IP Cases — 2023
1,360 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 46 · 1,360 total
Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.New Hope Food Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of multiple Original Petitions filed by Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd seeking cancellation of several trademarks. The court noted that both parties had reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2018. This agreement defined specific usage rights for the 'MILKA' mark in Class 30, ensuring mutual non-infringement across various product categories. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of based on this existing compromise, avoiding a full judicial hearing.
Quantum University v.International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc
This case involved a challenge by Quantum University against an arbitration award that directed the cancellation of its domain name (www.quantumuniversity.edu.in). The respondent, International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc., had successfully argued that the petitioner's domain was confusingly similar to their prior formative domain names (e.g., quantumuniversity.com). The Delhi High Court examined this challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ultimately upholding the original award.
Chasvinder Singh v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addressed a writ petition filed by Chasvinder Singh against The Registrar of Copyrights. During arguments, respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate legal remedy for challenging the copyright grant was through a rectification petition under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court granted time to the petitioner to take further instructions before listing the matter for hearing.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar/ John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against various defendants regarding the misuse of its registered trademarks, HAVELLS and LLOYD. The court found a prima facie case that rogue websites and domain names were being used to mislead consumers and conduct fraudulent activities. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate blocking of specific infringing domains by ISPs and directed the disclosure of registrant details from the responsible parties.
M/s Izuk Impex v.Kidar Kutubuddin Momin & Anr.
M/s Izuk Impex filed a suit for passing off and trademark infringement against Kidar Kutubuddin Momin and M/s Star Mehandi Cone regarding the use of similar trademarks. The plaintiff, owner of 'MOON & STAR' and related copyrights, successfully argued that the defendants were gaining unfair advantage by using deceptively similar marks in the mehandi business.
Trademark Address v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging procedural delays in a trademark opposition case. While the petitioner initially sought to overturn an order rejecting an extension for evidence, the court noted that subsequent events had rendered the original petitions infructuous. Since the petitioner subsequently filed a rectification petition against the registered mark, the court disposed of the initial writs but directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and decide the pending rectification application.
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.
M/S Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Pvt. , Ltd.
The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Chirec Public School challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to stay an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the petitioner had sufficiently established that the respondent's trademark registration was prima facie invalid, thereby warranting a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that despite averments in the written statement, the plea of invalidity lacked sufficient substantiation and could not be inferred as prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Commercial Court's decision to proceed with the infringement suit was upheld.
Black Berry Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Black Berry Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Application No.6579/CHENP/2011. However, the appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Marie Stopes International (MSI) v.Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in favor of Marie Stopes International (MSI) against Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS). The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the 'Marie Stopes' word mark and associated 'Door Device' logo by PSS, which had previously operated as a licensee. MSI successfully argued that after the termination of their license agreement in 2003, PSS continued to use the marks, leading to a strong likelihood of confusion among customers. The court found the resemblance between the two marks too striking and close, thus protecting MSI's goodwill.
Glaxosmithkline Llc v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr.
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited v.Mr Jitendra Ravjani
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Ravjani, alleging infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'JAYPORE'. The Delhi High Court proceeded to frame seven key issues in the matter, including whether the defendant's use constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment. This order sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation by both parties.
Aasife Biriyani Pvt Ltd v.Greens Lands Restaurant
Aasife Biriyani Pvt Ltd filed a lawsuit against Greens Lands Restaurant, alleging infringement of its registered trademark (No. 3768877) and associated copyrights in relation to providing food services. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off and unauthorized use of the brand. However, during the proceedings, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v.Puma Stationery Ltd. and Anr.
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. successfully secured a decree in its trademark infringement suit against Puma Stationery Ltd. and A.W. Faber-Castell (India) Ltd. The judgment was based on an amicable settlement where the defendant, A.W. Faber-Castell, formally acknowledged Hindustan Pencils' ownership of the trademarks 'PLASTO' and 'NON-DUST'. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using these marks in stationery products and withdraw pending opposition and rectification proceedings against the plaintiff’s rights.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court disposed of several interlocutory applications (I.A.) in the patent dispute between Novartis Ag and Natco Pharma Limited. The defendant withdrew its counter claim seeking invalidity of the suit patent, and the court allowed the defendant to file additional documents after imposing conditions.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons And Anr.
