IP Cases — 2023
1,252 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 36 of 42 · 1,252 total
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Immersion Corporation, filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon a patent held by the plaintiff through their manufacture and sale of mobile handsets. The court allowed procedural applications regarding document submission and exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd v.Sudhir Kumar & Ors.
The petitioner sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. 301322 (Impugned Patent) registered in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2, arguing that it was liable to be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption for filing annexures and directed notice to be issued to the respondents.
Umai Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Ramesh Kumar & Anr.
In a series of rectification petitions, Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited sought the cancellation of several trademarks owned by Ramesh Kumar and others. The court noted that the respondents had entered into a settlement with the petitioner and subsequently filed applications with the Trade Marks Registry to voluntarily withdraw or cancel the disputed marks. Consequently, the Delhi High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of these withdrawal applications within three weeks, effectively disposing of the rectification petitions pending compliance.
Ms Bharat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks Also Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed objections raised in a rectification petition concerning the trademark 'LUBI'. The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the registration occurred in Ahmedabad and not New Delhi. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner's filing was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to a prior pending suit in the District Court at Ahmedabad. Given these complex jurisdictional and procedural hurdles, the court decided to renotify the matter for further consideration.
Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation v.Meera Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a civil original trademark rectification petition filed by Vinod Aggarwal Trading As Vaneet Sales Corporation against Meera Devi. The court found that the respondent's adoption and use of the similar mark 'BAL BIHARI SUPER' was dishonest, as it followed an earlier acknowledgment of the petitioner's rights by her husband. Given the identical nature of the goods (tobacco products) and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the court ordered the removal of the impugned trademark from the Register.
Dorco Co Ltd v.Durga Enterprises And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Dorco Co Ltd against Durga Enterprises And Anr, successfully removing the infringing 'DORCO' trademark (Registration No. 1252224) from the register. The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of the mark for five years and that its registration was obtained dishonestly to ride on Dorco’s established goodwill. This ruling reinforces the principle that trademarks must be used genuinely, and prior users with strong reputation have superior rights.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Suffee Garments
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling shirts and apparels bearing falsified trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse logo') and deceptively similar designs (Arcuate Stitching) of the plaintiff. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement and passing off.
Gpl Exports Limited & Golden Peakock Overseas Limited v.Global Lighting Source Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court formally recorded a comprehensive settlement reached between GPL Exports Limited and Global Lighting Source Private Limited. The original suit involved claims related to intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, designs, and confidential information concerning the lighting industry. By entering into a mediated agreement, both parties resolved their disputes, with the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the settlement.
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited v.Government of India
Kimplas Piping Systems Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to call for the records of the Government of India concerning two specific patent applications (Nos. 211904 and 196432) and quash the related order dated 04.12.2017. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the prayer had become infructuous.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The dispute involved Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd asserting its exclusive patent rights over a specific suspo-emulsion formulation. The parties reached a settlement regarding Defendant No. 1 (BR Agrotech), acknowledging the Plaintiff's patent validity and granting a permanent injunction against infringement.
P.Periyasamy v.M/S.Jaya Jeya Agro Mills
The plaintiff filed civil suits alleging that the defendants infringed his registered copyright concerning the artistic and literary work detailing a precast concrete chimney. The court addressed multiple suits, ultimately dismissing C.S.No.102/2018 as not pressed for against one defendant, while granting relief in C.S.No.96/2018.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Buildtech Llp & Anr.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Vistara Buildtech LLP and others in the Delhi High Court. The court found a clear prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given that Tata Sia is the proprietor of the well-known mark 'VISTARA' used in commercial aviation. The order restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Indo Mim Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Pabitra Kumar Swain
The plaintiff, a company specializing in MIM products, filed a suit against its former employee (Defendant No. 1) and his new employer (Defendant No. 2), alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement by soliciting employees and customers after resignation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding solicitation and loss, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through: Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., finding that the Defendant's use of the mark 'CARDIOCONTIN' constituted a prima facie infringement on the Plaintiffs' established 'CONTIN' series trademarks and trade dress. The court noted the extensive goodwill, high sales figures (over Rs. 2000 crores), and the likelihood of confusion caused by the identical product type and near-identical packaging. While the injunction was granted against 'CARDIOCONTIN', the issue regarding the use of the mark 'WIN' was reserved for a later hearing after notice to the Defendants.
