IP Cases — 2023
1,360 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 43 of 46 · 1,360 total
Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited v.Chotiwala & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited against Defendant No. 5, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that their registered mark 'CHOTIWALA,' which has acquired significant goodwill over decades, was being deceptively used by the defendant. This order provides immediate protection to the established brand while the main litigation proceeds.
M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K K Academy (P) Ltd) v.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi and others
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'ALOHA' and copyrighted educational materials by using the similar mark 'ALAMA'. The suit also claimed damages for passing off related to mental arithmetic and abacus education programs. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear before the court despite repeated notices and previous dismissals for non-prosecution, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for default.
Contitech USA Inc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Contitech USA Inc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'TORQFLEX'. The court found that there was an arguable case suggesting the goods associated with TORQFLEX (power transmission belts) were not similar enough to the cited conflicting mark (TORSIFLEX, used for couplings). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that protection is only granted if identical or similar marks are used on identical or similar goods, thereby directing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Oracle International Corporation v.Controller Of Patents
Oracle International Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order regarding the patentability of its application (3566/CHENP/2006). The appeal argued that the subject matter was eligible for patent protection and not excluded as a business method or computer program per se. However, the appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.
M/s.United Spirits Limited v.Wipro Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s.United Spirits Limited against Wipro Limited. The petition sought to rectify the trademark register by cancelling the registration of 'ARAMUSK-BOLD' held by Wipro. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the case following a compromise reached in a connected suit, leading to the dismissal of this rectification petition without any order as to costs.
Colgate-Palmolive Company v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Colgate-Palmolive Company appealed the refusal of its national phase patent application (4411/DELNP/2007) for 'An Oral Composition'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). However, due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite repeated notices, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. challenged the Controller of Patents regarding systemic issues in the e-filing system, which prevented the submission of a divisional patent application following a remand by the IPAB. The petitioner's original parent application had been refused but was subsequently remanded for re-consideration. Since the online portal reflected the 'refused' status, the divisional application could not be filed digitally. The Madras High Court acknowledged this systemic glitch and issued several directions to facilitate the filing process.
R X Infotech Private Limited v.Jalpa Rajesh Kumar Jain
The Delhi High Court dismissed a defendant's application seeking to reject the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that even if the suit was primarily based on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the general provisions of Section 20 of the CPC allow for jurisdiction where any part of the cause of action arose. Specifically, the court found that online transactions related to the defendant's website could reasonably be considered to have occurred within Delhi, thus validating the plaintiff's choice of forum.
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v.Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions filed by KSRTC seeking rectification of trade mark entries held by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The court found that despite KSRTC's claim of prior use dating back to 1965, the respondent was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act due to 'other special circumstances.' Given both entities operate in the transportation sector and utilize distinct regional scripts (Malayalam vs. Telugu), the court ruled that peaceful coexistence is possible, thus upholding the existing registrations.
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, IPR Building, SIDCO Plot, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to quash an earlier order and direct the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No.395/CHENP/2012. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Britannia Industries Ltd. alleging imitation of its trade dress for biscuits. The defendant sought to reject the plaint on grounds including lack of urgency, failure to comply with pre-mediation requirements, and jurisdictional challenges. The Madras High Court dismissed the application to reject the plaint, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction and that the case warranted consideration despite procedural objections.
Novartis AG v.Asst.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Novartis AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding a Post Grant Opposition to Patent No. 237273. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging piracy of registered designs (switch plates). The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation and expunction of these same designs. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of this counterclaim, arguing that only the Controller of Designs could handle such petitions under the 2000 Designs Act. The court rejected the objection, citing a Supreme Court judgment which reversed the view that cancellation pleas must be filed solely before the Controller.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action where the Plaintiff is enforcing rights in Indian patent no. IN240893 titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The patent relates to a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Sunit Shah v.Sunshine Food Products
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision regarding the trademark 'HOT MIX'. While the appellant argued that the mark had acquired distinctiveness, the High Court agreed with the trial court's initial finding that 'HOT MIX' is descriptive of the namkeen product. However, recognizing the need for justice, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the remaining proceedings and decide the suit promptly.
