IP Cases — 2022
744 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 21 of 25 · 744 total
UPL Limited v.Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute involved UPL Limited asserting its patent rights over the composition Clodinafop-Propargyl (15%) + Metsulfuron Methyl (1%) WP against Agro King Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. The matter was amicably settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
The suit sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 270765 concerning Baricitinib (Barinat). The patent holder alleged that licensed companies were marketing and exporting the product outside its approved use (COVID-19) for Rheumatoid Arthritis, primarily through e-commerce platforms like Indiamart.
Walmart Apollo Llc v.Aayush Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Walmart Apollo LLC alleging continued trademark infringement by the defendants, who were reportedly still using the mark 'WMART' despite a prior interim injunction. The court noted the defendants' willingness to propose a change of mark ('WM BAZAAR') in exchange for waiving costs and damages. Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the defendants and set deadlines for filing replies on various related applications, keeping the litigation active.
Pioneer Corporation v.Gulab Goel & Ors.
In a suit involving claims of trademark and copyright infringement, Pioneer Corporation and Defendant No. 8 reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. As part of this resolution, Defendant No. 8 paid compensation to the Plaintiff. The Delhi High Court subsequently allowed the application, passing a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 8 and disposing of the suit concerning that specific defendant.
Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v.Vipin Pathak Trading As M/S Pathak Impex
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Republic Technologies against Vipin Pathak regarding the alleged infringement of the 'OCB' trademark and copyright related to smoking accessories. While the court noted that the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's rights, it also accepted the defendant's willingness to change their logo and mark. Consequently, an existing interim order was made absolute, while the matter was scheduled for further hearing after the defendant presented proposed changes.
Delhivery Pvt Ltd v.Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Pvt Ltd and Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited reached a settlement regarding trademark infringement claims. The court formally accepted the Settlement Agreement dated February 26, 2022, which mandated that the respondent acknowledge Delhivery's statutory rights and cease using similar marks. While the suit was decreed granting permanent injunction, the appellant waived their claim for damages and costs in exchange for the resolution.
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.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd
Novartis initiated multiple suits against various defendants, including Windlas Biotech and Eris Lifesciences, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN229051, which covers a combination drug (Valsartan + Sacubitril) used to treat cardiovascular disease. The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions and access to distribution details. While the court maintained an interim injunction against manufacturing and selling the patented composition, it also directed Eris Lifesciences Limited to deposit Rs. 5 crores due to the marketing of stock post-infringement.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Sai Deepa Rock Drills Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their registered patents related to Top Hammer Rock Drilling Tools. The court passed an interim order granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from commercializing the infringing products and directed the defendants to disclose specific financial and production details on affidavit.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Jigs Chemical Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction against Defendant No.1, alleging that the defendant was advertising and selling 'APIXABAN' (a patented pharmaceutical preparation) as an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API). The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the manufacturing and sale of APIXABAN.
Xiaomi Inc v.Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited & Anr.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed a request filed by Dharama Mobitel Industries Private Limited to cancel the trademark 'SHOMI.' The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the register after the respondent provided an affidavit confirming that they were not using the trademark and would not use it in the future for related goods. This decision highlights the importance of active use or intent to use when maintaining a registered trademark.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs claim infringement of their patent related to drugs comprising 'FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE'. The defendant argues that MSN Laboratories is the manufacturer for them.
Mitsubishi Power Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mitsubishi Power Ltd appealed against the rejection of its patent application by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of the stay application (I.A. 11537/2021), noting that since the patent had been rejected, no interim order could be granted.
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Glaxosmithkline Intellectual Property Development Limited filed an appeal against the rejection of its patent application (No. 201617034934) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ram Trading Co. v.Amar Singh Chawal Wala And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition challenging the cancellation of the Petitioner's registered trademark 'RAJQILLA'. The court noted that since the mark had already been cancelled by the IPAB, an interim stay could not be granted without examining the merits of the challenge. After initial procedural delays and requests for adjournment due to connectivity issues, the matter was listed for further hearing.
