IP Cases — 2021
370 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 13 · 370 total
AMPM Designs Thr. Partner Akash Mehta v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Mumbai Bench)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by AMPM Designs, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its registered trade mark 'AMPM Designs' from the register. The court found that the IPAB erred in law and fact, specifically by failing to consider binding Supreme Court precedents regarding rectification applications. Crucially, the High Court determined that the petitioner's business (interior design services) was materially distinct from the respondent's primary business (fashion apparels), thus negating any likelihood of consumer confusion.
DINA MALAR A Partnership Concern v.K.Ramasubbu
This suit was filed by Dina Malar against several defendants, including K. Ramasubbu, alleging infringement of its trade marks ('DINA MALA') and copyright related to the work 'DINAMALAR'. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and surrender of infringing materials. However, despite the initial filing under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
R.Venkitapathy v.Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd.
This case involved a dispute filed by R.Venkitapathy against Kaalaimalar Publications (P) Ltd., alleging infringement of trade marks ('DINA MALAR') and copyright in stylized lettering and associated devices. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to prevent deceptive similarity and passing off. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit due to non-prosecution by the plaintiff.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging infringement of its registered trademark VOLINI, copyright violation in its packaging art, and passing off due to the use of 'VOLINEX'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited v.Indkus Nexa
Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Limited filed a civil suit against Indkus Nexa and Indo Himalaiyan Herbs Inc. alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its registered mark 'VOLINI'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks like 'VOLINEX' and imitation packaging. The dispute was ultimately resolved through a memorandum of compromise signed by both parties.
Novartis AG v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers a pharmaceutical composition combining Valsartan and Sacubitril. The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited's product, described as a supra molecular complex, infringed the patented combination.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were infringing their registered trademarks (LION, DEVICE OF LION) and committing copyright violations through the use of deceptively similar branding and slavish imitation of distinctive packaging for auto electrical parts. Despite the detailed claims seeking injunctions and damages, the plaintiffs ultimately decided to withdraw the suit before a final judgment was passed.
Lucas Tvs Limited v.Surya Carbons
Lucas Tvs Limited filed a suit against Surya Carbons and other entities alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunctions and damages regarding the use of their trademarks (LION, LUCAS TVS) and distinctive packaging on auto electrical parts. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiffs chose to withdraw the suit.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited v.Rallis India Ltdl.
Nuziveedu Seeds Limited challenged an Arbitral Award dated 30.3.2009 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute centered on a contract for developing transgenic cotton lines ('Suraksha') and the failure to deliver specific genes (Cry-IC standalone). Nuziveedu Seeds sought to set aside parts of the award regarding damages and deliverables.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Babbar
The Bombay High Court disposed of Commercial IP Suit No. 19 of 2021 after both the Plaintiff (Hindustan Unilever Ltd) and Defendant (Babbar) reached a settlement. The suit was decreed in terms of specific prayer clauses, with the Plaintiff agreeing not to press for damages.
Galpha Laboratories Limited v.Shivansh Shrivastava
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, filed an opposition against the Defendant's application for the trade mark BFOLIN. The court examined the similarity between the established mark B-COLEN and the proposed mark BFOLIN. Satisfied that there is a prima facie case of likelihood of confusion, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Trupti Grover v.R G Mir Sanandwala Education Charitable Trust Through Bilkis M Mir
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an interim injunction granted to the original plaintiff (the Trust). The dispute centered on the use of the name and logo 'ANANT' in the educational sector. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had established prior use of the mark since 2018, thus preventing irreparable injury from occurring to them. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the identical or deceptively similar brand name.
Arumugam Rajendra Babu v.Ashok Leyland Limited
Arumugam Rajendra Babu appealed an order dated September 1, 2021, passed in a commercial suit. The appellant sought a direction from the trial court to have the Controller of Patents provide evidence regarding his products and patent distinctions. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Girnarsoft Automobiles Private Limited
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing dispute regarding the use of the 'Cars24' trademark in Google AdWords. The Plaintiffs sought to press applications for vacation of a previously granted interim injunction, which restrained Defendants from using or purchasing deceptively similar marks as keywords. The court noted that while cross-undertakings were in place, the core issues required a full hearing on merits. Consequently, the matter was listed for further arguments and case compilations.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v.M/S T.R.N. Corporation Through: Its Proprietor Sh. Deepak Nimesh
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Blue Heaven Cosmetics against T.R.N. Corporation regarding trademark infringement and passing off. Although the Defendant held a registered mark, the court found that their use of trade dress, writing style, and overall packaging was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well-known marks. The order restrained the Defendant from selling products with the infringing trade dress and mandated the removal of all such listings from e-commerce portals.
