IP Cases — 2020
299 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 10 · 299 total
Starbucks Corporation v.Mr.Sunil & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Starbucks Corporation against Defendant No. 5 following a joint settlement agreement. The settlement confirmed that Starbucks owns registered trademarks (STARBUCKS, FRAPPUCCINO) and copyrights in its logos and artistic works. In exchange for a payment of Rs. 37,500/-, the defendant agreed to permanent injunctions restraining them from infringing or misusing these marks and copyrights, including ceasing the sale of counterfeit products.
M/S Emco Thr. v.Union Of India Thr.
M/S Emco Thr. approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking intervention against the Trade Marks Registry's inaction regarding a trademark correction application for 'MADHUVAN'. The petitioner argued that due to administrative errors, they were not recognized as the registered owner despite having exclusive rights via an assignment deed and continuous use since 1982. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to adjudicate the pending representation/appeal within a stipulated period of three months.
K.M.Ahmed Ansari / M/S Oriental Metals India Pvt Ltd v.K.S.Mohammed Ali / M/S Hero Plywoods and Boards
This appeal before the Kerala High Court challenged a lower court's dismissal of an interim injunction request concerning the trademark 'Oralium'. The appellants argued that the lower court's findings prejudiced the ongoing lawsuit. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the previous observations were merely tentative and did not preclude a fair trial. Given that the main suit was already scheduled for trial, the court deemed an interim injunction unnecessary and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Havells India Limited v.Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd.
Havells India Limited filed a suit against Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its design and passing off. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the court.
Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gilead Sciences Ireland Inc., setting aside previous refusal orders regarding a trademark registration. The court found that the original orders violated Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because they failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing the application. This judgment underscores the mandatory requirement for IP authorities to furnish clear and reasoned decisions when rejecting an application.
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.
Karan Bajaj & Anr. v.Pradeep Poonia
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Karan Bajaj & Anr. against Pradeep Poonia, addressing allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, defamation, and unauthorized access to confidential business data. The court restrained the defendant from using similar marks like 'WhiteHat Sr' and prohibited him from hacking or circulating the plaintiffs' proprietary curriculum. Furthermore, the judgment mandated the removal of multiple defamatory tweets and YouTube content posted by the respondent.
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.
fdc limited v.zodley pharmaceuticals pvt ltd
FDC Limited sued Zodley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its registered trademark ZIPOD (Class 5 - pharmaceuticals) alleging that Zodley was using the deceptively similar mark ZOPOD. FDC claimed ZOPOD had been in use since 2007 and achieved significant sales, while Zodley applied to register ZOPOD later.
Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Emami Limited
This order sheet details an application filed by Emami Limited seeking the transfer of a title suit from the Additional District Judge to the Calcutta High Court. The original suit involved allegations of infringement concerning trademark, passing off, copyright, and design against Torque Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. Citing Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, the court allowed the transfer application.
Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt Ltd v.Cocosath Health Products
This original petition challenged an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, which restrained Pranathmaka Ayurvedics Pvt Ltd from appointing exclusive global marketers and transferring confidential product know-how. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioners had not shown reason for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, it would not interfere with the lower court's order.
Giani S Foods Private Limited v.Mr. Keshav Aggarwal, Trading As M/S Keshav Foods & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Giani S Foods Private Limited against Mr. Keshav Aggarwal regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, noting irreparable harm to its commercial interests due to the unauthorized use of the 'GIANI'S' mark and associated trade features by the defendant. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the protected trademark or similar marks on their products and from utilizing any distinctive store layouts or fixtures belonging to Giani S Foods.
ZINO DAVIDOFF SA v.CHARANJEET SINGH
The plaintiff, Zino Davidoff SA, a Swiss company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling perfumes under deceptively similar trademarks ('DAVIDOFF'/'DAVIDOFF COOL WATER'). The court found that the defendant's use of the mark caused confusion and injury to the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions, ordered delivery up of goods, and awarded damages.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by Kanishk Sinha against the Union of India. The court noted that the petitioner's patent application had been accepted online, substantially addressing his grievance.
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.
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'.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a Sub-Licence Agreement related to the use of transgenic cotton seeds with Bt. traits. The petitioner claims that the respondent has not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and has charged excessive trait values. The petitioner and respondent entered into a Special License Agreement for the sale of Bt. cotton seeds. The respondent alleged patent infringement and sought recovery of trait fees, while the petitioner challenged the validity of the SLA under competition law. The petitioner entered into a Sub-Licence Agreement with the respondent for the use of technology and payment of trait fees. Disputes arose regarding the payment of these fees, leading to arbitration proceedings. The respondent claimed unpaid trait fees from the petitioner under a 2015 service level agreement. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing the monetary claims.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh filed a suit against Morepen Laboratories Ltd alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 211300, which covers Rivaroxaban. The defendant admitted to making commercial use before expiry due to a miscommunication regarding the patent's expiration date. Both parties agreed that the suit could be decreed in terms of permanent injunction, leading to the final disposal of the case.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
The suit was originally filed by Shogun Organics Ltd seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its process patent (IN236630) related to D-TRANS ALLETHRIN. The current application sought permission to sell existing manufactured stock prior to the final judgment. The court allowed the sale but directed the defendants to pay 5% of the sales value and deposit costs.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Vilas Nemichand Jain
The Bombay High Court allowed Pidilite Industries Ltd. to amend its original suit, which was initially filed for passing off. The plaintiffs sought to introduce claims for trademark infringement after successfully registering their mark during the pendency of the trial. The court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply in this case, noting that allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This decision allows the suit to evolve and incorporate stronger IP protections.
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.
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.
Bharat Bhogilal Patel v.Nokia Corporations & Ors
The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal against a judgment decreeing the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff. The original suit declared that the processes and machinery used by the plaintiff did not infringe the appellant's patents (189027 and 188787) and granted permanent injunction restraining the appellant from threatening infringement proceedings. The appeal was dismissed primarily due to the failure of the appellant to prove sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Natco Pharma
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma for infringing Indian Patent No.IN247381 (APIXABAN). The defendant sought a stay under Section 10 CPC, citing a previously instituted suit in the City Civil Court at Hyderabad concerning patent validity and infringement. The High Court dismissed the stay application.
Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. v.Wefrew Educations P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. against Wefrew Educations P. Ltd., finding that Vidya Mandir had a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of its trademarks and proprietary course materials. The court observed that Wefrew was allegedly using these assets while simultaneously claiming disassociation, causing potential irreparable harm to the petitioner. Consequently, Wefrew was immediately restrained from using any material or marks associated with Vidya Mandir Classes.
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.
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.
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.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH & Anr. v.Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and its associates filed a suit alleging that Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on their patented compound, Rivaroxaban (IN 211300). The plaintiff contended that the defendant was exporting finished pharmaceutical products containing Rivaroxaban to foreign entities in commercial quantities. Despite the lack of domestic launch by the defendant, the court held that such exports constituted 'use in India' under the Patents Act. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bayer.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Ors.
Jagran Prakashan Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Telegram FZ LLC in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that users on Telegram were illegally distributing and downloading copyrighted e-papers of Dainik Jagran through various public channels, causing significant financial loss. The court ruled that Telegram, as an intermediary, must exercise due diligence under IT laws and was directed to immediately block the infringing channels and disclose the identities of the channel owners.
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.