IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 24 of 42 · 1,252 total
M/s.S.Ponnusamy Gounder & Co. v.Sri Balaji and Co., Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s.S.Ponnusamy Gounder & Co. against Sri Balaji and Co. and the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petition, which sought to cancel a registered trademark (No. 1232741 in Class 30), was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel due to a compromise reached in an earlier case (C.S.No.797 of 2009). This outcome highlights how pre-existing settlements can impact ongoing IP litigation.
Nurnbergmesse Gmbh v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Nurnbergmesse Gmbh filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'India wooed' in Class 35. The appeal sought to set aside the impugned order and allow the trademark application to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. v.Svn Prestige Garden
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. against a lower court's decision to return its trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply because they had simultaneously sought urgent ad-interim injunction relief. The High Court agreed, holding that suits seeking urgent interim relief are exempt from this mandate, thereby setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the main suit to proceed.
Rajah Company v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Rajah Company filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks regarding the registration of the mark RAJAH MALGO. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant chose to withdraw the case. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn without making any substantive order.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care India Private Limited v.M/S Excel Tech A Partnership Firm
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care filed a Writ Petition to challenge an ex parte temporary injunction order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The trial court had restrained the petitioners from manufacturing/marketing products using the respondents' intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trademarks). The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications expeditiously while allowing the interim order to continue until disposal.
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.
Pfizer Inc v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
M/s. Medopharm / Medopharm Private Limited v.Leeford Healthcare Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Medopharm against Leeford Healthcare Limited regarding the use of 'EMICOF' versus the registered mark 'EMCOF'. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for alleged passing off and dilution. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution, which was formalized in a Memorandum of Compromise dated June 21, 2023. The court subsequently decreed the civil suit based on the terms of this compromise.
K.P.D.Rajendran v.Mr.G.Sundarapandian
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by K.P.D.Rajendran seeking the removal of trademarks 'SOLO' and 'BOVONTO.' The court noted that the impugned trademark registrations (Nos. 929435, 929437, and 929438) had not been renewed by the mark owner. Consequently, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
M/s Lacoste S.A. v.Rakesh Goyal
M/s Lacoste S.A. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks (LACOSTE and CROCODILE), leading to counterfeiting, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found the plaintiff's trademark well-known and decreed the suit for permanent injunction and awarded damages.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s. Indianpasand Inc., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (SANGU) and copyright in its artistic label design. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing goods. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s.Indianpasand Inc., alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its 'SANGU' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SHIPPY.' Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in terms of a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application for 'Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties'. The Appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adequately discuss the novelty and inventive step objections. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order summarily rejected the application without due consideration of prior art, leading to its remand.
ITC Limited v.VST Industries Limited
The Madras High Court allowed ITC Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court directed the removal of Trademark No. 509304 from Class 34 on the Register of Trademarks. This decision was made after VST Industries Limited filed a memo indicating no objection to the petitioner's request, effectively clearing the path for the cancellation.
Gautam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gautam Lal Tak filed a writ petition against The Registrar of Trade Marks, seeking expediting of his long-pending trademark registration for 'MAHALAXMI BRAND' in Class 29. After seven years of delay, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition by issuing a directive to the Respondent. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the pending application within six months from receiving the certified copy of the order.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Jb Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Jb Enterprises alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'PRADEEP' and copyright violation concerning its packaging logo. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory disclosure. However, the court noted that both parties had submitted a Deed of Settlement dated 31.01.2023, under which the suit was withdrawn. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the case.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.S.G.E.
Unified Patent Court decision.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patent) challenging an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs concerning its patent application No. 3330/CHE/2011. The appellant subsequently informed the court that it intended to withdraw the appeal.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against the defendants regarding patent IN240893, which relates to asymmetrical beams for spectrum efficiency. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the remaining term of the patent was less than five years, the court directed summary adjudication.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Healthcare LLC sought an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited regarding the patented anti-cancer drug, REGORAFENIB. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting that while the patent was validly granted, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. Crucially, the court considered the public interest, highlighting the significant price disparity between Bayer's imported product and Natco's domestically manufactured, affordable version.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. v.Kavitha Kuruganti
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. appealed a decision by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority (Authority) that revoked its registration for the potato variety FL 2027. The appellant challenged the revocation order, arguing it was based on incorrect information regarding the variety's category and assignment chain, and that the Authority exceeded its jurisdiction. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the respondent's locus standi or the Authority's decision.
Tyron International Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Tyron International Limited appealed an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant later submitted a memo stating its intention to withdraw the appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the case as withdrawn.
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.
Merck KGa-A v.Tablets (India) Limited
Merck KGa-A filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the registration of a trademark application by Tablets (India) Limited. The appeal sought to set aside an earlier order and prevent the issuance of a Registration Certificate for Application No.887909 in Class 5. However, before any substantive arguments were heard, Merck KGa-A chose to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
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.
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.