IP Cases — 2023
1,151 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 29 of 39 · 1,151 total
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed an injunction seeking to prevent Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd. from unauthorizedly using its proprietary Fantasy Sports Mobile Application (EXCHANGE22). The Plaintiffs claimed that their unique game structure, components, and user interface were protected under copyright law. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately found no prima facie evidence of copyright infringement by the Defendants. Consequently, the court vacated the ex parte injunction previously granted to the Plaintiffs.
The Chinese University Of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4812/CHENP/2012), which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed invention—a process for fetal genomic analysis from maternal samples—was an unpatentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that determining foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not 'diagnostic' in the statutory sense, allowing the patent application to proceed to grant.
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.
Almac Discovery Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Almac Discovery Limited filed an appeal challenging the Impugned Order dated July 19, 2017, passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Indian Patent Application No.82/CHENP/2009. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
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.
Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh v.Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed three trademark rectification petitions filed by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh against Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited. The original petitions, which sought to expunge specific trademarks from the register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were withdrawn by the petitioner before a final ruling could be made. This outcome highlights that procedural decisions, such as withdrawal, can conclude IP litigation without substantive judgment on the merits.
Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading As Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v.Sss Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court addressed critical procedural issues concerning IPR litigation under the Commercial Courts Act. The court clarified that despite the plaintiff's freedom to value a suit, this principle cannot be used to undervalue IPR disputes below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold to avoid the rigors of the CCA. The judgment mandates that intangible rights must be ascribed a 'specified value,' considering both the relief sought and the market value of the IP right involved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order vacating the injunction, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Satish Kumar Panjwani v.Nitin Garg
The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants for using trademarks ('Maa Shakti' and 'Nari Shakti') that were allegedly identical or deceptively similar to their registered copyright/trademark, 'Ruchi Shakti', used for edible oil. The court found that the packaging of the defendant no. 2 was almost identical to the plaintiff's, satisfying the test of likelihood of confusion.
Lakshmi Ring Travellers (Coimbatore) Limited v.Bracker Ag
Lakshmi Ring Travellers filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212183 held by Bracker Ag. The court noted that the term of the impugned patent had already ended on March 26, 2015.
Solera Holdings, Inc. v.Solera Networks Inc.
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Solera Holdings, Inc. seeking the cancellation of Trademark No. 1795016 registered in the name of Solera Networks Inc. The court noted that the trademark registration had already expired on March 13, 2019. Consequently, since the mark was no longer valid, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without any order regarding costs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on the terms of the Consent Minutes of Order.
The Himalaya Durg Company & Ors v.Himalya International Ltd
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. v.Mr. Aman Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application in a trademark infringement suit brought by the Hero Group against various defendants. The court upheld the previous injunction granted on June 1, 2022, which protected the Plaintiffs' trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero') and related intellectual property. Specifically, the existing orders directing the disclosure of details for infringing domain names (like www.elctricbikedelearship.com) and freezing associated bank accounts were maintained throughout the pendency of the suit.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Kba Notasys Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for printing currency notes. The core dispute revolved around whether the prior art documents cited in the International Search Report (ISR) could be considered grounds for rejection during the appeal process. The court acknowledged the relevance of the ISR citations but directed the Respondent No. 2 to file written submissions on this specific point.
M/s.Indian Immunologicals Ltd. v.Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order, allowing M/s. Indian Immunologicals Ltd. (the appellant) to register the trade mark 'INIMOX'. The dispute centered on whether 'INIMOX' was deceptively similar to the prior registered mark 'IMOX' held by Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Court found that despite the similarity, there was no likelihood of confusion because the marks were used in distinct channels—one for veterinary injections and the other for human capsules—and mandated that registration be conditional on its use only for animal health products.
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v.Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited against a deceptively similar trademark registered by its former employees' company, Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was identical and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ALPHA' brand in real estate services. Given the respondent's dishonest adoption of the mark to ride on the petitioner's goodwill, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 7059/DELNP/2011). The dispute centered on whether the parent application (No. 6114/DELNP/2005) truly disclosed multiple inventive concepts, which is a prerequisite for filing a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Nokia Technologies OY v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Technologies OY appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its system and method for listening to audio content. The appellant argued that the refusal order failed to consider their amended claims and responses to objections raised under Section 3(k).
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION' by the Assistant Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 to D6. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the appellant's specific arguments and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Great Galleon Ventures Limited v.Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor Of Dharmesh Distillery & Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex-parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of Great Galleon Ventures Limited (Plaintiff) against Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor (Defendant). The court found that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case regarding trademark infringement and passing off concerning their 'GOA' brand. Crucially, the court dismissed the Defendant's challenge to territorial jurisdiction, noting that the plaint explicitly stated the goods were being sold in Delhi, thereby maintaining the injunction pending final disposal of the suit.
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.
Nripendra Kashyap Constituted Attorney of Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller of patents and Designs Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
The appellant, representing Huawei Device Co., Ltd., filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order granting a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 9270/CHEN/2013. The learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed to withdraw the appeal.
M/S.J.S.F.Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v.Ms.Revathi Mohandass
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by M/S.J.S.F.Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought the removal and rectification of Trademark No. 3712623 in Class 30. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that a compromise had been reached in an earlier infringement action, leading to the withdrawal of the current petition. This outcome highlights how prior litigation settlements can directly impact ongoing IP remedies.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal challenging a single judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the respondent copied not only the registered trademark but also the stylization, color combination, get-up, and trade dress from the appellant. Despite arguments regarding descriptiveness and genericness, the High Court concluded that the appellant's mark had acquired secondary significance due to substantial sales and promotional investment, leading it to issue notice and stay the lower court's adverse findings.
British Engines (UK) Limited v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed British Engines (UK) Limited's appeal against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its mark. The court found that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable because it failed to adequately address the appellant's arguments regarding the device nature and international use of the mark. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to advertisement, though with a crucial caveat: the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual words 'British' or 'Engines'.
Element Six Technologies Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application (No. 10030/DELNP/2011) under Section 3(d). The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the application for fresh consideration of the remaining claims.
Jagdish Prasad v.Jay Prakash Rai And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration for sanitary fittings. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and established that the subsequent, registered mark was deceptively similar to their own long-standing mark. Crucially, the court noted that the Respondent's use lacked credibility as it appeared primarily associated with trading services rather than the goods for which the mark was registered, thus failing to accrue genuine goodwill.
Inreco Entertainment Private Limited v.M/S. Nav Records Private Limited (Nupur Audio)
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by Inreco Entertainment Private Limited against M/S. Nav Records Private Limited. The court granted necessary procedural leaves and dispensed with certain requirements due to the urgency pleaded in the case.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
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.