IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 34 of 42 · 1,252 total
M/S Bharath Chemical Industries v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Bharath Chemical Industries seeking the rectification of a trademark register. The petitioner had sought to expunge the name of another party from the registration of the mark 'BCI-BHARATHA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES' (TM No. 2835990). However, during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner voluntarily submitted that the petition was withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn, while reserving all rights for the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
M/s. Symphony Recording Co. v.Dr.K.Shobana
The appellant (M/s. Symphony Recording Co.) appealed an order that granted interim injunctions to the respondent (Dr. K. Shobana), alleging infringement of her copyright in sound recordings ('Kanda Sashti Kavacham' and 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star'). The core dispute revolved around whether agreements signed by Dr. Shobana while she was a minor were valid, and the rights of the performer under the Copyright Act.
Yang, Liping v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Yang, Liping appealed an order dated November 18, 2013, which refused his Indian Patent Application (No. 2769/DELNEP/2004). The refusal was based on the patent not meeting Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. The court issued directions for service and filing of replies to proceed with the appeal.
M/s Rockmed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Nukind Healthcare & Anr.
The suit was filed under Section 27 of the Trade Mark Act against M/s Nukind Healthcare and others, alleging that they were passing off pharmaceutical products under the identical trademark 'KETOGOLD'. The plaintiff established extensive use, goodwill, and reputation of the mark. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Ht Media Limited v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit between Ht Media Limited and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. The original dispute centered on the use of trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'PEHLA NASHA.' Crucially, both parties successfully reached a settlement through the court's mediation center. Consequently, the High Court decreed the underlying suit based on the terms of the executed Settlement Agreement, effectively concluding the litigation.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an infringement suit filed by Rspl Health Private Limited against Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of 'XPERT' in its registered word mark, 'HARPIC DRAIN XPERT,' infringed upon the plaintiff's device mark registration. While the court acknowledged the merits of the dispute, it primarily issued procedural directions, allowing the suit to proceed and setting timelines for filing written statements and interim replies.
M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf v.Paras Agarwal T/A M/S Purushottam Agarwal and Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf, against the Defendants. The suit alleged infringement and passing off concerning registered trademarks and copyright related to jewellery products. Given the strong goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's 'MD' marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the Defendants' use of similar marks like 'MD PAYAL', the court found a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff. The injunction restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks until further hearing.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.M/S.Himachal Milk Food Products
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Himachal Milk Food Products alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights, specifically concerning the use of similar containers and labels on dairy products like Ghee. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit, which was subsequently granted by the Madras High Court.
Microsoft Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 487/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on vague grounds, including failure to adhere to a non-defined 'method step format' and falling under Section 3(k) as an algorithm-based invention. The High Court found the Controller's reasoning lacking focus and unsustainable.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 4380/DELNP/2013) concerning pharmaceutical products for treating ischemia. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on prior art D-5/D-6 and Section 3(d), was flawed because these documents were not cited during the initial hearing. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for de novo consideration.
Krbl Limited v.Manoj Sah
Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Manoj Sah and others for infringement, disparagement, and dilution of its flagship trademark 'INDIA GATE', used for Basmati Rice. The court found that the defendants' actions amounted to infringement under Section 29(8) and 29(9) of the Trademark Act, 1999.
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.
Dinesh Kumar Mittal M/S Paras Enterprises v.Pragya Trading Company, Kaserate
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the removal of the impugned mark from the Trademark Register. The court noted that despite the petitioner's claims, the registration had expired on February 21, 2022, and the statutory one-year period for restoration under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had lapsed without any renewal application being filed. While this order addresses the validity status of the mark, it explicitly leaves all merits of the dispute open for future consideration.
Mirza Ahmed Baig Alias Asad v.Mirza Afser Baig & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard petitions challenging the registration of several marks held by the respondent, focusing on issues of user claim and proprietorship. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of continuous use and ownership, particularly regarding the mark 'MIDLAND'. The court noted these submissions but reserved judgment, scheduling a further hearing to allow the respondents to respond to the detailed challenges raised by the petitioner.
