IP Cases — 2021
370 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 13 · 370 total
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction favoring M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite disputes over additional pleadings and evidence. The court found that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was questionable, particularly because it relied on documents later alleged to be forged by the third party (Astha Sales). This interim relief allows the plaintiff to continue pursuing their trademark rights while the full case proceeds.
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.
Yonex Co., Ltd. v.Sumit Girdhar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd. against Sumit Girdhar and others regarding counterfeit goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case showing that defendants were dealing in counterfeit badminton equipment using the protected YONEX mark. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from selling or advertising any products bearing the YONEX mark or similar variations, pending further proceedings.
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.
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v.REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court issued several directions in this trademark dispute involving the 'AMUL' brand. The court allowed an application seeking to implead a specific applicant as a respondent, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to file an affidavit detailing the current status of advertisements related to the mark. This ongoing litigation focuses on clarifying the scope and validity of the registered trademark.
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.
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.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company v.Micro Labs Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Micro Labs Limited for infringing their registered patent (No. 247381) related to Apixaban, an anticoagulant drug. The court considered the prior history of similar cases and granted an ex-parte ad- interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling generic Apixaban under any brand name, including 'APIVAS'.
Atotech Deutschland GmbH v.Grauer & Well (India) Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial appeal filed by Atotech Deutschland GmbH seeking urgent interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'TRICHROME' mark. The initial refusal of the injunction was based partly on procedural delays. However, the Appellate Bench clarified that under the statutory scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, immediate protection for registered trademarks should be prioritized over minor delays. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with directions allowing Atotech to request an early hearing and have its ad-interim relief application reconsidered on its merits.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Honda Motor Co. appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 380/CHE/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs on grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the original order was flawed due to a deprivation of fair opportunity regarding sufficiency of disclosure, and lacked proper justification for concluding lack of inventive step.
Yennes Infotech (P) Ltd. v.The Managing Director, eNoah Solution Pvt. Ltd.
Yennes Infotech appealed an order rejecting its plaint, which sought permanent injunctions and damages for alleged copyright infringement related to customized Tally Software. The court upheld the rejection, finding that the first defendant acted as an authorized agent and the second defendant was a licensee with a valid right to use the software.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Novartis AG, seeks to restrain the defendant from manufacturing Pazopanib Hydrochloride, claiming it infringes their Indian patent. The defendant has obtained approval to manufacture the product, raising concerns of imminent patent infringement.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
This litigation involves Communication Components Antenna Inc. challenging Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.'s alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. IN240893, which relates to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' in wireless communication systems. The core dispute revolves around the validity of this patent, as raised by the defendant through a counterclaim. While the court analyzed grounds of revocation under Sections 64(d), (e), and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970, it ultimately decided to list the suit for further consideration, indicating that the matter remains unresolved.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Matrix Laboratories Limited for infringing Indian Patent No.196774, which relates to a pharmaceutical or chemical compound product. The court ultimately disposed of the suit as no further orders were necessary due to the rejection of leave to institute the suit by the Division Bench.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
Jolen Inc. filed two civil suits in the Madras High Court against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trade marks (JOLEN) and copyright in its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to deceptive imitation and passing off. However, on August 9, 2021, the court dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff had failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain
This case involved Jolen Inc. filing multiple suits against various defendants, including Shobanlal Jain, alleging infringement of its trademarks (JOLEN) and copyright in the artistic work and trade dress of its crème bleach packaging. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages due to passing off and unauthorized use of similar marks and designs. However, the court ultimately dismissed both suits for non-prosecution, as the plaintiff failed to respond to communications regarding the continuation of the litigation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
The petitioner (Nokia Technologies Oy) filed an application seeking temporary injunction and disclosure of assets against the respondent (Guangdong Oppo Mobile). The court, while addressing various interlocutory applications, granted a direction for the defendants to furnish specific disclosures regarding their sales and revenues related to the alleged infringing devices.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis Ag & Anr. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant their Indian Patent Application No. 10611/DELNP/2015. The court allowed an interlocutory application regarding document filing and issued notice to the Defendant, setting the matter for further hearing.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.P Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp against P Singh & Ors. The Plaintiff, a prior user of the Ayurvedic joint pain relief oil 'SANDHI SUDHA', successfully argued that the Defendants' use of similar marks and imitation of packaging constituted passing off and copyright infringement. The court recognized the Plaintiff's established market presence and sales history to protect consumers from potential confusion.
