IP Cases — 2022
744 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 7 of 25 · 744 total
Starbucks Corporation v.Star Bucks Café & Anr.
Starbucks Corporation successfully sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Star Bucks Café & Anr. in the Delhi High Court, asserting that its globally recognized trademarks and logos are being infringed upon. The court granted the interim relief, allowing Starbucks to proceed with a local commission to seize infringing materials such as packaging, uniforms, and menus from the defendants' premises. This order sets the stage for aggressive enforcement action against unauthorized use of the brand.
The Hind Samachar Limited v.M/S Punjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed for the rectification of the 'PUNJAB KESARI NATIONAL' trademark following an inter-party settlement. The court directed the Trademark Registry to amend the registration, limiting the scope and territory of the mark exclusively to specific regions defined in the parties' Memorandum of Family Signature (MoFS). This decision provides a clear legal mechanism for resolving complex territorial disputes between brand owners through negotiated settlements.
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.
Hamlai Industries Pvt Ltd. v.WD 40 Manufacturing Company
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Hamlai Industries challenging an ex parte injunction granted in a trademark dispute. The court noted the Appellants' claims regarding suppressed correspondence and prior international registrations, arguing that the initial injunction should be suspended. However, before deciding on the merits of the stay application, the court issued directions to both parties, requiring the Appellants to disclose detailed sales and import figures since 2010, and the Plaintiff to provide the complete records from the Trial Court.
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.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally registered the lawsuit filed by Relaxo Footwears Limited against M/S Moosa Enterprises & Anr. The suit alleges infringement of the 'SPARX' trademark, along with claims of passing off and copyright infringement. During the initial proceedings, the defendant acknowledged receiving summons and stated that they had ceased online sales of the goods in question following objections from the plaintiff.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
This matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court Original Side from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued procedural directions to the Department regarding record correction and directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties before the returnable date. Consequently, the case was scheduled for listing in January 2023.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The Plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Insecticides India Limited, alleging that the Defendant was infringing their patent (IN'645) by using a patented method for preparing the insecticide CTPR. The court examined whether the Defendant's process was equivalent to the claimed invention.
Kiran Jain & Ors. v.Kangaro Industries (Regd.) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a long-standing dispute between two families regarding the use of the 'KANGARO' trademark for stationery products. Despite the Plaintiffs seeking permanent injunctions against foreign litigation, the Court recognized the complex history and the familial nature of the conflict. Consequently, the court mandated mediation while issuing interim directions allowing both parties to continue their respective trademark applications and statutory proceedings globally, provided they notify the opposing party if new civil or criminal actions are initiated.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P v.Sandeep Arora & Anr.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P filed a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the copyright registration of 'SPORTS POLO' held by Sandeep Arora & Anr. The petitioner argued that the respondent's logo substantially reproduced its well-known trademarks and artistic marks. The court found that the respondent's artwork was an imitation of the petitioner's registered marks, lacking originality, and therefore wrongly registered. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the impugned copyright registration.
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. v.Lupin Limited
SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. filed a suit alleging that Lupin Limited infringed its proprietary technology, NONS (a Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray), by developing and marketing a competing product called NOXGUARD, in breach of a Confidentiality Agreement. The appeal challenged the dismissal of SaNOtize's interim application seeking an injunction against NOXGUARD.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed an appeal challenging a decision by the Senior Examiner regarding its trademark application for 'ALPHARD' in Class 12. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the appellant to cure procedural delays and admitting the appeal, set the matter down for further hearing. Toyota argued that as a prior user of the mark since 2008, the examiner erred in declining registration.
The Hind Samachar Limited v.Punjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition concerning the trade mark 'PUNJAB KESARI' after the involved family members reached an oral and written settlement. The court directed the amendment of the trademark registration, effectively carving out specific geographical territories for both the petitioner (VKC group) and the respondent (AKC group). This resolution allowed the parties to coexist using the same mark within defined regional boundaries.
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.
M/S Thind Industries v.M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between M/S Thind Industries and M/S Pankaj Sales Corporation. Recognizing the appellant's willingness to modify its branding, the court granted permission for M/S Thind Industries to revise its trademark and label. This interim decision allows the parties to move forward with a resolution by allowing the appellant time to submit the revised materials.
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.
Deepak Singh v.Bunty Raghav (Producer) and others
Deepak Singh filed a petition seeking interim relief against producers (Respondents) who were making a film based on his book, 'Janhit Mein Jaari'. The core dispute revolved around copyright infringement. While the High Court noted that the civil suit was pending before the Trial Court and emphasized the need for evidence regarding similarity between the book and the film, it ultimately directed the parties to proceed with the trial court's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., ensuring the existing interim relief continued until a final decision.
