IP Cases — 2022
934 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 30 of 32 · 934 total
Exxon Mobil Corporation v.Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises
In a significant move to protect its brand integrity, Exxon Mobil Corporation sought an interim injunction against Mr. Bijender Kumar Trading As M/S Shri Balaji Enterprises for selling counterfeit products bearing the 'MOBIL' trademark. The Delhi High Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and authorized a Local Commissioner to search and seize the infringing goods at the defendant's premises. This order underscores the court's willingness to provide swift, robust remedies against trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the commercial sector.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitions were filed seeking directions to expedite the hearing and adjudication of a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402, which was facing significant delays by the Respondents (Controller/UOI). The Petitioner also challenged the validity of the Opposition Board's constitution and recommendation.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc, seeking permanent injunction and declarations that the defendant's legal threats regarding trademarks and architectural design were unjustifiable. The plaintiffs also claimed damages for alleged infringement. However, since the defendant had already initiated a counter-suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement, the court found the current claims infructuous. Consequently, the suit was disposed of without prejudice to the pending litigation.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Plaintiffs (Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr.) filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib (Alecensa®). The dispute centered on the Defendant's alleged export and potential commercial launch of generic Alectinib products. The matter was amicably resolved.
Osram Gmbh & Anr. v.Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.
In this Delhi High Court matter, the court addressed the ongoing suit concerning the 'OSRAM' trademark. The defendants voluntarily expressed their intent to abandon two specific trademark applications for the mark. Consequently, the court confirmed the existing interim injunction granted in favor of Osram Gmbh & Anr., while also directing the parties to list all relevant trademark filings for future consideration.
Smt Supriya Shrinate v.M/S Mrt Music Ors.
This Commercial Appeal challenged an ex-parte order passed by the trial court, which directed the removal of links and blocking of social media handles belonging to political parties and associated entities. The plaintiff, M/S MRT Music, alleged copyright infringement when videos from a national political party's yatra used music similar to their film soundtrack (KGF Chapter-2). The Karnataka High Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the restrictive injunction orders but mandating that all involved parties remove the offending content from social media platforms. The matter was then remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
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.
S M Motorenteile Gmbh v.Maharashtra Motors & Ors.
S M Motorenteile GmbH successfully pursued an infringement suit in the Delhi High Court regarding its 'SM' trademark used for high-quality automotive parts. While a settlement was reached with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the court decreed the suit against Defendants 4 to 6, finding them liable for selling counterfeit products under the disputed mark. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining clear documentation of brand history and rights in complex international IP disputes.
Enlearn Education Private Limited & Anr. v.Sd Memorial Education And Welfare Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application filed by Enlearn Education Private Limited against Sd Memorial Education Society concerning the use of the mark 'HERITAGE'. The court found prima facie grounds for intervention, noting that the Defendants adopted a similar name ('THE HERITAGE PRIDE MODERN SCHOOL') after being aware of the Plaintiffs' established trademark rights. Consequently, the Court issued an immediate directive restraining the Defendants from opening any further schools incorporating the word 'HERITAGE' or applying for recognition under that name. The court reserved the final decision on interim relief regarding the existing school until proper notice was served.
T. V. Today Network Limited v.News Laundry Media Private Limited
T. V. Today Network Limited, a major media group operating channels like AajTak and India Today Television, filed a suit seeking relief against News Laundry Media Private Limited for alleged infringement of its content. The plaintiff sought an interim mandatory injunction to prevent further dissemination of allegedly defamatory and infringing material. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that since the plaintiff could be compensated with damages (quantified at Rs. 2 crores), there was no irreparable loss warranting immediate injunctive relief.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Plaintiffs (Boehringer Ingelheim) filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants (Dr. Reddy's Laboratories) for infringing their patent No. 268846, covering Empagliflozin products. The court heard applications concerning the continuation and vacation of an existing ad-interim injunction.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
Parle Products Private Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
Parle Products filed a suit against Britannia Industries alleging disparagement and unfair competition through advertisements for 'Britannia Milk Bikis.' The court found that the use of terms like 'G-NAHI' and similar packaging strongly suggested a comparison with Parle-G. Recognizing both parties' willingness to resolve the dispute, the Delhi High Court referred them to mediation while issuing an interim injunction preventing Britannia from re-publishing the print advertisements.
