IP Cases — 2022
744 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 19 of 25 · 744 total
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The case involves a suit filed by Sterlite Technologies Limited against HFCL Limited for the infringement of their patent related to an optical fiber cable. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing products.
Carousel Design Pvt Ltd v.Kurush Noshir Jungalwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Carousel Design Pvt Ltd, who holds the registered trademark 'SHIFT'. The court found that the defendant's adoption of a deceptively similar mark ('CHEMOULD SHIFT') created a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Despite initial attempts at amicable settlement, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, leading the court to restrain the defendants from using the infringing marks until further orders.
Ds Biopharma Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Ds Biopharma Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller. The Appellant argued that the grounds for rejection, particularly under Section 3(d), were not properly specified in the hearing notice, violating natural justice. The Court found that the Appellant lacked adequate opportunity to respond to the specific objection under Section 3(d).
Kanishka Sinha & Anr v.The Union Of India & Ors
The petitioners sought a direction to the Deputy Director General (VAHAN), National Informatics Centre, to grant linkage of their patented software with the Vehicle Registration and Homogation System. The matter was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the writ petition.
Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Faizi Khan
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark infringement suit filed by Ds Intellectual Properties Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Faizi Khan regarding the use of similar marks, specifically '0'/'ZERO' versus '00', on respective products. The court noted the dispute over consumer confusion and directed the defendant to consider modifying their mark or label design. Crucially, the defendant was ordered to cease manufacturing fresh stock using the disputed marks pending further proceedings.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The petitioner, Alpa Laboratories Limited, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent IN '231479. The petitioner argued that although the patent was revoked by the Deputy Controller of Patents on December 1, 2020, an appeal had stayed this revocation order. The court issued notice and directed parties to file submissions.
M/s Unik Industries v.M/s Amazon India Ltd.
M/s Unik Industries filed a contempt case against M/s Amazon India Ltd. alleging willful disobedience of an interim order regarding the removal of infringing design patent products (clothing hangers) from its online portal. The petitioner claimed continuous infringement despite compliance efforts. However, the court found that since Amazon acted as an intermediary and listings were made by third parties without their actual knowledge or human intervention, there was no wilful violation.
M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd & Ors v.Swadesh Raiment Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/S Oswal Premium Silk Mills Ltd, upholding the trial court's decision regarding the usage of the trademark 'OSWAL'. The dispute centered on whether the appellants had the right to continue using the mark after a specific period. The court found that the defendant's claim based on the deed of assignment (valid for 15 years) was valid and the memorandum of understanding did not override this limitation, thus favoring the respondent.
Aiwa Co Ltd. v.Aivva Enterprises Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Aiwa Co Ltd. against Aivva Enterprises Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were using marks ('AIVVA') visually and phonetically similar to the well-known 'AIWA' trademark, leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. Despite arguments regarding prior knowledge and lack of disclosure by the plaintiff, the court held that the balance of convenience favored Aiwa, thus maintaining the injunction until the final trial.
Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha v.Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha & Anr.
This appeal challenged an order from the Commercial Court which held that a suit seeking protection for the mark 'Akhil Bhartiya Kayastha Mahasabha' was not a commercial dispute. The petitioner argued that since the dispute related to their intellectual property rights—specifically, an unregistered trademark/name—it must fall under Section 2(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Delhi High Court agreed with this contention, setting aside the lower court's order.
Novartis Ag v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
Novartis initiated a suit against Zydus Healthcare Limited alleging imminent threat to its commercial interests concerning the patented combination drug Sacubitril and Valsartan. The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing that the cause of action was illusory or based on misstatements. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the court must decide such applications solely based on the allegations made in the plaint, without considering the defenses raised by the respondents.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc filed an appeal challenging the order dated July 22, 2019, by The Controller of Patents. This order rejected the application for grant of a patent under various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file submissions and pleadings.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Tomar Enterprises
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Tomar Enterprises and others for alleged infringement of his air cooler designs. The plaintiffs claimed their unique, registered designs were being copied by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, supported by evidence showing copies and prior rejection of cancellation applications. Consequently, the temporary injunction application was allowed, restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing design.
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
Deepak Singh v.Bunty Raghav (Producer) and others
Deepak Singh filed a petition seeking interim relief against producers (Respondents) who were making a film based on his book, 'Janhit Mein Jaari'. The core dispute revolved around copyright infringement. While the High Court noted that the civil suit was pending before the Trial Court and emphasized the need for evidence regarding similarity between the book and the film, it ultimately directed the parties to proceed with the trial court's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., ensuring the existing interim relief continued until a final decision.
