IP Cases — 2022
934 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 22 of 32 · 934 total
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited v.Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited
Jupiter Life Line Hospitals Limited sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Aatmaj Healthcare Private Limited for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'JUPITER' (Registration No. 1675980). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using similar marks, such as "StayGo Jupiter Multispecialty Hospital," in relation to running hospitals and providing medical services. The court found a strong prima facie case for infringement and granted the interim injunction.
Hadiklaim Central Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. v.Ms Dharamraj And Sons And Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court judgment confirms the resolution of a trademark dispute concerning the 'KING SOLOMON DATES' brand. The plaintiff successfully reached comprehensive settlement agreements with multiple defendants, including Defendant No. 1. These settlements legally bind the defendants to cease all use of similar or deceptively related marks and acknowledge the plaintiff's exclusive ownership rights over the trademark.
Aasik Jindran v.Mohammad Rafiq
Aasik Jindran, proprietor of M/s GBL Agro Equipments, filed a petition challenging an earlier commercial court order. The dispute centered on the use of the brand name 'GBL' for agricultural goods by Mohammad Rafiq, which Jindran claimed infringed his registered trademarks and copyrights. While the trial court had granted injunction against 'GBL', Jindran sought an extension to include restraint against the similar mark 'SGBL'.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161, which covers 'ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE / REVOLADE'. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicating that the defendant was included in a list for procuring the patented preparation.
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.
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory v.Rafeeq Beedi Factory
The plaintiff, Morful Sheikh Trading as Azad Beedi Factory, sued several defendants for infringing its proprietary trademarks, copyrights, and trade dresses related to its 'Bidis' business. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over marks like DEEWANA BIRI NO. 302, which was registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (DEEBAN BIRI and numerical 305) in relation to the same goods.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an application by the Plaintiff, Rajkumar Sabu, allowing for the appointment of Local Commissioners. The dispute centers on the unauthorized use of the registered trademark 'SACHAMOTI' by the Defendants, who continued to sell products bearing the registration symbol (®) despite prior court orders prohibiting such usage. The commissioners were authorized to inspect premises, seize infringing goods and packaging, and take related documentation.
The European Union Represented By The European Commission v.Union Of India & Ors.
The European Union challenged the deemed abandonment of two patent applications (11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013) filed under Indian law. The Petitioner argued that despite procedural delays involving multiple patent agents, they had taken steps to respond to the First Examination Reports (FERs). Citing exceptional circumstances and observations from a Parliamentary Standing Committee regarding the inflexibility of abandonment rules, the Delhi High Court set aside the abandonment orders.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing their patent on Lactam-Containing Compounds (Apixaban API). The Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that it had not supplied commercial quantities and agreed to manufacture/sell the drug solely under Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act, leading the Court to pass an interim restraint order.
Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. v.Ab Petrochem
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited & Ors. against Ab Petrochem, recognizing the Plaintiffs' established rights over the MINDA trademark and its variants. The court found that the Defendant was operating under infringing marks (AB MINDA) in the oil and grease sector. To enforce this interim relief, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the Defendant's premises, seize infringing goods, and inventory relevant business records.
Apaar Homez Mart Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order restraining Apaar Homez Mart from using its trademark 'SEPAL' combined with 'Century'. The court found that M/S. Century World had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, noting the significant increase in the respondent's turnover and the appellant's recent adoption of the mark. This judgment reinforces the principle that if an appellant cannot provide a plausible reason for using a potentially common term like 'Century,' they risk being found to be capitalizing on the goodwill of an established competitor.
Dr Ramesh Chander Munjal & Ors. v.Dr Suraj Munjal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two connected suits, one concerning the infringement of the registered trademark 'SPECTRA EYE' and the other dealing with immovable property partition. The court noted that the trademark issue was complex and had been extensively heard by another bench. Consequently, the matter was listed for further adjudication before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal on May 11, 2022.
