IP Cases — 2022
744 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 25 · 744 total
Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v.Praveen S/o. Shri Gokulchand Murarka
Bhama Enterprises challenged an order granting a temporary injunction to Praveen (M/s. Modware India) regarding the alleged infringement of their 'Kool Kruizer' bottle design by the defendant's 'Cool Crazy' product. The core dispute centered on whether trademark protection in Class 32 could cover the physical shape, or if the defendant's valid registration under the Designs Act provided superior rights. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction and dismissing the plaintiff's application.
Centrient Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V. v.Dalas Biotech Limited
The dispute involves a claim of infringement regarding a process patent for manufacturing Amoxicillin Trihydrate. The Plaintiffs sought to implead the Drug Controller General of India, arguing the Defendant failed to prove their process was different from the patented process. The Defendant countered that the Plaintiff was exceeding the scope and had not demonstrated product identity.
Vikram A Sreerama v.U. Galeppa Reddy
The plaintiff filed an arbitration suit challenging an arbitral award related to a partnership firm that developed 'Amvicube PA 2.0', a machine for detecting broken rice grains. The plaintiff alleged misappropriation of IP rights and assets by the defendant, but the court upheld the original arbitral award.
Sterne India Private Limited v.Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sterne India Private Limited against a District Judge's order that had appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods allegedly infringing Haier's trademark. The court noted that the original order appeared flawed because it treated the appellant as the direct seller, ignoring its role as an online marketing platform. While staying the seizure order, the High Court mandated that Sterne provide details of all sellers on its platform using the 'HAIER' brand to properly address the infringement claims.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 209816) concerning Sitagliptin. The court closed the defendant's right to file a written statement and passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling the patented drug until the final disposal of the suit.
Diageo Brands B V & Anr v.Rock And Storm Distilleries Private Limited
This case involved a dispute over the use of distinctive bottle designs and trademarks in the spirits industry. Diageo Brands sued Rock And Storm Distilleries for infringement of its registered design (No. 306577) and trademark ('Hipster', No. 4419654), alongside passing off related to trade dress. The parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Delhi High Court.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1 for infringing their patented pharmaceutical preparation 'APIXABAN'. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.1 was advertising and selling the product through various platforms including Indiamart and Tradeindia. The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Angle Bio Pharma from manufacturing or selling APIXABAN without authorization, and directed the intermediary websites to take down the listings.
Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned a rejection of the trademark 'HEALTHSKOOL' by the Registrar, which had deemed it descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The court recognized that despite some indicia related to health, the mark was sufficiently distinctive given its long-standing use since 2015 and existing registrations in various classes. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed for advertisement, albeit with a caveat preventing exclusive rights over the generic term 'Health'.
Shivan Ramachandran & Anr. v.Madhur Sharma
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several orders on May 27, 2022. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents while simultaneously accepting a significant undertaking from the defendant. The defendant agreed to withdraw pending trademark applications and cease all sales of the disputed products, providing an affidavit detailing existing stock and past sales figures.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, filed applications seeking interim directions to restrain respondents from infringing their patent rights related to Linagliptin. The court found that the defendants had not presented a credible challenge to the patent's validity and tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs.
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Orangebelly Food And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Defendants sought to return the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Plaintiff's principal place of business was in Mumbai while the Defendant operated only one restaurant in Patna. The Delhi High Court rejected the immediate request for return of the plaint, noting the Plaintiff's successful history of obtaining injunctions across various jurisdictions. Consequently, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained by the Defendant until further orders, allowing the litigation to proceed.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 5706/DELNP/2011) by the Asst. Controller of Patents. The primary issue addressed in this order was the condonation of a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was ultimately granted.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
M/S M K Enterprises v.M/S Jems Engineering
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S M K Enterprises against an interim injunction favoring M/S Jems Engineering. The dispute centered on trademark infringement and passing off concerning submersible pumps, where both parties used similar marks (JAMES vs. JEMS). The court found that the respondent-plaintiff successfully established prima facie evidence of prior use dating back to 2004, outweighing the appellant's claims of later registration and business commencement in 2013. Consequently, the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, upholding the injunction.
ITC Limited v.Central Park Private Limited & Anr.
ITC Limited successfully argued that its restaurant brand, 'BUKHARA,' qualifies as a well-known mark in India. The Delhi High Court recognized the extensive reputation, global acclaim, and long history of the brand, despite similar marks being used by defendants. This judgment reinforces the strong protection afforded to established brands under Indian IP law, particularly concerning transborder reputation.
Usha International Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr.
Usha International Limited filed a petition seeking the removal/cancellation of the mark 'WSHA' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that it is deceptively similar to their long-standing mark 'USHA'. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was subsequently listed for further arguments on April 4, 2022.
Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Nixi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in favor of Colgate Palmolive, addressing ongoing trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their brand name. The court directed the domain registrar, GoDaddy.com LLC, to immediately block and suspend the infringing domain www.colgatepalmolive.work. Furthermore, the court ordered the disclosure of registrant details for the domain and mandated the freezing of a bank account linked to the scam operation, demonstrating strong judicial action against brand impersonation and cyber fraud.
Livspace Pte. Ltd. v.Livspace-Reviews.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Livspace Pte. Ltd., directing the blocking of the domain name www.livspace-reviews.com. The court found that the defendant's website, which used a similar mark and contained derogatory reviews, was operating clandestinely to damage Livspace's business reputation. Furthermore, the Court mandated regulatory bodies (DoT and MEITY) to enforce the block and ordered a detailed investigation by the Cyber Crime Unit into the domain's ownership.
SOTKON SP SLU v.WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PVT. LTD.
The case involves the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's patent and copyright rights related to a waste management system. The Defendants are accused of infringing the Plaintiff's patent by submitting a tender for a similar waste management technology.
Ajanta LLP v.Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal concerned an attempt by Ajanta LLP to modify a consent decree reached with Casio Computer Co. Ltd., alleging a typographical error regarding the scope of the settlement agreement. The original suit involved claims of design piracy related to scientific calculators, citing specific registered designs. Although the parties had settled and the High Court decreed the suit based on this settlement, Ajanta LLP sought rectification, arguing that the agreement incorrectly specified trademark elements. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that a consent decree cannot be modified merely due to misunderstanding unless the mistake is patent or obvious.
Ht Media Ltd v.Pooja Sharma & Ors.
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted an immediate injunction protecting Ht Media Ltd's 'SHINE' trademark and its website www.shine.com from unauthorized use by rogue defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using the plaintiff's IP to deceive the public through fraudulent job/career services. Crucially, the judgment issued sweeping directions to various service providers—including ISPs, telecom operators, domain registrars, and Gmail—to block infringing websites and disclose user information, effectively providing a powerful mechanism for online IP enforcement.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Montessori & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd. against M/S Fly High Montessori & Ors. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark, 'GOLDEN FRANKFINN,' for educational services, thereby infringing on and passing off its registered trademark 'FRANKFINN.' The court found that a prima facie case was made out, immediately restraining the defendant from using the disputed marks in any manner to prevent further infringement and unfair competition.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Chougle Salt Works Private Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited v.Mahesh Edible Oils Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order addressing trademark disputes among related entities in the edible oil industry. The court affirmed that the 'SALONI' trademark belongs exclusively to Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd., preventing individual brothers from claiming it. However, the ruling allows the family members freedom to operate their own businesses, provided they do not use marks or trade dresses deceptively similar to 'SALONI'. This order sets a clear boundary for internal corporate IP rights while allowing independent commercial activity.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deeming abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under the Indian Patents Act. The Petitioner argued that delays, stemming from changes in legal counsel and communication issues with the initial patent agent, led to the abandonment orders. Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of the Patent Act, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Paras Ayurvedic Pharma Pvt.Ltd v.Salman Iqbal Ahmed Momin And Anr
This commercial appeal involved a dispute over the medicinal oil 'Roghan Sukoon Massage Oil,' where the Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and passing off against the Respondent. The core issue revolved around whether the Plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the Defendant's impugned goods, which was central to the initial injunction granted by the lower court. The Bombay High Court upheld the previous orders, finding no infirmity in the single judges' discretion regarding the interlocutory applications.
Excitel Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.
DLF Limited v.Rediff.Com India Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the 'EMPORIO' brand, DLF Limited and Defendant No. 2 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. The Delhi High Court formally recorded this settlement, decreeing the terms against Defendant No. 2 while allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit unconditionally against the remaining defendants. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex IP disputes within the judicial framework.
Sri.Aswin Naidu v.Amaresh K J
The complainant, Sri. Aswin Naidu (representing Elehem Technik Private Limited), filed a private complaint alleging that the accused illegally took confidential information and infringed the copyright of their Electro Chemical Deburring machine (Burrgon 25 V 3) in 2007. The case was tried under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, but the court acquitted the accused.
Aditya Infotech Limited v.Dipankar Mandal
Aditya Infotech Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Dipankar Mandal in a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was falsely printing the plaintiff's registered 'CP Plus' logo on unbranded CCTV cameras, leading to potential consumer confusion. Given the market reputation of 'CP Plus' and the risk of irreparable harm, the court granted immediate relief to protect the brand's goodwill.
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.