IP Cases — 2022
934 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 29 of 32 · 934 total
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.
Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. v.Ena Universal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking to enforce an existing injunction against trademark infringement related to 'BAJAJ ALMOND DROPS'. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were circumventing the court order by selling infringing products through e-commerce platforms under different names. Recognizing this evasion, the Court allowed the impleadment of new parties, including AMZ Venturz, VBRO Skin Care, and Flipkart itself, to ensure comprehensive enforcement against all involved entities.
S Bant Singh Sole Proprietor M S Vishavkarma Engineering Works v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'PUNNI,' in Class 35. The plaintiff argued that another party had registered the identical mark on a later date, leading to a conflict. The court initiated the proceedings by issuing notice to the defendant and setting a timeline for filing pleadings.
Cosmos Corporation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by Cosmos Corporation seeking correction of a prior order. The correction was necessary because the parties had reached a settlement, resulting in the assignment of Trademark Registration No. 3628175 (TROPICLEAN) from the Registrar of Trade Marks to Cosmos Corporation. This ruling formally recognized the terms of the private agreement within the court record.
Lilly Icos Llc v.Vivek Pharmachem And Anr.
The dispute between Lilly Icos Llc and Vivek Pharmachem was amicably resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a settlement agreement where they mutually acknowledged each other's respective trademarks, 'CIALIS' and 'ZYDALIS'. Crucially, Defendant No. 2 agreed not to use any mark with the suffix 'ALIS' for erectile dysfunction drugs, while Plaintiff agreed to withdraw an opposition against ZYDALIS. The court subsequently decreed the suit against Defendant No. 2 based on these settlement terms.
Dfm Foods Limited v.ITC Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark dispute between Dfm Foods Limited and ITC Limited. While the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, the court immediately directed both parties toward mandatory mediation. This order sets the stage for amicable resolution while allowing procedural steps like filing additional documents and exemptions from pre-institution mediation.
Pfizer Inc And Ors v.Jodas Expoim Pvt Ltd And Anr
The court framed several issues in this commercial suit concerning alleged patent infringement by the defendants against Pfizer Inc and Ors. The core questions revolve around whether the defendants' activities infringe two specific Indian Patents (No. 218291 and No. 209251) and if the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction or damages.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical appealed the Controller's order refusing a patent application for a medicament combination involving Brexpiprazole, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-reasoned and procedurally flawed, particularly because the Respondent introduced new prior art documents (D2 and D3) without giving the Appellant an opportunity to respond. The High Court found the impugned order vitiated due to procedural infirmities and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Bpi Sports Llc v.Saurabh Gulati & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark opposition case involving Bpi Sports Llc and Saurabh Gulati. Despite initial claims of non-service, the court found that Respondent No.1 had been served through multiple modes (speed post, email, mobile), leading to him being proceeded against ex parte. Crucially, the court mandated that a status quo be maintained regarding Trademark Registration No. 4422891 for the mark 'BPI SPORTS', preventing any assignment or license during the pendency of the matter.
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.
Mody Pumps Inc v.Sovereign Pumping Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that defendants, former employees, colluded to steal copyrighted engineering drawings and confidential data relating to water pumps. The plaintiffs sought a restraining order against the defendants for manufacturing and marketing identical products. The court granted an interim injunction but stayed its operation for one week.
Techfields Pharma Co Ltd Yu Chongxi v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
The General Hospital Corporation And Anr. v.The Controller of Patents And Designs And Anr.
The General Hospital Corporation appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs under Section 15 of The Patents Act, 1970, which dismissed their patent application. By consent of both parties, the Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a mutual agreement between the parties. The court examined the memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2022 and found no legal impediment to its terms. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement.
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.
Universal City Studios Llc v.M/S Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
In a series of related trademark appeals, the Delhi High Court allowed applications filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for substitution of the respondent's name. The court permitted the change of Respondent No. 1 from 'Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.' to its assignee, 'Select Citywalk Retail Pvt. Ltd.', following an Assignment Deed executed on August 17, 2022. This procedural order ensures that all ongoing litigation concerning the assigned trademarks is correctly addressed by the new legal entity.
Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
Lyka Labs Limited v.Lyka Biotech Private Limited
The petitioner, Lyka Labs Limited, filed an Interim Application against Lyka Biotech Private Limited for infringement of its trademark 'LYKA' and passing off. The court accepted the defendant's statement that it had discontinued using the impugned mark and domain name. Consequently, the court passed a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from using similar marks in relation to pharmaceutical products.
Anil Kumar Sole Proprietor Of M/S Anil Kumar Ramesh Kumar v.Jyoti Sales House & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Anil Kumar, seeking permanent injunctions against the alleged infringement of his registered trademark 'DHANI' used for edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's mark, 'DHANIBABA', was deceptively similar in the same business sector. Recognizing the potential for resolution, the court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, allowing both parties an opportunity to settle their trademark dispute outside of litigation.
MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v.COURTYARD HOLIDAYS WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Marriott Worldwide Corporation against Courtyard Holidays World Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant was misleading consumers by using marks and domain names identical or similar to Marriott's registered 'COURTYARD' brand. Despite the defendant having a registration, the court noted that this registration was obtained through false representation, leading to the restraint order.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Raman Gupta And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Raman Gupta and others. The court found that the defendants were illegally using the registered trademark 'KHADI' and associated logos, particularly for medical products like PPE kits and hand sanitizers under the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Given the potential risk to public health due to unauthorized quality control, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling any such products bearing the infringing marks.
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. v.Powereye Electronics
Phenomenon Agents Ltd. filed a fresh suit against Powereye Electronics under the Trademark and Copyright Act, seeking permanent injunction and relief for passing off. The petitioners challenged an earlier court order that merely adjourned the matter. While the High Court clarified it was not adjudicating the merits of the case, it supported the petitioner's request to expedite the proceedings. Consequently, the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter on 04.07.2022.
Gland Pharma Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
Gland Pharma Ltd. filed a rectification petition against Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited, seeking cancellation of the Respondent's trademark 'CLINDIUM'. The Petitioner claims prior use and ownership of the similar mark 'CLINDUM' in pharmaceutical preparations. While the court condoned the delay in filing the petition and ordered the summoning of relevant records, it denied an immediate interim stay on the impugned trademark due to its existing registration status. The matter is now scheduled for further pleadings.
Pm Franchise Brands, Llc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a trademark application, PRETZELMAKER. While the court found that the word mark was problematic under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to descriptiveness and similarity, it recognized the distinctiveness of the accompanying logo. Consequently, the court allowed the Appellant to proceed with registration by deleting the descriptive word 'PRETZELMAKER' from the application.
Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia, holding several patents deemed Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for cellular technologies (2G-5G), filed an application seeking directions against Oppo. The dispute centered on whether Oppo's use of these patented standards required licensing under FRAND terms. The court dismissed Nokia's application, finding insufficient evidence to establish liability or justify the interim relief sought.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against Murugavilas Tirupur Snuff Co., alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning their respective snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing materials based on the similarity of marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution and entered into a Memorandum of Compromise.
Tommy Hilfiger Europe Bv v.Ms Originals Clothing And Ors
In this execution petition, Tommy Hilfiger sought to enforce a settlement decree against Ms Originals Clothing for continuing the sale of its branded goods. Despite having previously settled, the Decree Holder alleged that the Judgment Debtors continued infringing on their trademarks both in physical stores and online platforms. The court allowed the application for local commissioners to conduct an investigation into post-decree sales and directed the Judgment Debtors to provide access to relevant financial records.
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.
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.
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.