Provident Housing Ltd v.Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed Provident Housing Ltd's appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that restrained its use of 'Provident Central Park'. The court found that the appellant's mark was deceptively similar to the respondents' registered trademarks, particularly because 'CENTRAL PARK' is a prominent feature in the respondent's marks. While clarifying that no exclusive right exists over the generic words 'CENTRAL PARK', the judgment affirmed that copying this prominent portion of a device mark constitutes infringement.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
Radico Khaitan Ltd. appealed the rejection of its trademark application 'EFKAY'S XXX RUM (DEVICE)' by the Registrar of Trademarks, citing conflicts with existing marks. The appellant argued that several related 'EFKAYS' series marks had been legally assigned to them. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the arguments and directed all related appeals concerning similar mark rejections to be listed together for a comprehensive hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a comprehensive settlement between Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) and Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors. (Defendants). The parties resolved their trademark infringement dispute regarding the brands 'DOSELA' and 'ATENTRUE' versus 'DUZELA' and 'ATTENTROL'. Under the agreement, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks, destroy existing stock within specified timelines, and waive its own pending trademark applications for those names. The suit was subsequently disposed of based on these mutual undertakings.
M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a contempt case involving M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. against the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning two specific trademark registrations. The court noted that one mark (No. 1800087) had been removed by the registry, while another (No. 1800086) was stated to have been abandoned. The court granted time for the respondents to file their replies and rejoinders, setting a future date for consideration.
Moonshine Technology Private Limited v.Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Moonshine Technology Private Limited (Baazi Group) against Tictok Skill Games Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was attempting to piggyback on the goodwill and reputation of Baazi by using confusingly similar marks, such as 'WinZo Baazi'. Given the plaintiff's established presence and registered trademarks in the gaming industry, the court ruled that this usage amounted to infringement and passing off, directing the defendants to immediately cease all use of the infringing brand.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.M/S Blue Ivory & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S Blue Ivory & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court appointed Local Commissioners with extensive powers to inspect premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the CK Marks, and demand disclosure of financial records from the defendants. This order provides immediate protection while allowing for thorough investigation into the alleged counterfeiting operations.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 1, 2021, passed by the Assistant Controller. The said order rejected the patent application for 'Use of a Thiazolo Pyrimidinone' on grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act.
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.
Jansen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.Aeon Formulations Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, who are exclusive licensees of the patent holder (Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation), filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and marketing Canagliflozin Tablets/Capsules, thereby infringing Indian Patent No. 232231. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
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.
Schaeffler Technologies Ag And Co Kg v.Ms Gangason Enterprises
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Schaeffler Technologies (FAG) against Ms Gangason Enterprises for alleged trademark infringement. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute through an amicable settlement, which the court formalized into a decree. Under the terms of this settlement, the Defendant acknowledged FAG's exclusive rights and agreed to cease all use of the mark 'FAG,' withdraw related trademark applications, destroy infringing products, and provide an apology for the violation.
Hebei Hailan Bearing Manufacture Co. Ltd. v.M/S Pearl Bearing Co.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the Plaintiff seeking disclosure of financial and import documents from the Defendant. While the Defendant argued that some information was confidential, the Court issued a conditional order. The Defendant must now file an affidavit detailing complete sale figures and submit all requested documents in a sealed cover for judicial review before they can be released to the Plaintiff.
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.
Kuvam Gujral v.Ashim Gujral & Ors
This appeal challenges a single judge's order that restrained the appellant from using the trademark 'Moti Mahal'. The core dispute revolves around the devolution of proprietary rights in the unregistered trademark following the death of its original applicant. The appellant argues that since the trademark was inherited by multiple branches through intestate succession, all descendants should have the right to use it, preventing exclusion.
Red Bull Ag v.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed Red Bull's application for an interim injunction against Pepsico India Holdings regarding the use of the tagline 'STIMULATES MIND. ENERGIZES BODY.' by their product STING. The court found that both taglines are descriptive and laudatory in nature, meaning the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at this stage. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favored the defendants given their long-standing market presence with the tagline.
Imberatek Llc v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court passed an order in CS(COMM) 763/2022 addressing several interlocutory applications filed by Imberatek Llc against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed the plaintiff to file confidential documents related to the suit patent under strict confidentiality terms.
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.
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.