahraich & Anr.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a civil revision filed by Izhar Ali & Anr. against M/S Sikka Namkeen Bhandar. The defendants argued that since 'Sikka Namkin' was not registered as a trademark, the suit seeking injunction was barred by law. However, the court clarified that under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a claim for passing off action can be maintained even in respect of an unregistered trademark. Consequently, the challenge to the lower court's rejection of the application failed.
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.
Trulines Technologies Through Ashish Kuashikbhai Patel v.State Of Gujarat
Trulines Technologies challenged the investigation process, arguing that the machines were not analyzed by a government-recognized expert qualified under the Patent Act. The court examined the validity of the existing report and the expertise of the person who conducted the examination.
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.
Kanishk Sinha v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a title suit seeking accounts, delivery of products, and permanent/mandatory injunction against defendants for infringing his patent rights related to eco-friendly e-rikshaws. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction and failure to comply with Section 80(2) CPC. This appeal challenged the impugned order.
S K Cosmetics v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge filed by S K Cosmetics against the Trademark Registry's changes in online records. The core issue was whether filing Forms TM-33 or TM-34 could unilaterally change the ownership of a registered trademark. The court clarified that these forms are strictly for changing descriptions or addresses, not for transferring proprietary rights. Any change in ownership must be processed through the appropriate assignment form (TM-P), ensuring due process and allowing interested parties to object.
Essdee Industries Through Proprietor Sridhar Velangi v.Esbee Electrotech LLP
This Civil Writ Petition was filed by Essdee Industries against Esbee Electrotech LLP, challenging a previous court order. The impugned order allowed the respondent/plaintiff to conditionally withdraw their composite suit, granting them the liberty to file two separate suits concerning alleged trademark and design infringement of their rights. The Bombay High Court proceeded with issuing notice in this appeal.
M/S Hi-Tech Products Private Limited v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an erroneous order passed by the Trademark Registry that had treated trademark assignment applications as disposed of due to alleged non-response. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated, using online registry records, that their replies were indeed filed and uploaded within the stipulated time. The court emphasized the need for the Examiner to properly check digital records before making administrative decisions, directing the Registry to process the assignments afresh.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. And 2 Others v.Prashant Goenka And 11 Others
The Bombay High Court addressed a contempt petition alleging breach of an interim order concerning the use of 'INDIAN EXPRESS' trademarks and Ramnath Goenka's copyrighted photographs. After the respondents unconditionally apologized for the inadvertent breaches, the court directed digital platforms (YouTube and Facebook) to remove specified infringing URLs. The primary contempt petition was thus disposed of, while a separate application seeking rejection of the plaint against one defendant was remanded for further hearing.
Unilever Plc. v.Deepak Talreja
The petitioner, Unilever Plc., filed an interim application seeking various reliefs. The court granted leave for the plaintiff to combine the cause of action of passing off with that of infringement. Ad-interim orders were continued, including a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using trade dress or marks deceptively similar to 'BROOKE BOND RED LABEL and the U-Logo' in the tea industry.
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited v.Dsp Realty
Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited filed an interim application alleging passing off against Dsp Realty, citing the use of the similar word 'DSP'. The Plaintiff, a major player in financial services, claimed substantial goodwill associated with its marks. Given that the Defendant failed to appear and provide a defense, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction. This order restricts the Defendant from using the mark containing 'DSP' in related financial sectors, protecting the Plaintiff's market reputation.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The plaintiffs, owners of Patent IN-381 covering the molecule APIXABAN (Eliquis®), filed a suit against Bdr Pharmaceuticals for allegedly manufacturing and intending to supply generic versions of this patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding infringement and the validity of the patent based on prior art documents submitted by the defendant.
M/s.Taranga Technologies v.M/s.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The appeal was filed against an order dismissing an application seeking to revoke leave granted in a suit for infringement of registered design and passing off. The core dispute revolved around whether the appellant's involvement in a national tender, which included supply within Chennai jurisdiction, provided sufficient grounds for the court to exercise territorial jurisdiction.
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.