IP Cases — 2023
1,360 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 12 of 46 · 1,360 total
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
M/S Vajiram And Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP v.Sh. S.S Choudhary and Anr / M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated a suit for injunction (CS(COMM) 43/2019) against M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd. with a related trademark cancellation petition (C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 213/2022). The core dispute involves the use of similar marks ('VAJIRAO' vs 'VAJIRAM') by two coaching institutes for civil services examinations. By consolidating the trials, the court aims to prevent multiplicity and address whether the defendant's trademark registration is liable for cancellation.
Sri.A.J.Shashank S/O A.N.Jagadish v.Aiplex Software Private Limited
The plaintiff, who runs a YouTube channel uploading film clips from 'Encounter Dayanayak', sued Aiplex Software and others seeking mandatory injunction to withdraw copyright strikes and damages. The defendants argued that they were acting as an authorized antipiracy service provider for M/s Kasturi Media, which held the absolute rights over the movie.
Sheeja Menon trading as M's Shwethas Hygeine Products v.M/s. Novel Tissues Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, finding that the first respondent fraudulently registered an identical device mark (No. 2298691) in Class 16. The petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and ownership rights over the mark for cosmetic wet wipes since 2011. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the impugned registration, preventing confusion in the market.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties in the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, Unilever Global Ip Limited, based on the terms agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
M/S.Avon Emery Industries v.Sabko Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S. Avon Emery Industries against an earlier ruling that rejected its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court affirmed the trial court's decision after considering arguments from both sides regarding whether the original suit included claims for trademark infringement or only passing off. Given the respondent's clarification that the suit was solely for passing off, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order.
International Foodstuffs Co. Llc v.Vijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...
The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble Company appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'A DETERGENT COMPOSITION COMPRISING LIPASE VARIANT'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art. P&G argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles due to procedural delays.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Neospark Drugs And Chemicals Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited, directing the removal of the trademark MAXCAL GEL (No. 2102511) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed within the statutory time limits. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark rights through timely renewal procedures.
Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.R.Neelakanteswara Rao
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought the rectification of registered trademark No. 943699 in Class 1. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the case on instructions from their counsel, leading to the dismissal of the petition without any order as to costs.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh And Anr.
In a dispute over trademark rights, Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. sought to cancel registrations held by Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh concerning the 'TIGER' device logo. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks used by both parties and issued an interim order. The court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the registration, preventing any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademarks until further hearing.
Sml Limited v.Mohan & Company & Another
Sml Limited filed a suit alleging that defendants are manufacturing and selling a fertilizer product named Zeeka Sulf, which infringes upon its Indian Patent No. IN 282092. The plaintiff provided chemical analysis reports and expert opinions confirming that the composition of Zeeka Sulf falls within the scope of the patented claims.
FC Madras Trust v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by FC Madras Trust against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'FC MADRAS'. The initial objection was based on Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, claiming the mark was a common geographical name and lacked distinctive character. The court ruled that when viewed as a whole, the mark is not descriptive of the goods (printed publications), especially given its prior successful registration in other classes. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No. 314/CHE/2009, concluding that the claims lacked inventive step. The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions regarding prior art and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P. v.Home Needs
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an adverse commercial court order in favor of The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., which was seeking to protect its trademarks against 'POLOLIFETIME'. The court noted that the appellant holds registrations for 'POLO' and 'RALPH LAUREN', and referenced prior findings recognizing these marks as 'well-known'. Finding merit in the challenge, the High Court stayed the lower court's order until further hearing.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Arkema France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Arkema France appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a 'Heat Transfer Method'. The appellant argued that the rejection relied heavily on a new prior art document (D5) introduced only at the hearing stage. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing potential amendments under Section 59 if disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust v.M/s.Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust filed two Original Petitions seeking the revocation and removal of Patents No. 207233 and 234103, both held by M/s. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., in the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to transfer these matters for adjudication regarding patent invalidity. However, the court noted that both patents had already expired on March 24, 2019. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Glaxo Group Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Dermazone Pharmaceuticals in a trademark infringement suit. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendant's mark, 'BECLOVATE,' is phonetically and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark, 'BETNOVATE.' Given the identical nature of the products (skin treatments) and strong market presence of Glaxo, the court granted immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion. The injunction restricts the manufacture and sale of the infringing product moving forward.
M/S. Suparshva Swabs India v.Sh. Vipul Chhabra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's request to cancel a registered trademark, finding no deceptive similarity between the marks. The court held that despite both marks starting with 'T' and ending with 'IP', the overall visual, phonetic, and structural differences were substantial enough to prevent consumer confusion. This ruling emphasizes that similarity must be assessed as a whole, not merely by common letters.
Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited v.Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition filed by Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited against an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had previously allowed a rectification petition, effectively invalidating the petitioner's registered trademark. The court found that the original order violated the principles of natural justice because service of notice was not properly effected on the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the rectification petition be heard afresh before the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Court.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union Of India
Umaid Mohonot appealed against an order dismissing their writ petitions, which challenged a show cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellants argued that the notice was invalid because related disputes concerning the 'Arrow' trademark were pending before the Delhi High Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The court ultimately held that the administrative action taken by the Registrar was distinct from the private inter se dispute, thus upholding the validity of the show cause notice.
Burger King Company Llc v.Virendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the strong protection afforded to the 'BURGER KING' trademark, declaring it a well-known mark under the Trade Marks Act. The court relied on Burger King's extensive global presence, long history (since 1954), massive promotional spending, and established secondary meaning in India. This judgment reinforces that globally recognized brands can secure enhanced legal protection against unauthorized use by local operators.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Shree Sakshat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Heineken Asia Pacific filed cancellation petitions against trademarks registered by Shree Sakshat Infrastructure, alleging that the Respondent is a squatter who has registered an identical device mark. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks in dispute. Consequently, the court directed that status quo be maintained concerning the registration and prohibited any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademark until further proceedings.
Vrajotsav Goswami v.Devendra Verma And Anr.
The plaintiff, Vrajotsav Goswami, sought permanent injunction against defendants for infringement of his 'Vrajrang' style/trademark and passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the name 'Vrajrang (ब्रजररग)' by the defendant No. 1 in publishing a book. Both the main suit and the counter claim filed by the defendant were ultimately dismissed.
Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd v.Shree Ram Plastic Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application filed by Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd and Respondent No. 1, leading to the cancellation of the impugned trademark registration (No. 2262092) in Class 17. This decision was reached following a compromise between the parties involved in the dispute. The court disposed of the appeal based on these mutual settlement terms.
Ten Events And Entertainment v.Novex Communications Private Limited & Ors.
Ten Events And Entertainment filed a declaratory suit challenging the requirement to obtain licenses or NOCs from Defendants, who claimed copyright over songs played during wedding events. The plaintiff argued that such usage falls under 'fair dealing' as per Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts—such as the nature and bona fides of the ceremony—required by law to establish a cause of action for this specific declaration. Consequently, the court dismissed the interim application and directed the plaintiff to show cause why the entire suit should not be dismissed.
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.
Novartis AG v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Novartis AG appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding an opposition filed under Section 25(2) concerning Patent No. 223313. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 223313 had expired on May 16, 2023.
Agfa Nv & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Agfa Nv appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'MANUFACTURING OF DECORATIVE LAMINATES BY INKJET'. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of clarity, succinctness, and inventive step. The Delhi High Court examined these grounds, particularly focusing on whether vague terms like 'thermosetting resin' were adequately defined in the complete specification. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order, directing the Patent Office to proceed with granting the patent.
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.