Krown Biscuit Private Limited v.Richfield Industries Private Limited
Krown Biscuit Private Limited filed a suit against Richfield Industries Private Limited alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WHITE MAGIK' and associated trade dress for biscuits, confusing consumers who were familiar with the plaintiff's established brand, 'BLACK MAGIC.' Based on the prima facie case presented by the plaintiffs regarding the similarity of the marks and packaging, the court granted an interim injunction.
Mr.T.G.Arumugam v.Mr.T.G.Harigopal & Mr.T.S.Ganesan
This Madras High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the registered trademark 'UMBRELLA BRAND' between family members. Initially filed seeking to invalidate an assignment deed and secure exclusive proprietorship, the parties ultimately reached a compromise. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit based on the Memo of Compromise, which allows all involved parties to coexist in the business and share the use of the trademark.
M/s.Kwik Patch Ltd. v.Mr.N.R.Rajagopalan
M/s. Kwik Patch Ltd. filed a civil suit in the Madras High Court alleging infringement and passing off against Mr. N.R. Rajagopalan, claiming that his use of the label 'KOOL BOND' violated their trademark 'KWIK'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act. However, due to the suit having been pending for over 20 years and a lack of inclination from both parties to pursue the matter further, the court dismissed the case.
Yoshida Kenji v.The Asst.Controller Of Patents
This writ petition challenged the deemed abandonment of a Japanese national's patent application. The core dispute revolved around whether the 12-month statutory period for responding to the examination report should be calculated from the date the report was issued or the date it was actually received by the petitioner. The court ruled that the time limit must be counted from the date of receipt, finding that the petitioner had submitted a valid response within the extended timeframe.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
The suit alleged infringement of Plaintiff's patent (IN'429) related to a novel agricultural composition used as a fertilizer. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No.1 was manufacturing and selling infringing products under brand names 'SUFFAR 90' and 'COZY WET 90 WDG'.
Anuj Singhal v.Anupreet Kaur
This Delhi High Court case involving a trademark dispute between Anuj Singhal and Anupreet Kaur was successfully settled through mediation. The settlement agreement mandates that the respondent cease using specific trademarks, including 'NANDINI BLACK SALT,' and refrain from copying the petitioner's packaging and color schemes. Furthermore, the respondent agreed to withdraw all related trademark applications, leading the court to dispose of the suit in terms of the binding agreement.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a suit against M/s. Uma Maheshvari Agro Tech alleging infringement and passing off related to their edible oil products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks ('113 GOLD COINS') and trade dress, infringing both the registered trademark 'Gold Winner' and the associated copyright in the packaging art. Although the suit involved multiple claims for injunctions and account of profits, the parties ultimately reached an amicable compromise.
Pcm Stresscon Overseas Ventures v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Private
The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendant for allegedly infringing their technology and making threats regarding Patent No. 219099. The defendant agreed not to communicate against the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement suit against Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by reaching a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The defendants formally acknowledged Cadila's absolute proprietary rights in the 'AMLODAC' trademark and committed to ceasing all use of the mark, including recalling existing stock and destroying promotional materials. This resolution allows the suit to be disposed of with a decree reflecting the agreed-upon terms.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser sought an interim injunction against Hindustan Unilever, alleging that HUL's advertising campaign disparaged its product, Harpic. The Delhi High Court examined the claims of false and misleading comparisons between the two toilet cleaner brands. While the court found prima facie evidence suggesting one specific print advertisement denigrated Harpic, it reserved judgment on the remaining advertisements, requiring a detailed reply from the defendant before making a final determination.
P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited & Ors. v.P. P. Jewellers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Court's directions regarding the use of trademarks in a family business dispute. While initially restraining P. P. Jewellers Retail Private Limited from using the plaintiff's marks, the court granted a stay on these injunctions, acknowledging the appellants' long-standing and acknowledged use of the trademarks within the family structure. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory the stock at the shared showroom premises, ensuring proper accounting between the competing entities.
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.