IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 30 of 42 · 1,252 total
Fmc Corporation v.Adama India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit alleging that the defendants infringed their process patent (IN'645) related to the manufacture of Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and pleadings.
M/S Thind Motion Films Private Limited v.Ishdeep Randhawa and others
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction passed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, restraining defendants from releasing the film 'Jodi Teri Meri.' The High Court observed that the suit was fundamentally flawed due to jurisdictional error, as claims based on the Copyright Act should have been filed in the District Court. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries seeking permission to cancel the trademarks 'ZEST' and 'FERIZEST' registered by Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court dismissed the request concerning 'ZEST', citing principles of acquiescence, noting that the plaintiff had previously relied on similar marks containing 'ZEST'. However, the court issued notice for the cancellation petition regarding 'FERIZEST', allowing the litigation to proceed on that mark.
Bennett Coleman And Companylimited v.E Entertainment Television Llc And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing rejoinders in trademark cancellation proceedings. The court allowed the delays, allowing the petitioner to file their responses. Furthermore, the court framed specific issues regarding the potential cancellation of two distinct trademarks (No. 2340887 and No. 1252812) and set a clear schedule for the parties to proceed with evidence and trial.
M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of their word mark 'MIRACLES' for medical services (Class 44). The court recognized that due to continuous use since 2012, the mark had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the market. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to the advertisement stage, allowing further scrutiny against existing marks.
Knitpro International v.Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Knitpro International against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of a trademark application for a pattern on a knitting needle. The court found that the subject mark was inherently distinctive, capable of distinguishing goods, and that the objections raised under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act were untenable. Consequently, the court set aside the previous refusal and directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration process.
Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its device mark registration for medical services (Class 44). The court found that despite objections based on similarity to an earlier mark, the appellant had established significant goodwill and continuous use since 2012. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits against any potential opposition.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Amul Electromech Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) against several defendants regarding trademark infringement. The court directed specific defendants to immediately suspend access to infringing domain names (like www.amulfans.com), block social media accounts, and remove product listings on e-commerce platforms like Amazon. For other intermediaries, the court mandated a 'notice and takedown' mechanism, requiring them to promptly remove any content bearing Amul's trademarks upon receiving notification from the plaintiff.
Rspl Limited v.Agarwal Home Products & Anr.
Rspl Limited challenged the registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' by Agarwal Home Products, arguing it was deceptively similar to their well-known brand 'GHADI'. The Delhi High Court examined the phonetic and visual similarities between the two marks. Ultimately, the court found that despite both words being related to time/clocks in Hindi, there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion for cancellation under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the petition seeking revocation was dismissed.
Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pankaj Kumar Patel
The plaintiff, Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, Pankaj Kumar Patel, who used the similar label 'Shri Plosto' on allied goods like water tanks and pipes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to lack of evidence regarding the quantum of loss, while granting an injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Titan Umreifungstechnik Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a plastic strapping band. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step and vagueness in claims (Section 10(4)). The High Court found the rejection unreasoned, particularly regarding Section 10(4), and allowed the appeal.
Dr.Reddy S Laboratories Ltd v.Ancalima Lifesciences Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to frame additional issues and consolidate a related trademark rectification petition into the ongoing passing off suit. The court noted that since the challenge to the defendant's trademark validity was already pending in a separate rectification case, there was no need to frame new issues in the current suit. Consequently, the court ordered the consolidation of the rectification petition with the present suit to ensure unified trial proceedings before the Joint Registrar.
R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd v.Sweety Jain, Proprietor Of Mahajan Foods & Ors
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd against Sweety Jain and others regarding alleged breach of an earlier court undertaking. The respondent parties provided a fresh, binding undertaking to the court, promising not to misuse the petitioner's registered trademark 'NAFIS' or its associated copyright in any manner. With both parties agreeing to this resolution, the court formally disposed of the pending litigation.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.J.B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed suits seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the drug FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions launched by the defendants under names 'JBCARB' and 'CipFCM'.
Adama Makhteshim Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Adama Makhteshim Ltd appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201617025525) by the Controller of Patents, which was based on lack of inventive step and clarity/sufficiency of disclosure. The Court found that procedural irregularities vitiated the impugned order because it failed to address all grounds of objection raised in the Hearing Notice.