Central Park Estates Private Limited v.M I Builders Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Private Limited against M I Builders Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the Plaintiff, who holds registered rights in 'CENTRAL PARK' for real estate, had made out a prima facie case. The Defendant was restrained from using the mark 'CENTRAL PARK' either standalone or combined with its group name 'M.I.' to prevent consumer confusion in the ongoing construction projects.
Victoria Foods Private Limited v.Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed allegations of trademark infringement concerning the 'RAJDHANI' mark used for spices. While initially granting an interim injunction favoring Victoria Foods based on registration and prima facie evidence, the court subsequently heard a contempt application alleging continued violation by the defendants. Following a Local Commissioner's report detailing ongoing production post-injunction, the Court sealed the defendant's factory and ordered detailed inspections to assess compliance and potential misuse of goods.
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.
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.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Actis Generics Pvt Ltd
The suit involved a dispute over Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin for diabetes treatment. The parties amicably resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated March 15, 2022.
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.
M/S Rishabh Agencies v.P Kantilal
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S Rishabh Agencies against a trial court order that denied an interim injunction. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar trademark 'preethi' for household goods, claiming prior common law rights in 'preeti'. However, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that while the plaintiff claimed prior use, the defendant had been operating since 2004. The court concluded that the balance of convenience lay with the defendant and that the core issues required a full trial.
Kamdhenu Limited v.Raghunath Virdharam Bishnoi And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued stringent directions in favor of Kamdhenu Limited regarding the illegal use of its trademark 'Kamdhenu' by various defendants. The court recognized that the defendants were using infringing domains and bank accounts to impersonate the plaintiff and defraud customers. Consequently, the court ordered domain registrars (GoDaddy), telecom providers, and banks to disclose KYC details of the involved parties. Furthermore, it mandated investigations into the identified individuals and mobile numbers to curb ongoing trademark infringement.
JK Cement Limited v.Anav Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of JK Cement Limited against Anav Industries & Anr. The court found that JK Cement had established a prima facie case regarding the infringement and passing off of its well-known trademark 'JK' and associated trade dress on cement and wall putty products. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'JK Premium' to prevent consumer confusion in the market.
M/S Sureka Forbes (Pvt) Limited v.M/S Eureka Forbes Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Sureka Forbes against M/S Eureka Forbes. The petitioner had challenged the trial court's acceptance of a Court Commissioner's report in an ongoing suit for permanent injunction concerning trademark and copyright infringement. The court ultimately found that accepting or rejecting the commissioner's report is a discretionary function of the trial court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd v.Mr Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd against Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tiwari Trading As Maa Vaishnavi Chemicals. The court found that the use of the 'VIVO' mark by the defendant, especially in similar logo forms, would cause confusion and dilution given Vivo's extensive global and domestic use of the trademark. Furthermore, the court allowed Vivo to file evidence supporting its claim that the VIVO marks are well-known trademarks in India.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr
The case involves a revocation petition filed by Micro Labs Limited against the patent granted to Bristol-Myers Squibb for a pharmaceutical compound used as an anticoagulant. The court granted an interim injunction restraining Micro Labs from manufacturing and selling the product covered by the patent.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants (Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd & Ors.) for infringement of Patent No. 259932 ("ARRANGING HANDOVER") by various mobile devices. The court addressed applications regarding adding new claims and devices during the pendency of the suit.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, which rejected its patent application (No. 1026/DEL/2012). The High Court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal and subsequently listed the matter for further hearing to determine if the invention has been put to commercial use.
M/s.24 Am Studious Private Limited v.Divya M.Jain
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendants for releasing the film 'Production No.5 (Colour) – Ayalan' without consent, alleging infringement of Tamil Satellite Television Rights in India. The dispute centered on the validity of the finance agreement where the plaintiff pledged the exclusive copyright to the first defendant.
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.