Pfizer Inc v.Azista Industries Private Limited
The suit was filed by Pfizer Inc seeking an injunction against the infringement of Patent No. IN 218291, which covers the pharmaceutical product 'Palbociclib'. The court condoned the delay in filing replications and made the existing ad-interim injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit.
Novartis A G v.Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Novartis A G filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Supermax Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited for infringing its patent (IN 237430) covering the drug molecule Nilotinib. The dispute arose after the Defendant submitted bids to a government tender using the patented substance. During the proceedings, the Defendants conceded that they had no intention to manufacture or sell the preparation during the patent's lifetime. Consequently, the court decreed the suit for permanent injunction, contingent upon the filing of an affidavit detailing existing stock and an undertaking to comply with the decree.
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.
Usha International Limited v.Citizen Udyog
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant seeking vacation of an interim injunction and return of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. While the defendant argued that all operations were outside Delhi, the plaintiff countered by citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and evidence showing export activities originating from ICD Delhi. The court directed both parties to obtain and file the Local Commissioner's report and related photographic evidence before proceeding with the substantive arguments.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals & Others v.MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, patent holders of Indian Patent No. 312847 covering a combination therapy for diabetes (Metformin + Canagliflozin), filed suit against the defendant for infringement. The court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of the plaintiffs and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing the infringing product.
Essential Export Sociedad Anonima v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Essential Export Sociedad Anonima challenging the rejection of its multi-class trademark application (No. 3639686). While dismissing a request for stay, the court found prima facie grounds to reconsider the matter. The court noted that certain facts, including oppositions and COVID-19 related adjournments, had not been properly considered by the Registrar's Examiner. Consequently, the case was remanded back to allow for fresh consideration of the application.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Woodol International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of Volvo, granting a preliminary decree against Woodol International regarding the unauthorized use of the 'VOLVO' trademark on lubricants. Despite initial defenses by the defendants claiming no infringement and non-compliance with mediation requirements, the court accepted the affidavits stating that the defendants had ceased or were not manufacturing under the mark. The suit will now proceed to trial to determine the final quantum of damages and rendition of accounts.
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.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Laziq Trading Company
The Plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, filed an interim application seeking relief against Laziq Trading Company for alleged infringement of its well-known trademarks and copyrights associated with the DR. FIXIT silicone sealant range. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling goods bearing similar marks or infringing the artistic work on the packaging.
EDUSPARK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED v.LAXMI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the defendant, Laxmi Publications Private Limited, to take proactive measures regarding the disputed mark 'VIBGYOR'. The court noted that the defendant had taken down references to the trademark from its website and Facebook page and communicated with distributors to cease sales. The defendant was subsequently directed to file a detailed affidavit within three weeks outlining all compliance steps taken.
Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v.Akash S. Shah & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a suit filed by Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. against Akash S. Shah & Anr., which sought permanent injunctions for trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement, which the court incorporated into its decree. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on these terms, and the Plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire Court Fees.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
Ageless Clinic Private Limited v.Am Ageless Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted further interim relief in favor of Ageless Clinic Private Limited against Am Ageless Private Limited. Despite previous orders, the Defendant failed to comply by continuing to use infringing business names on signage, maintaining deceptive domain names (like i-am-ageless-aesthetic-and-dental-centre.business), and active social media accounts. The Court made absolute the Leave Petition for Letters of Patent and issued a strong injunction restraining the defendant from using any mark or handle containing 'AGELESS' that could lead to passing off.
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public International School
The Delhi Public School Society filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Delhi Public International School for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the use of 'DPIS' was deceptively similar to their established brand 'DPS'. The court initially granted an interim injunction recognizing the plaintiff's prior rights. However, upon considering subsequent developments, particularly the change in name by the defendant school, the court concluded that the main cause of action no longer survived against all parties. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, allowing the plaintiff to pursue remedies regarding pending trademark applications.
H.S. Sahni, Sole Proprietorm/S M. K. Auto Sales Corporation v.Saic Motor Corporation Limited & Ors
This Delhi High Court order initiates a trademark infringement suit filed by H.S. Sahni against Saic Motor Corporation Limited concerning the use of the marks 'M.G' and 'M.G.I' in the automotive sector. The Plaintiff claims rights based on continuous use since 1989 and registered trademarks from 1998, alleging that the Defendant is infringing upon these established marks. While procedural applications were disposed of, the Court formally registered the suit and directed the Defendants to file a detailed affidavit regarding their sales figures and product launches under the disputed mark.
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.