IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 42 · 1,252 total
M/s Levi Strauss & Company v.Vishal Kashyap
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Vishal Kashyap alleging that he was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the defendant had illegally adopted the plaintiff's distinctive features and infringed upon its rights.
Priya Randolph v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision rejecting their patent application (201641026786) on the grounds that the invention was a 'business method' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The court examined the claims, which related to concealing physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software and hardware. The High Court held that the monopoly claim was on a technical solution for data privacy, not merely a business method.
M/s Meenu Electric Co. v.M/s Dynamic Electricals; M/s Golden Cab Industries; M/s Vijay Cable Co.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside a trial court's order that had stayed an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the defendants could invoke Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to halt proceedings pending rectification before the IPAB. The Court ruled that merely having rectification applications filed during the pendency of the suit is insufficient; the plea of invalidity must be raised specifically and before the commencement of trial, otherwise, it is deemed abandoned.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of appeal proceedings and shortening of the time period for the Respondent to lodge a Statement of response. The Appellants had appealed an order of the Court of First Instance rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English, and sought an expedited decision before 22 December 2023, the deadline for filing their Statement of defence in the main proceedings.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
Balanced Body Inc. v.Yasmins Body Image Private Limited & Anr.
Balanced Body Inc., a U.S.-based company, filed suit against Yasmins Body Image Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents related to 'REFORMER EXERCISE APPARATUS' and 'ARM CORD SUPPORT RISERS'. The court examined evidence showing that the Defendant No.1 was operating gyms with machines clearly mapping on the Plaintiff's granted patents. Consequently, the Court issued directions for the Defendant No.1 to disclose the source and quantity of the alleged infringing equipment.
NEC Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
NEC Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its Patent Application No.7830/CHENP/2014, which was based on the alleged violation of Section 7(2) of the Patents Act due to the date of declaration by an inventor. The court held that there is a distinction between the date of assignment and the date of declaration, finding the impugned order unsustainable.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application sought to determine the method of inquiry regarding whether certain moulds/dyes were infringing material, considering the original patent had expired. The court considered the request for an independent scientific adviser under Section 115 but proceeded by allowing the parties to file their respective expert affidavits.
ATC IP LLC & Anr. v.Owner Of <Https://Atcindiatower. In/> & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of ATC IP LLC, granting a permanent injunction against the operators of infringing domain names. The court found that the defendants' websites copied the plaintiffs' registered trademarks ('ATC', 'ATC India') and logos, causing potential misuse. Furthermore, the court ordered NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the infringing domain name www.atctower.in to ATC IP LLC, effectively resolving the dispute through summary judgment.
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.
Vega Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Sagar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Vega Industries challenging the registration of the trademark 'VIGA' by Vinod Sagar Jain. While noting that the correct remedy for the appellant might be rectification, the court preliminarily found no cause for grievance if certain listed products were excluded from the scope of goods. The stay application filed by Vega was ultimately rejected, and the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. v.Wefrew Educations P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. against Wefrew Educations P. Ltd., finding that Vidya Mandir had a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of its trademarks and proprietary course materials. The court observed that Wefrew was allegedly using these assets while simultaneously claiming disassociation, causing potential irreparable harm to the petitioner. Consequently, Wefrew was immediately restrained from using any material or marks associated with Vidya Mandir Classes.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
Unified Patent Court decision.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Appellants' (OPPO and OROPE) request for expedition of their appeal against a Court of First Instance order rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court held that granting the request would give the Respondent only four working days to respond, insufficiently accounting for the Respondent's interests and the principles of proportionality, fairness, and equity.
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited v.M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited filed a review petition challenging an earlier dismissal by the Copyright Board on grounds of being time-barred. The core dispute involved objections raised by the petitioner against M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited's attempt to register copyright for the artistic work 'INDOBRINE DANDI SALT/DANDI NAMAK'. Although the initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays, the High Court considered the parties' claims and subsequent settlement. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Copyright Office for fresh consideration.
Atos India Pvt. Ltd v.The State of Maharashtra
Atos India Pvt. Ltd challenged an order from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, arguing that its work providing bug fixing and maintenance services on QAD Inc.'s ERP software was a service contract, not a sale of goods or developed software. The core dispute revolved around whether modifying existing proprietary code constituted 'development' leading to a taxable supply under the MVAT Act. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Atos India, holding that the transaction was fundamentally an indivisible contract for services.
Toyo Aluminium Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application ('MULTILAYER BODY AND CONTAINER') due to non-compliance with requirements for inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The court allowed a procedural exemption and directed the respondent counsel to file written submissions before listing the matter further.
Grasim Industries Limited v.Lenzing Ag & Anr.
Grasim Industries Limited filed a revocation petition against Patent no. IN 367685, granted to Lenzing AG for 'Fire-retardant cellulose fiber'. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications and initiated proceedings by issuing notice and setting timelines for filing the counter affidavit.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application concerns whether certain moulds/dyes are infringing material, despite the original patent having expired. The court considered the need for expert determination on this factual question.
Martinswerk GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748011754) by The Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the application qualified as a divisional application containing separate inventive concepts, while the respondent maintained it did not meet Section 16 requirements. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v.Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the trademark cancellation petitions filed by Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited against Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited. The dismissal was based on a pre-existing settlement agreement from 2010, which stipulated that both parties would continue using their respective shade numerals and adopt unique identifiers for future shades. This compromise effectively resolved all disputes related to the trademarks in question.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v.Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.
Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
Manohar Singh v.Shyam Singh
Manohar Singh filed a civil suit against Shyam Singh and others, alleging infringement of his registered trade marks ('Singh') and associated copyrights in connection with mehandi products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Raju Singh' and 'Ram Singh'. However, due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation in recording oral evidence over the years, the court ultimately dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.
Til Healthcare Private Limited v.M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited
Til Healthcare Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited and others, alleging multiple infringements related to the brand 'APETAMIN'. The claims included trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress misuse, and copyright violation concerning its product label. Although the initial prayer sought permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The court heard matters concerning various parties, including T-Mobile Usa Inc vs Controller Of Patents. The hearing focused on issues related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestle Health
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.