IP Cases — 2021
423 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 15 · 423 total
Ferrero Spa & Ors. v.M. B. Enterprises
Ferrero Spa filed a suit against M. B. Enterprises alleging infringement, passing off, and unfair competition related to its globally recognized brand, NUTELLA. Following reports of counterfeit products being manufactured under the same name in Thane, Maharashtra, Ferrero sought immediate protection. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged infringing activities until further proceedings.
Marce Cemen Works Ltd. v.Shree Cement Ltd. & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit. While acknowledging the initial discretion exercised by the lower court, the bench decided that the matter required a full hearing at the trial level. The appellate proceedings were disposed of, with directions issued for both parties to exchange affidavits and proceed before the learned trial judge.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited v.Ms Yum Yum Chi
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited successfully sought an ex parte injunction against Ms Yum Yum Chi in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, which operates restaurants under registered trademarks like 'Yum Yum Cha,' alleged that the defendant's use of 'Yum Yum Chi' was deceptively similar to its established brand. The court granted the interim relief, restraining the defendants from selling or advertising services under the disputed name pending further proceedings.
Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd v.M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in favor of Spread Home Products Pvt Ltd against M/S Bellagio At Super Nets And Fabrics, halting the defendants from using the trademark 'DOCTOR PILLOW' or any deceptively similar mark. Recognizing the need to prevent the removal of evidence, the court further appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' premises and seize all infringing products, including packaging materials. This order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand while the suit proceeds.
M/S Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Nutrica Pusti Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's interim injunction against Morepen Laboratories Ltd. The court found that the marks used by the appellants were deceptively similar to those of the respondents, particularly considering the pharmaceutical context and potential for consumer confusion. This judgment reinforces the strict application of trademark principles in the highly regulated pharma sector.
Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Pawan Kumar
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd against Pawan Kumar. The dispute centered on the registered trademark 'MONICA GOLD'. Following successful mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement which the court upheld. Under the terms, the defendant committed to cease all use of the protected mark and any deceptively similar marks, effectively resolving the litigation in favor of the plaintiffs.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.Vaishali Travels & Anr.
In a case concerning the use of the 'VOLVO' trademark, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between the plaintiffs (Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors) and defendant No. 2. The court ordered that the settlement, wherein the defendant agrees not to use the registered trademark 'VOLVO', must be placed on record within two weeks. This order confirms an earlier interim decision and keeps the litigation moving toward resolution.
Grand Tobacco Private Limited v.Abdul Rashid Shaikh Tobaco, A Limited Liability Partnership & Ors.
The plaintiff, Grand Tobacco Private Limited, filed an application seeking interim protection against the defendant for infringement of its registered trademark and passing off. The court found a prima facie case existed, noting that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('A.R.S Chand Tara Marka') and color combination on tobacco products compared to the plaintiff's mark ('Super Chand Tara Marka').
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED v.CIAN HEALTHCARE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court formally decreed the suit between Glaxo Group Limited and Cian Healthcare Limited based on a settlement agreement reached through mediation. The defendant agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards the plaintiff's claim and costs, and crucially, consented not to use the trademark 'BETASOL' for their products. This resolution allowed both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
UPL Limited v.Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd was manufacturing and intending to launch a product comprising Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP, infringing UPL's registered patents (IN 194211 and IN 211250). The court decreed the suit in favor of UPL Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant for the validity period of the patents.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited & Ors
The plaintiffs, holding patent IN 218291 for Palbociclib, filed an application seeking interim relief against the defendants who were allegedly manufacturing, marketing, and selling infringing products online. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and passed several ad interim injunctions restraining the parties from further dealing in the patented product.
Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd v.Laxmikanta Nayak
The court heard an interim application filed by Bisleri International Pvt.Ltd against Laxmikanta Nayak regarding passing off related to drinking water bottles. The parties suggested a settlement, but the court noted undertakings from the defendant regarding not possessing specific moulds or manufacturing depicted bottles.
Sagacious Research Private Limited v.Vivek Dahiya & Ors.
In this matter concerning the 'SAGACIOUS' mark, the parties agreed to pursue an amicable resolution rather than immediate litigation. The court facilitated this by directing both the plaintiff and defendants to attend mediation and conciliation proceedings on August 23, 2021. While some interlocutory applications were allowed subject to exceptions, the primary focus shifted towards resolving the trademark and domain name disputes outside of court.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Bubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Db Corp Ltd v.Whatsapp Llc & Ors
Db Corp Ltd filed a suit against WhatsApp LLC alleging unauthorized circulation of its copyrighted e-newspapers within private messaging groups. The Delhi High Court granted an interim ex-parte injunction, directing WhatsApp to immediately take down and block the identified infringing groups. This order underscores the platform's responsibility in preventing copyright infringement when content is illegally shared on its services.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Novartis AG claims that Eris Lifesciences Limited is infringing on their Indian Patent No. 229051 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising Sacubitril + Valsartan.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Abony Healthcare Limited Through Its Directors & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Abony Healthcare Limited. The suit alleged trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress infringement, and copyright violation concerning the 'Liv' product line. The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity based on identical packaging elements, color schemes (orange/green), and similar product names ('Liv.52' vs 'Liv.55 DS'). This interim order prevents the defendants from continuing their alleged infringing activities pending the final hearing.