TIMAB NL BV v.Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a crucial interim injunction in favor of TIMAB NL BV against Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. The court found that TIMAB had demonstrated prior and continuous use of its mark, making it entitled to restrain Shamrock's use of identical or similar marks for cognate goods. This order significantly protects TIMAB's goodwill and exclusive rights during the pendency of the suits.
Msn Laboratories Private Limited v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
The petitioner filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke patent number 247381 covering APIXABAN. The court allowed notice and directed the completion of pleadings within prescribed timelines.
Pfizer Inc & Ors v.Azista Industries Private Limited & Ors
Pfizer Inc and others filed a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts against Azista Industries Private Limited and others for infringing their patented drug 'Palbociclib'. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim ex parte injunction.
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.
Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned a rejection of the trademark 'HEALTHSKOOL' by the Registrar, which had deemed it descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The court recognized that despite some indicia related to health, the mark was sufficiently distinctive given its long-standing use since 2015 and existing registrations in various classes. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed for advertisement, albeit with a caveat preventing exclusive rights over the generic term 'Health'.
Resilient Innovations Private Limited v.Phonepe Private Limited
Resilient Innovations Private Limited challenged an order passed by the lower court that allowed Phonepe Private Limited to withdraw its trademark infringement suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Appellant argued this grant constituted a jurisdictional error and should be appealable. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on the grounds of maintainability, holding that the Impugned Order was not a 'decree' under the CPC. While avoiding comment on the merits of the IP dispute, the court provided clarity on the legal effect of such withdrawal orders.
Sanofi India Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Limited
Sanofi India Limited filed a suit against Ridley Life Science Private Limited alleging continuous violation of an earlier injunction order, specifically regarding the sale of products under the marks 'CONCIFLAM' and 'CORIFLAM'. The Plaintiff claimed that these infringing products were being sold despite the May 2021 restraint on using marks similar to its registered trademark 'COMBIFLAM'. The court noted the defendant's history of alleged habitual infringement in pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to submit detailed sales figures and imposed a significant deposit amount due to the persistent violations.
Sai Shreeja Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shree Amba Industries
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sai Shreeja Industries seeking an injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging 'slander' and 'libel.' The court noted that the plaintiff's claim stemmed from the defendant opposing the registration of the plaintiff's trademark. Finding that opposition to trademark registration does not inherently constitute slander or libel, the judge indicated the suit might be dismissed for lack of cause of action. However, the Court granted a renotification date to allow the plaintiff to further convince the court of the suit's sustainable basis.
M/S Tejram Dharampaul v.M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Tejram Dharampaul against M/S Ganesh Tobacco Company. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GANESH CHHAP TOBACCO' was likely to cause confusion with the Plaintiff's long-established mark, despite the Plaintiff lacking a formal word mark registration for the specific phrase. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory and seize goods bearing the infringing mark.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Chiral Biosciences Limited for infringing Merck Sharp & Dohme's patent (IN 209816) covering Sitagliptin. Although the court found evidence of infringement, it ultimately denied the permanent injunction because the patent had expired by July 2022, but awarded damages and costs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II v.M/s. Future Brands Ltd
The Commissioner of Service Tax appealed against an order that dropped show cause notices alleging non-payment of service tax on the 'right to use' component of a Trademark License Agreement for the brand 'Ajile'. The Tribunal examined whether the exclusive nature of the license qualified as a 'deemed sale' under constitutional provisions. It ultimately held that since the license was exclusive, it fell within the meaning of 'transfer of right to use,' and thus service tax could not be levied.
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited v.Shri Rhythm Agarwal
M/S. Simpson & Company Limited appealed a judgment that had dismissed its suit against Shri Rhythm Agarwal for trademark infringement and passing off related to 'Radisson' paints. The lower court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action did not arise wholly within its territorial limits, despite the appellant having a branch office in Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench overturned this decision, asserting that Section 134(2) allows filing where the principal place of business is situated, and holding that the court had sufficient jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.
Capital One Financial Corporation v.Ashok Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital One Financial Corporation against Ashok Kumar & Anr. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were unauthorizedly using marks and domain names deceptively similar to 'CAPITAL ONE' to mislead consumers into believing they were dealing with the major US bank. Consequently, the court restrained the parties from using these infringing marks and directed Google LLC to block the associated email address.
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.