Vifor (International) Ltd & Anr. v.Cipla Limited
Vifor filed suits seeking permanent injunction against Cipla and J.B. Chemicals for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex (FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE). The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions of their patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding the patent's nature and previous injunction orders before deciding on the continuation of status quo.
3M Deutschland Gmbh v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed 3M Deutschland Gmbh's appeal against the Senior Examiner's refusal to register its mark 'PENTA'. Although the court noted that several cited marks were phonetically similar, it ultimately favored the appellant due to evidence of the mark's long-standing use and established reputation in India since 2004. The registration application was directed to be processed, though any subsequent opposition would be decided on its own merits.
Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Mahendra Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd against Mahendra Singh and Anr regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiff, owner of the 'BIZFER' marks for pharmaceutical products, successfully argued that the Defendants' use of the similar mark 'VIZFER' constituted deceptive similarity. Given the potential negative ramifications for public health and safety due to the alleged unauthorized use in the pharma sector, the court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or marketing the impugned mark until further hearing.
Under Armour Inc. v.Ashwani & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders to advance the case. The court directed that notice be served on all parties and set a returnable date for July 2023. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking access to the official records of Trademark Registration No. 5372621 in Class 25, ensuring these documents would be placed before the court for consideration.
Pepsico Inc. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc., granting an absolute ad interim injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited. The court found that the unauthorized use of 'MIRINDA' and its Hindi transliteration by the defendant, particularly in connection with country-made liquor, constituted trademark infringement and dilution. This decision underscores the strong protection afforded to well-known marks under Indian IP law, even when goods or trade channels differ.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Mohd Rafique Alam
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mohd Rafique Alam and others for illegal use, passing off, and infringement of its trademarks (LEVI'S) and associated designs. The plaintiff asserted that LEVI'S is a globally recognized and well-known trademark in the apparel industry. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The dispute was settled with the acknowledgment of the plaintiff's rights to use the patent related to Sitagliptin. The defendant confirmed they did not engage in any activities constituting infringement during the patent's validity.
Rosemount Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Rosemount Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement.' The Controller had rejected the patent citing lack of inventive steps based on prior art. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Controller's impugned order was cryptic and failed to provide adequate reasoning or analyze the three essential elements required to determine inventive step. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration with a mandate for a reasoned decision.
Vexim v.The Controller Of Patents
Vexim appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent application, 'Methods and Apparatuses for Bone Restoration,' which was initially denied due to lack of inventive step. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Patent Office had provided adequate reasoning for this refusal. The court found that the impugned order was cryptic, failing to analyze existing knowledge against the subject invention as required by law. Consequently, the rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
Grupo Petrotemex S.A. De C.V. v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 965/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step, even though the initial objection raised by the Patent Office related only to novelty. The High Court found that the impugned order went beyond the scope of the original objection and allowed the appeal.
Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'KHANSI NIVAARAN' (Registration No. 1740206). The court found that the cancellation was mandated by a prior compromise order reached between the parties in C.S.No.644/2011. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to take all necessary steps to expunge the mark from the register.
A.D.Padmasingh Issac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.Hariharan (Trading as Sruthi's Masala) & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by A.D. Padmasingh Issac seeking the removal or rectification of Trademark No. 1759431 from the Register of Trademarks. The court noted that, subsequent to filing the suit, the trademark in question had already been removed from the register. Since the relief sought was no longer necessary due to this prior action, the petition was declared infructuous.
M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. v.Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. challenging the rejection of its trademark renewal applications (No. 1502218 and 1502220). Instead of ruling on the merits of the initial rejection, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for renewal. The respondent authority agreed that if the petitioner submits a new request with all prescribed fees, it will be considered within four weeks.
Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited v.Dr.Isaac Mathai; Soukya Indian Holistic Centre Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trademarks
In a matter concerning the removal and rectification of trademarks, Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited filed two petitions against Dr. Isaac Mathai and others. However, citing a prior memorandum of compromise between the parties, the petitioner subsequently withdrew both petitions. The Madras High Court accepted the withdrawal, dismissing the cases without making any ruling on the merits or costs.
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.