Roland Corporation v.Hi Tone Electronics
The Delhi High Court resolved the dispute between Roland Corporation and Hi Tone Electronics through successful mediation. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement that involved mutual withdrawals of cancellation petitions and opposition proceedings related to their respective trademarks. Crucially, HiTone agreed to change its mark and use it in combination with Roland's 'BOSS' trademark for specific products, while Roland also consented to certain changes regarding HiTone's marks.
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant Indian Patent Application Number No. 156/DELNP/2014. The court issued several interim orders regarding procedural matters such as condonation of delay, exemption from filing documents, and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
T.S.J.Media Private Limited v.Boston Analytics Private Limited
T.S.J.Media Private Limited filed a suit alleging that Boston Analytics Private Limited illegally harvested substantial portions of information from its proprietary database, which tracks investments made by Private Equity and Venture Capitalists in India. The plaintiff claimed this infringement occurred after the defendant gained access under false pretenses. The court found that the defendant's act of publishing the data without permission constituted a clear violation of copyright.
Anay Kumar Gupta v.Jagmeet Singh Bhatia
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim application filed by Anay Kumar Gupta against Jagmeet Singh Bhatia in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court granted an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to manufacture and sell whisky using the 'EVERSHINE PREMIUM CLASSIC WHISKY' label, bottle shape, or logo AWB. This order was issued after the plaintiff demonstrated that the agreements allowing the use of the mark had expired, leading to alleged unauthorized continued use by the defendant.
Exphar S.A. v.Atlanta Biological Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark infringement matter, the defendant agreed not to contest the permanent injunction against them, provided the plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs. While both parties settled on the injunctive relief, the core dispute regarding whether the plaintiff's mark, VERZOL, qualifies as a well-known trademark remains unresolved. The court has scheduled further proceedings specifically to determine this crucial aspect of the case.
Mr. Anil Rathi v.Shri Sharma Steeltech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Mr. Anil Rathi concerning the unauthorized use of his trademark 'RATHI'. The plaintiff alleged that a proposed defendant was using the mark in violation of a prior court injunction order. The court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and scheduled the matter for service and completion of pleadings, keeping the litigation active.
Kake Di Hatti v.Sidharth Aggarwal And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in this order, including a municipal matter regarding unauthorized stairs on a public footpath, directing the North DMC to ensure pedestrian safety and removal of obstructions. Crucially for the IP dispute, the court noted that while respondents were previously directed to cease using the 'Kake Di Hatti' brand, they are now operating under the name 'Kake Di Rasoi,' keeping the trademark infringement matter active.
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals v.Arunachala Industries
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals filed a civil suit against Arunachala Industries alleging infringement of its 'GOODLUCK' trademark, passing off, and copyright violation related to the distinctive blue and yellow color scheme and container design used for paints. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages. However, the matter was resolved when the defendant provided an undertaking confirming they had ceased using the label and returned unused materials.
Om Logistics Ltd v.Sh Mahendra Pandey
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of Om Logistics Ltd, restraining Sh Mahendra Pandey and his associates from using the deceptively similar trade mark 'OM EXPRESS LOGISTICS'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off, given the long-standing reputation of 'OM LOGISTICS LTD.' and the similarity in the marks used by the defendant. This order allows the suit to proceed while protecting the established brand identity.
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd v.Harshini Movies
Minbimbangal Productions (P) Ltd filed a suit against Harshini Movies seeking permanent injunction to prevent the use of the title 'Vidathu Karuppu' or any deceptively similar title for its motion picture. The plaintiffs had previously secured an interim injunction regarding this matter. However, subsequent developments revealed that the defendant had changed the name of their film to 'Shenbaga Kottai'. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a memo stating that they were not pressing the suit further, leading the court to dismiss the case as not prosecuted.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite procedural objections raised by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the 'trinity test' (prior user, reputation, and likelihood of deception) at the trial level. Crucially, the court noted that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was based on potentially forged documents provided to the trial court, leading the High Court to grant interim relief.
Plaintiff No. 1 v.Defendants
The plaintiffs, owners of two patents covering the compound LINAGLIPTIN and its derivatives, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing LINAGLIPTIN tablets under the brand name BRLENTA-5 without consent. The court found a prima facie case for injunction.
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.