IP Cases — 2022
744 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 25 · 744 total
Cinni Foundation Through Managing Trustee Dipak Kumar Sah v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Cinni Foundation challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'CINNI' in Class 07, which relates to pumps. The court issued notice and directed that the respondents be served with the appeal documents. Both matters were subsequently listed for a detailed hearing on January 16, 2023.
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.
Scipharm Sarl v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Scipharm Sarl appealed a decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the grant of a patent application titled 'Novel Composition for the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis'. The case was transferred from the IPAB to the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Both petitions sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970. The court condoned delays in filing written statements and disposed of related interlocutory applications. The matter was listed for further hearing due to the patent's impending expiry.
Guillermo Horacio Pino v.Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Guillermo Horacio Pino against Blissbury Care Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Plaintiff, who owns significant goodwill associated with the children's content brand 'PLIM PLIM,' successfully argued that the Defendants were using an identical mark for baby diaper products. The Court found a prima facie case, noting the likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's reputation due to consumer confusion.
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.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited through a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court mandated that the defendants clear all existing stock of the disputed drugs within 90 days, ensuring no further sales under the impugned mark. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing several trademark applications and initiating the cancellation of the core registration (No. 5054226) within four weeks.
Dfm Foods Limited v.Ms Nenimemi Foods Private Limited & Anr.
In this intellectual property dispute concerning the 'CORN CURLS' brand, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order allowing Defendant No. 1 to continue selling its existing stock while agreeing to a complete rebranding. The defendant was directed to file an affidavit committing to changing both the product packaging and the trademark from 'CORN CURLS' to 'CORN CURVES'. This decision balances the need for brand protection with practical commercial realities.
Bikanervala Foods Private Limited v.Saatvik Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Bikanervala Foods against Saatvik Foods, concerning the continued use of Bikanervala's concept and intellectual property after the termination of a franchise agreement. While the core dispute is subject to ongoing arbitration, the court issued interim directions. The respondents were specifically ordered to remove photographs installed during the franchise period and modify their menu format to differentiate it from Bikanervala's established standards.
Cnh Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd v.Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a dispute over the cancellation of registered designs related to agricultural technology. The Defendant's application for cancellation of the designs was allowed, leading to appeals by the Plaintiff.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
FMC Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
FMC Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'HERBICIDAL MIXTURES' based on procedural grounds, primarily the failure to file timely written submissions. The High Court noted that while the applicant was responsible for delays, the original order lacked proper reasoning and considered the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in terms of remanding the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Bharat Infracement Limited And 6 Ors
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Bharat Infracement Ltd & Ors. The appeal challenged an interim order that granted ad-interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to attach properties and seize infringing materials. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to Ultratech.
Indulge Sign And Graphics v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant challenged the confiscation and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on imported LED Module Lights bearing the 'Samsung' brand. The core dispute revolved around whether the goods were counterfeit and if the customs department followed the strict procedural timelines mandated by the IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007.
Jagdish Pershad Ladda v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (and others)
The Telangana High Court dismissed a long-pending writ petition challenging an earlier trademark registration order. The dispute involved two parties claiming rights to the 'Super XTRA' mark for detergent products, with one party having filed their application significantly earlier than the other. Given that over sixteen years had passed since the initial filing of the writ petition, the court found the challenge infructuous and declined to disturb the established trademark registration.
Eureka Forbes Limited v.National Internet Exchange Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning a trademark dispute between Eureka Forbes and NIXI/related parties. The court allowed defendants to resume use of the domain name www.rocareindia.com, lifting an earlier ex-parte injunction that had blocked it. However, this relief was conditional: the defendants must strictly adhere to existing restrictions prohibiting them from using or representing themselves as connected with Eureka Forbes' trademarks like 'Aquaguard' and 'Forbes'.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. v.Union Of India & Anr.