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.
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.
Indcon Structurals Pvt.Ltd v.Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd.
Indcon Structurals Pvt.Ltd filed a civil suit against Ultra Tiles Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off concerning their distinctive 'CATHERINE' tile drawing. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the unique design, which was allegedly copied by the defendant's 'OPUS' tiles. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit, holding that since the design was not registered under the Designs Act, the claim for copyright infringement was not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
M/s RSPL Health Private Limited v.Gian Soap Factory
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gian Soap Factory for infringing its registered trademark 'XPERT' and engaging in passing off. The defendant adopted the deceptively similar mark 'GIAN'S 729 EXPERT' for manufacturing and marketing cleaning materials like soaps and detergents. The court found that the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's proprietary rights, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
SaNotize Research and Development v.Lupin Limited
The court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, specifically regarding the separation of pure copyright material into a new exhibit. Given the sensitive nature of both parties' confidential information, the court ordered a controlled inspection meeting between limited representatives of both sides to facilitate further proceedings.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v.Harman Finochem Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendant was violating and infringing their registered patent (IN 209816) related to Sitagliptin. Despite previous assurances, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing the defendant continued to advertise and export infringing products. The court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from further infringement.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed an application seeking an ex parte injunction against Aqualite Industries Pvt Limited, alleging that the latter was unlawfully imitating and pirating its distinctive footwear designs. The plaintiff highlighted that two specific slipper designs were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's designs. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing designs.
Achira Labs Private Limited v.Dr.Lokanathan R.Arcot
Achira Labs Private Limited filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking temporary injunctions to restrain Dr. Lokanathan R. Arcot from working with competitors or divulging confidential information after his resignation. The court dismissed the petitioner's petition, finding that it did not meet the criteria for granting interim relief, and also dismissed the respondent's counter claim.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for dealing in generic Apixaban product that infringes Indian Patent No. 247381. The court, relying on previous orders regarding the same patent, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing the infringing generic product.
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. v.Lupin Ltd
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. filed suit against Lupin Limited alleging infringement of its Nitric Oxide Releasing Solution (NORS) technology, breach of confidentiality, and copyright infringement related to its nasal spray product, NONS/ENOVID. The dispute centers on the use of a proprietary dual-chamber delivery system for nitric oxide in medical treatment. The court granted an interim prohibitory injunction against Lupin's Indian arm and manufacturer.
Sotkon Sp Slu v.Western Imaginary Transcon Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, a Spanish company operating in India, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed its patented 'Subsurface System for the Collection of Refuse' (IN 329620) and violated its copyrights. The infringement was alleged based on the defendants' tender bid submitted to Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.
Siddhant Icecreams LLP v.Mind Blowing Naturals LLP
The Plaintiffs, proprietors of the mark NATURAL for ice creams since 1983/84, filed an interim application alleging that Defendants were using a substantially similar mark (MIND BLOWING NATURALS) and infringing their copyrighted logo. The Court found prima facie evidence of confusion and deception.
Pfizer Inc v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court passed several orders regarding various interlocutory applications in the suit filed by Pfizer Inc against Natco Pharma Limited. Specifically, the court granted an undertaking to the defendant that they would provide four weeks prior notice before launching the drug alleged to infringe the patent.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.M/S Skynet Placements & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited against M/S Skynet Placements & Ors. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MACLEODS' for deceptive purposes, specifically related to fake job offers. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from promoting or offering services under the mark, and banks were directed to freeze specific accounts linked to the alleged fraudulent activity.
Vikas Gupta & Anr v.M/S Sahni Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's decision, confirming an injunction that allowed M/S Sahni Cosmetics to continue using the trademark 'NEHA' for face cream. The court prioritized the defendant's established prior use of the mark dating back to 2003 over the plaintiff's claims, despite arguments regarding regulatory compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating long-standing market presence in trademark disputes.
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.