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.
Emitech Gesellschaft Fur Emissionstechnologie MBH v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks And Anr
Emitech Gesellschaft Fur Emissionstechnologie MBH filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 9107/DELNP/2011 by the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks. The patent application relates to a heatable honeycomb body designed for motor vehicles, allowing exhaust gas flow through electrically conductive layers. Emitech contended that the rejection was erroneous as the invention introduced novel features not found in existing prior art.
Alternative Gene Expression S L v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application, which held that the method of producing recombinant proteins by destruction of pupa was non-patentable under Section 3(b). The High Court found the rejection order to be cryptic and lacking reasoned justification despite detailed submissions from the appellant.
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
The petitioner filed a writ appeal claiming that the respondent, APDCL, was infringing its patent rights related to a Prepaid/Postpaid Electricity Supply Machine. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the remedy for patent infringement is compensation or injunction under the Patents Act, 1970, the matter must be heard by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a global pharmaceutical company, filed suit against Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants intended to launch a generic version, 'Ferocose FCM', which would infringe upon their patent (No. 221536). After considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction.
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.
Under Armour, Inc v.Shri Jagmeet Singh
Under Armour filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shri Jagmeet Singh and others for infringement and passing off related to its trademarks 'UA' and 'UNDER ARMOUR'. The plaintiff argued that these marks are well-known globally and in India, leading to violation by the defendants. The court found in favor of Under Armour, granting a permanent injunction.
Cambridge Enterprises Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs that refused Patent No. 2216/KOLNP/2009, claiming it was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The court examined the filing records and found that the application was correctly filed on June 5, 2009, within the stipulated deadline.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a method for text selection on touch screens. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was not the technical merits of the invention itself, but rather the procedural flaw in the Assistant Controller's rejection order. The court found that the impugned order lacked discernible reasoning and appeared to be a mechanical replication of claims, rendering the decision arbitrary. Consequently, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
M/S K.W Enterprises v.M/S Karam Industrial Works
M/S K.W Enterprises filed a petition seeking the cancellation of an artistic work registered in favor of M/S Karam Industrial Works under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner argued that the respondent had previously undertaken not to use 'K.I.W.' in relation to cycle parts, which is deceptively similar to K.W. The court observed that this matter was already being disputed in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 1035/2016).
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Nuberg Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Sun Pharma and Nuberg Pharmaceuticals reached a full settlement in their commercial IP dispute before the Delhi High Court. The court formally decreed the suit based on the agreed-upon terms, which included significant concessions from both parties. Furthermore, the judgment mandated that Respondent No. 2 remove a specific trademark entry (No. 3797651) from the Register of Trademarks within six weeks.
Applicant/Plaintiff (Name not specified) v.M/S.Knoll Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to initiate fresh trademark rectification proceedings against a registered mark held by the respondent. The court noted that multiple rectification actions were already pending before the Registrar and other forums initiated by both parties. Consequently, the court rejected the plaintiff's request for leave, emphasizing that existing legal processes must be allowed to run their course to prevent conflicting judgments.
Rspl Limited v.Grindwell Norton Limited
Rspl Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Grindwell Norton Limited before the Delhi High Court. The parties reached a compromise where Grindwell Norton agreed not to manufacture or market products under deceptively similar marks (like 'COMPASS GHADI CHAP') in specific classes, while Rspl Limited withdrew its opposition and agreed not to seek damages. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without protracted litigation.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors.
The dispute concerned alleged patent infringement regarding Ecomax Solutions' Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATCS) against Energeo Building Solutions' AFCS. The court examined whether the defendants' system infringed the claims of IN 382118. The court found that the AFCS was prima facie dissimilar to the suit patent, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's injunction application.
Aska Equipments Private Limited v.Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari & Ors.
The appellant, Aska Equipments Private Limited, sought to withdraw its appeal and related applications. The counsel requested liberty to file an application seeking revocation of a patent in the Trial Court, which could then be transferred to the High Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.
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.