Patanjali Ayurved Limited v.Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court permitted Patanjali Ayurved Limited to amend its plaint in a trademark infringement suit against Yog Guru Ayurveda & Ors. The court found that the proposed amendments were procedural, correcting inadvertent errors and clarifying the scope of the claims without altering the substance or prejudice to the defendants. This allows the core dispute regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off to proceed with more precise pleadings.
Sns Products Private Limited v.Ijazuddin
The Delhi High Court disposed of a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 34/2022) in favor of Sns Products Private Limited. The defendant, Ijazuddin, agreed to permanent injunctive relief for the plaintiff and consented to transferring all relevant trademark and copyright applications to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court passed a decree based on these terms, resolving the dispute.
Fontaine Limited v.Vinod Mahadik & Anr.
Fontaine Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'impugned mark,' registered by Vinod Mahadik & Anr. The Petitioner demonstrated that the Respondent had failed to use the mark continuously for over five years, providing evidence of non-use through investigator reports and online searches showing inactivity. Given the Respondent's failure to appear despite substituted service, the Court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the conflicting registration.
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.
Google Llc v.Google Enterprises Pvt Tld & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google LLC against several defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were colluding to misuse the globally recognized 'GOOGLE' mark on various websites, falsely suggesting an association with the multinational tech giant. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting Google a permanent injunction, awarding damages of INR 10 lakhs, and directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to block the infringing domain name.
Samridhi Enterprises v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
Samridhi Enterprises filed a suit against Flipkart and several sellers for alleged infringement of its trade marks and copyrighted marketing materials related to car covers. The court recognized the prima facie case of infringement, particularly concerning the unauthorized use of design look-and-feel and promotional imagery by third-party sellers on the platform. Crucially, the court issued an interim injunction restraining these infringing parties from using the plaintiff's intellectual property until the full trial can proceed.
Astral Limited & Anr. v.Astralglee & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Astral Limited and Astralglee following a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs against specific defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) according to the terms of the settlement dated February 21, 2023. Notably, the judgment confirmed that one clause within the settlement—where Defendants admitted 'ASTRAL' is a well-known trademark—would legally bind them.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Mr. X, Trading As, M/S Prabhat Store
In a trademark infringement case concerning Pidilite Industries Limited's products (FEWIKWIK and M-SEAL), the Delhi High Court granted an extension for its local commissioners. The court allowed the plaintiff to continue seizing counterfeit goods based on new market evidence, ensuring that enforcement actions could proceed until the next hearing date. This order maintains the status quo regarding anti-counterfeiting measures while allowing defendants time to prepare their defense.
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.
Ticona Polymers, Inc. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ticona Polymers against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'COOLPOLY'. The court held that a trade mark cannot be dissected into its component parts (like COOL and POLY) when assessing inherent distinctiveness. Finding that 'COOLPOLY' as a whole was not descriptive, the High Court quashed the rejection order and remanded the application for further processing.
Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt ltd. v.Shivashankar
The plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing tobacco products under the trademark HANSCHAAP, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were dishonestly adopting and using identical/deceptively similar trademarks (HANS and HANSVENBA) on their impugned goods. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement, passing off, dilution, and copyright violation.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd v.M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court decreed a civil suit filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt Ltd against M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises concerning trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The dispute involved the use of the 'OLD MADRAS BAKING COMPANY' mark across various classes and digital platforms. Crucially, the court accepted a Memo of Compromise and Trademark Assignment Deed signed by both parties, leading to the suit being settled and decreed without costs.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v.The Registrar
The Delhi High Court allowed Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation's appeal, overturning the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register a proposed mark. The court held that despite some phonetic similarity, the marks were not similar when viewed as a whole because the cited mark was a composite device containing unique visual elements (a sketch and bilingual text) absent in the appellant's mark. This ruling emphasizes that for trademark opposition under Section 11(1), the comparison must be holistic, preventing mere phonetic resemblance from leading to rejection.
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.