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd v.Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd filed a petition seeking rectification of the copyright held by Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd concerning the artistic work 'NAGRAJ HARFANMOLA'. The Petitioner argued that its own artistic work, 'SATMOLA', was the prior adopter and user. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work bore a striking resemblance to the Petitioner's, noting that the pouches were copied in terms of color scheme and images of children. Consequently, the court directed the rectification/expungement of the impugned copyright registration.
Rasila Jain v.Sh.J.Pradeep
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Rasila Jain seeking to remove or rectify the trademark entry 'TULASI LABEL' (No. 1783252). The court noted that documentation presented indicated the trademark was valid only until February 10, 2019. Consequently, since the mark had expired, no further adjudication was required, and the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v.Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products challenging the 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' trademark held by Capital Foods. While acknowledging that the core issue—whether the mark is descriptive or generic—is pending before a Division Bench, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the registration. Instead, the Court prioritized determining its own territorial jurisdiction over the matter, setting up further hearings to resolve this critical legal question.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim injunctive relief regarding trademark infringement in the pharmaceutical sector. The court found prima facie substance in Glaxo Group Limited's claim against Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning the marks BETNOMAID and MEDNOVATE, ruling that these were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks (BETNESOL/BETNOVATE). Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using these specific marks pending the final suit. However, the court declined to grant an injunction against the mark BETASON.
Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors. v.Paragon Cable India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The core dispute revolved around the trademark 'ELEKTRON' for electric wires and cables. The court found that while the appellants claimed prior use dating back to 1992, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Conversely, the respondents successfully demonstrated a credible basis to challenge the validity of the appellant's registrations due to misleading claims regarding their usage period.
Noumi Ip Pty Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Noumi IP Pty Ltd. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application 'MILKLAB,' which was deemed highly descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant argued that the mark relates to various milk-based products. Following arguments, the Court did not rule on the merits but instead sought instructions from the Appellant regarding potential remedies, such as amending the application into a logo/device mark or agreeing to a disclaimer concerning the word 'MILK'.
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. appealed a rejection order dated December 4, 2018, concerning its patent application for 'TH1 VACCINATION PRIMING FOR ACTIVE IMMUNOTHERAPY'. The appellant argued that the rejection based on Section 3(d) and (i) was incorrect, as the invention relates to therapeutic vaccine methods using allogeneic CD3/CD28 cross-linked Thl memory cells.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v.Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments v.Vandhana Jain & Anr.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings & Ors. v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The petitioner (Bristol Myers Squibb) filed an application seeking correction of clerical and typographical errors in a previous order concerning its US patent infringement suit against Apotex Inc. Separately, the court allowed the respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals) to file its written statement after condoning the delay.
Kilitch Drugs (India) Limited v.Zee Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiff, Kilitch Drugs, sought an interim injunction and relief for passing off against the Defendant, Zee Laboratories. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks (KILITCH and KILITCH SRO) in pharmaceutical preparations by the use of the impugned mark KILITH/KILITH SRO.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Sun Pictures A Division Of Sun Tv Network Ltd.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark infringement suit filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Sun Pictures. The dispute centered on the use of the RCB team jersey in a derogatory manner within the film 'Jailer.' Through mutual agreement, the court decreed that the defendants must digitally alter all depictions of the RCB jersey and sponsor branding to ensure it is not identifiable before further release, effectively resolving the brand dilution concerns.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr. v.Bollywood Time & Ors.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan filed a civil suit alleging that various parties were circulating misleading videos on YouTube claiming she was critically ill or deceased, often using morphed pictures. The plaintiffs argued this violated her right to privacy and infringed upon the family's intellectual property rights, specifically copyright in their images. The court examined the role of social media intermediaries like Google LLC (YouTube) under the IT Rules, 2021, while setting procedural timelines for the parties to proceed with the infringement claim.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Vaibhav Chaurasia v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Vaibhav Chaurasia seeking directions against the Union of India regarding the status of Trade Mark No. 2650542. The petitioner had applied for the substitution of his name as the proprietor following an assignment from M/s Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the limited nature of the grievance, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application within a period of six weeks.
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.