The dispute between Marico Limited (Plaintiff) and MW & Sons And Anr. (Defendants) concerning alleged infringement was settled on August 18, 2023. The parties entered into a Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
M.Sarojini v.M/s. Ce Biotech (P) Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by M.Sarojini seeking the expungement of the trademark ZIPROVIT (No. 1631278) from the register, which was held in the name of M/s. CE Biotech (P) Limited. The petitioner subsequently informed the court that they were withdrawing the petition due to the non-renewal of the relevant trademark registration. This outcome highlights the procedural necessity of maintaining active IP rights.
Sucampo AG v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sucampo AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the revocation of Patent No. 223147 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently submitted a memo requesting the withdrawal of the appeal.
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.
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.
M/s. A. Murugan v.M/s. Union of India
M/s. A. Murugan filed an Appeal (Patents) challenging the order that granted Patent No. 267238, which was based on Application Number 126/CHENP/2008. The appeal sought to revoke the patent and dismiss the application. However, the court noted that the patent had not been renewed after July 7, 2021, rendering it non-forceful.
Novozymes v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Novozymes appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs to grant a patent for its phytase variants. The rejection was based on Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection concerning claims 1-7, allowing the application to proceed towards grant.
Bajaj Finance Limited v.Registrant Of Www.Bajaj-Finserve.Org & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Bajaj Finance Limited against the registrant of infringing domains. The court found that three specific domain names were clearly violating the petitioner's trademark. Consequently, the concerned Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) were directed to lock these illegal domains, and the Department of Telecommunications/Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (DOT/MEITY) was mandated to block access to them.
M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. v.Divyam Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. against Divyam Gupta, finding that the defendant was attempting to ride on the plaintiff's established trademark rights. The court recognized the substantial use and reputation of the 'CP CENTURY' mark in kitchen hardware products. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'CENTUARY PLUS/ACE CENTUARY PLUS' until the final hearing of the suit.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
In this case concerning online trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court delivered a mixed judgment based on joint compromises and ex-parte proceedings. The court decreed the suit in favor of Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against Defendant No. 1 (Flipkart) based on agreed compromise terms. Furthermore, it mandated specific takedown procedures for Defendant No. 2 (Amazon) to address unauthorized use of Sirona's trademarks. Finally, an injunction was passed against other sellers (Defendants Nos. 3-13) who were found to be passing off counterfeit goods.
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.
M/S Map Systems v.M/S Informatic Publishing Limited
M/S Map Systems appealed against an interim order passed by the Commercial Court that confirmed an ex-parte temporary injunction against them. The plaintiff, M/S Informatic Publishing Limited, claimed that the defendants had misappropriated its proprietary remote access solution, 'RemotLog,' to create a competing product called 'MapMyAccess.' The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court's order was vague and lacked proper reasoning regarding the grant of injunction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the temporary injunction and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
Omrf Pipes And Products v.Itarsi Pipe Sales & Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against pipe manufacturers who were allegedly passing off their products. The court held that while the appellants lacked formal trademark registration for the specific color combination, the similarity between the 'RIVERLINE' (appellant) and 'METROSTAR' (respondent) product colors and shapes had the potential to mislead an ordinary purchaser. Consequently, the High Court granted the interim injunction, emphasizing that courts should assess potential consumer confusion from the perspective of a common person.
Icahn School Of Medicine at Mount Sinai v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No.3414/CHENP/2008) for a chimeric NDV vaccine targeting two viruses, specifically Newcastle disease virus and influenza virus. The court reviewed the original rejection based on obviousness and allowed the application to proceed to grant after accepting the amended claims submitted by the appellant.
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.