Narendra Hirawat And Co. v.Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
This case concerns a dispute over film licensing rights for 'Sholay' and related titles between Narendra Hirawat And Co. (NHC) and Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (SME). The core issue revolved around alleged non-compliance with a Deed of Settlement, which included payment obligations and an extension of the license period. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed the appeals, effectively restoring the interim injunction in favor of NHC.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, listing the defendant for procurement of 'SACUBITRIL + VALSARTAN'.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Group Surya
Surya Roshni Limited challenged an arbitral award concerning the domain name 'groupsurya.co.in', arguing that the arbitrator erred in holding that the mark 'SURYA' was generic. The Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner's application to condone a significant delay, citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods. Consequently, the court took the petition on record and issued notice to the respondent, setting the stage for a detailed legal challenge against the initial arbitral decision.
M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited v.M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Esme Consumer Private Limited against M/S Prass Naturaceutical Pvt Ltd. The court found that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'NATURASSENCE' was closely identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'NATURE'S ESSENCE'. Given the prima facie case made by the plaintiff regarding goodwill and reputation, the court restrained the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or trade dress until further hearing.
Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v.Novartis Ag
This appeal before the Telangana High Court concerned an infringement suit filed by Novartis Ag against Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding patent IN 229051, which covers a specific Valsartan/Sacubitril combination drug. The respondents (Novartis) had secured an interim injunction based on prima facie evidence of infringement due to the appellant's (Msn Labs) manufacturing approval for a similar formulation. The court examined the statutory provisions of the Patents Act and CPC, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the injunction granted in favor of Novartis.
Elcom Innovation Pvt Ltd v.Harish Sharma & Ors.
Elcom Innovation Pvt. Ltd. filed suit seeking permanent injunction against its erstwhile employee and shareholder, Harish Sharma, alleging misuse and disclosure of proprietary sensitive and highly confidential information/data. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent further leakage of this IP. However, the court dismissed both applications, finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction due to the vagueness of the claimed confidential information.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union of India
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents (Controller/UOI) to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's recommendation, alleging procedural flaws. The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the pending representation and scheduled the patent proceedings.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The suit involved allegations of infringement against the subject matter of Plaintiff No. 1's registered Patents. The parties amicably resolved the dispute regarding legal costs, leading to a settlement.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited, seeking permanent injunction against alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification or revocation. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registration period for the design had expired.
Surbhi Tangri v.Nishant Goel
The Punjab-Haryana High Court allowed Surbhi Tangri's appeal, setting aside a lower court order that had dismissed her application for an injunction. The court found that the defendant's use of 'DECORALLEY' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered trademark, 'The Décor Alley'. Despite arguments regarding different mark types (word vs. device) and business models, the High Court emphasized the common law principle of passing off, ruling that a common man would be deceived by the similarity.
The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company and Goodyear India Ltd. v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark dispute where Goodyear sought an injunction against Deva Nand Sukhia for using the 'GOOD YEAR' mark in relation to lubricants and greases. The court affirmed that 'GOOD YEAR' is a well-known mark, granting an interim injunction restraining its use across various goods. Although the Plaintiff initially sought damages, they agreed not to press this relief after the Defendant tendered an apology, resulting in the decree being passed with costs imposed on the defendant.
Appy Pie Llp v.Engineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd.
In this trademark infringement matter, Appy Pie LLP sought to address the misuse of its 'APPY PIE' brand through the Google Ads Program. The Delhi High Court recognized that since Google LLC was not initially part of the suit, it needed to be formally added to the proceedings. This order allowed for the impleadment of Google as Defendant No. 5, ensuring all relevant parties are involved in addressing the trademark misuse allegations.
Ravinder Singhania v.Union Of India & Anr.
Ravinder Singhania filed a writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions related to patents. Since one of the reliefs sought involved questioning the legal validity (vires) of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 24B(2)(i) of the Patents Rules, 2003, the court ordered the matter to be listed before a Division Bench.
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v.Nilkamal Plastics Limited
Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nilkamal Plastics Limited seeking permanent injunction regarding alleged infringement of Design No.176931 related to plastic moulded chairs. The plaintiff argued that the design was common knowledge and liable for rectification, while also challenging the defendant's Cease and Desist Notice. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit as infructuous because the registered design rights had expired.
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.