IP Cases — 2023
1,151 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 16 of 39 · 1,151 total
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents
Manu Chaudhary appealed against the Controller of Patents' order dated May 31, 2023, which refused his patent application (No. 2545/DEL/2010). The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearings.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
Fontaine Limited v.Vinod Mahadik & Anr.
Fontaine Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'impugned mark,' registered by Vinod Mahadik & Anr. The Petitioner demonstrated that the Respondent had failed to use the mark continuously for over five years, providing evidence of non-use through investigator reports and online searches showing inactivity. Given the Respondent's failure to appear despite substituted service, the Court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the conflicting registration.
Vending Updates (India) Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Vending Updates (India) Private Limited against the refusal of its device mark registration. The initial objection, based on similarity to Amazon's registered trademark, was overcome when Amazon Technologies, Inc. provided a Letter of Consent. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection order and directed the application to proceed towards publication and registration.
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd v.Pushpendra Yadav
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging design and trademark infringement against Pushpendra Yadav and others, specifically targeting water purifiers sold on Flipkart. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants' products infringed their registered Design No. 219309 for a water purifier and used deceptively similar marks like AQUA GRAND+ infringing KENT GRAND+. The Delhi High Court allowed the interim application, finding prima facie evidence of both design piracy and trademark infringement.
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited v.M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited appealed against an order passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, which allowed temporary injunctions sought by the plaintiff. The appeal challenged the misuse and misrepresentation of the plaintiff's logo, channel name, and assets by the defendants. The High Court dismissed the appeals but held that the impugned order was subject to the trial court's determination of jurisdiction.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited filed a civil suit against M/s. Indianpasand Inc. and other defendants, alleging trademark infringement (SANGU vs. SHIPPY), copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of their registered marks and artistic designs by the defendants. However, due to the current non-sale status of the disputed products, the plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the suit against the first defendant while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case if infringement occurs in the future.
Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Henkel Ag And Co. Kgaa, setting aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to register a subject mark. The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider crucial material on record, including evidence of opposition and abandonment status of cited marks, as well as a NoC obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was remanded back for the Respondent to conduct a fresh hearing based on all submitted facts.
Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and made key interim directions in the case concerning the Geographical Indication (GI) for Chilean Pisco. The court allowed various exemptions related to documentation due to pandemic conditions, while also agreeing to delete one respondent from the array of parties. Crucially, the court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks & GI would not pass final orders on the GI application no. 689 until further notice, providing a temporary stay on the registration process.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art. The court directed that an IPO official must be present for further hearings to address these technical objections.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General Of Patents and Designs And Anr.
The case 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 its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Kamal Kumar & Ors. v.Jagteshwar Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Kamal Kumar & Ors. against Jagteshwar Singh & Anr., which originated from a suit involving trademark and copyright infringement claims. The court noted that due to regulatory notifications, the matter needed specific handling within the IP division of the High Court. Consequently, the Registry was directed to re-register the appeal and schedule its hearing before the Intellectual Property Division on March 14, 2023.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of his process patent related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The dispute centered on whether the Defendants' product was made using the patented process, and how to balance the need for evidence with the protection of Defendants' trade secrets.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
M/S Malabar Gold Private Limited v.Mr. M. Manuvel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed interim applications in the trademark dispute between Malabar Gold Private Limited and Mr. M. Manuvel. The defendant argued that the existing injunction should be vacated because the plaintiff failed to disclose specific conditions imposed by the Trade Marks Registry regarding their trademarks, particularly concerning the exclusive right over 'M' or 'MALABAR'. The court accepted submissions from both parties and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Media Private Limited
In a matter concerning trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court issued an order on April 2, 2024. The court addressed the Plaintiff's concerns regarding ongoing trademark filings by the Defendant through 'VISTARA PRAKASHANA LLP'. Upon receiving notice, the Defendant stated its intention to dissolve the LLP and withdraw all related trademark applications. Consequently, the court determined that no immediate directions were necessary for the Plaintiff at this juncture.
Fybros Electric Private Limited v.Hira Lal Jain Trading As Vikram Cable Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Private Limited's petition, directing the removal of the rival trademark 'NEBROS' from the trade mark register. The court found that NEBROS was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier marks and covered identical goods (wires and cables) in Class 9. Given the likelihood of public confusion, the High Court ruled that the registration of NEBROS should not be upheld.
Roxtec Ab & Anr v.Sukant Chakravarty & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Roxtec Ab & Anr seeking permission to file rectification petitions against registered trademarks, which the defendants argued were monopolizing common industry terms. The court examined the claims related to a 'Bulls Eye' device mark and the slogan 'We Seal Your World'. While addressing the scope of trademark rights, the Court ultimately disposed of the application but framed an issue regarding whether Roxtec India Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) was a necessary party in the ongoing suit.
Subway Ip Llc v.Infinity Food & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff Subway IP LLC's request for an interim injunction against Infinity Food & Ors. The court found that despite initial allegations of trademark infringement and passing off (using similar names like 'VEGGIE DELICIOUS'), there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers, especially given the reputation of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court clarified that similarity in restaurant décor or layout alone does not grant a monopoly under Indian law, leading to the dismissal of the injunction request.
Tvs Electronics Limited v.Jitender Kumar
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tvs Electronics Limited against a lower court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. The plaintiff, owner of the 'TVS Electronics' mark, sought restraint against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to CCTV cameras. However, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised regarding the balance of convenience, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark subject to maintaining accounts.
Tata Global Beverages Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The Calcutta High Court received the matter (OA/11/2016/PT/KOL) on transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Department to issue notices and file a report.
M/s.Aquasub Engineering v.M.Mandal Trading as Aqua Tech Enterprises
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by M/s.Aquasub Engineering seeking to rectify or cancel the registration of the trademark AQUATECH (No. 1925332). The court found that the trade mark had lapsed because its last valid registration expired on February 22, 2020, and was not renewed within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. / Natco Pharma Limited / Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd / Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr. / Alkem Laboratories Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of six suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants who were launching or had launched the generic version of the patented drug. While the court dismissed one related writ petition, it granted interim relief restraining all defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending the final disposal of the suits. Furthermore, the court allowed defendants to exhaust their existing stock, provided they file an affidavit detailing the batch numbers and expiry dates.
Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
The matter (OA/10/2019/Pt/Kol) was received by the Calcutta High Court upon transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report.
Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.New Hope Food Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of multiple Original Petitions filed by Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd seeking cancellation of several trademarks. The court noted that both parties had reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2018. This agreement defined specific usage rights for the 'MILKA' mark in Class 30, ensuring mutual non-infringement across various product categories. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of based on this existing compromise, avoiding a full judicial hearing.
Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sujatha Manthri trading as Herald Healthcare
The Madras High Court allowed Corona Remedies' petition to rectify the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'B9' (No. 3281514) registered by Sujatha Manthri. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established mark 'B29', especially considering both marks were used for pharmaceutical products. Given Corona Remedies' long history of use, significant sales turnover, and reputation, the court ruled in favor of removing the conflicting registration.
Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
V.V.Chandran v.Atco Udyog
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the District Court concerning a counter claim for revocation of a patent. The court held that the matter falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the High Court, but dismissed the petition because it was not suitable for admission at that stage.
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.