Bry-Air Prokon Sagl & Ors. challenged the Controller of Patents' orders that deemed several of their patent applications abandoned and caused a granted patent to lapse, citing failure to file timely responses or renewal fees. The Petitioners argued that delays were due to issues with their Patent Agent and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court acknowledged these facts, quashing the abandonment orders and directing the restoration of all relevant applications and patents.
Entrepreneur Media Inc v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks Delhi
Entrepreneur Media Inc challenged the refusal of its trademark application 'ENTREPRENEUR' by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks Delhi, arguing that the mark was distinctive and had acquired local reputation. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the examiner's order. Crucially, the court did not decide the merits but remanded the case back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review based on specific evidence provided by the appellant regarding cited marks.
M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. v.Essencia Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Allied Blenders And Distillers Ltd. against Essencia Beverages Private Limited. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was infringing its registered trademarks ('Officer's Choice') and copyrighted trade dress by using a deceptively similar label for 'True Blu Reserve Whisky'. Citing the established reputation and well-known status of the Plaintiff's brand, the Court found a prima facie case existed, leading to the immediate restraint on the Defendants' activities until further hearing.
Seal For Life Industries Us Llc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Seal For Life Industries Us Llc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANODEFLEX'. The court held that the rejection, based solely on the ground that the mark was descriptive or had a dictionary meaning, was erroneous. Given extensive evidence of long-term international and domestic use, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
Safex Chemical India Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Safex Chemical India Ltd. challenged the Controller's decision to grant a patent for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition,' arguing that the Petitioner was denied natural justice because they were not informed about the allowance of Respondent No. 2's amendments before the pre-grant opposition hearing. The petitioner contended this procedural lapse rendered the granted patent invalid. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately disposed of the Writ Petition, noting that the petitioner had already availed and was actively pursuing the alternate remedy under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act.
B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing v.Guthy-Renker Llc
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing seeking an expeditious decision on its trademark registration application for 'AYU-HINA'. The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2003, had exceeded the statutory period of 18 months for disposal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to resolve the pending registration within a strict timeframe of three months.
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited v.Union Of India, Registrar Of Trade Mark Ministry Of Commerce And Industries
M/S Money Polymers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention against the Union of India regarding the delayed registration of its trademark, 'Mr. Money.' The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2014, had exceeded the statutory period for decision under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Rajasthan High Court acknowledged this delay and issued a directive compelling the respondent to expeditiously decide the trademark registration application within three months.
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.
Divay Hygiene Private Limited v.Kamal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Divay Hygiene Private Limited against Kamal Garg & Anr. for trademark infringement concerning feminine hygiene products. The court found that the Defendants' use of the deceptively similar mark 'ANNY MAXI' constituted infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's established brand, 'AMMY'. Based on evidence gathered by a Local Commissioner, including seized infringing goods, the Court decreed the suit, awarding nominal damages and significant legal costs to the Plaintiff.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Company And Anr
The court consolidated a rectification petition and a suit related to the same patent. An additional issue was framed regarding whether Indian Patent IN 247381 is liable for revocation under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970.
Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors. v.M I Builders Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Central Park Estates Pvt Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against M I Builders Pvt. Ltd. for using the deceptively similar mark 'M.I. CENTRAL PARK' in real estate projects. Crucially, the court also ordered the cancellation and removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 4164879) from the register, following an out-of-court settlement where the defendant agreed to the terms.
Jack In The Box Inc. v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
In a dispute concerning the Jack In The Box trademark, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order restraining one of the respondents from assigning the disputed trademark rights to any third party. This protective measure was granted after the petitioner expressed concern that such an assignment could render the ongoing litigation infructuous. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in February 2023.
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.
Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another v.Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd
This Commercial Appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed challenges raised by the original defendants against a time-limited, ad-interim injunction and court receiver appointed by the plaintiff. The suit itself was a trademark infringement action combined with passing off. The bench focused primarily on clarifying legal principles regarding applications made without notice to the opposing party.
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.