IP Cases — 2023
1,199 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 40 · 1,199 total
The Chocolate Spoon Company Private Limited v.Oceanleaf Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted leave for a plaintiff to combine claims of passing off with an existing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that they lacked territorial jurisdiction as their outlets were located outside Mumbai, but the court prioritized the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation. This decision allows the combined action to proceed while keeping the jurisdictional issue open for later determination.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu Trading As : Spot Light; Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Financiere Batteur Sas seeking the cancellation and removal of Trade Mark No. 2897583, which was registered in Class 5 for the mark 'physiolac' under Kalai Arasu Trading As : Spot Light. The court noted that the subject matter of this petition was identical to another pending case, (T)OP(TM)/481/2023, and consequently closed the current petition without passing any order on costs.
M/s. Honda Motor Co., Ltd v.M/s. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
M/s. Honda Motor Co., Ltd filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the refusal order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on March 27, 2019. However, the appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 6745/CHENP/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The Madras High Court noted that this appeal was a duplication of another pending appeal, leading to its closure.
Sheeja Menon trading as M's Shwethas Hygeine Products v.M/s. Novel Tissues Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, finding that the first respondent fraudulently registered an identical device mark (No. 2298691) in Class 16. The petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and ownership rights over the mark for cosmetic wet wipes since 2011. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the impugned registration, preventing confusion in the market.
E.Kiruthika v.(1)K.S.Moorthi Ram, (2)M.Maheshwari Partnership Firm M/S.Vishwak Garments, The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by E.Kiruthika seeking to cancel the trademark registration 'VISHWAK' (No.2406200). The court noted that the trademark registration had expired on October 4, 2023, and since the long stop date for renewal had passed, the petition was deemed infructuous. This highlights the critical importance of timely action regarding trademark renewals to maintain legal rights.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v.Meta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.
The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P. v.Home Needs
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an adverse commercial court order in favor of The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., which was seeking to protect its trademarks against 'POLOLIFETIME'. The court noted that the appellant holds registrations for 'POLO' and 'RALPH LAUREN', and referenced prior findings recognizing these marks as 'well-known'. Finding merit in the challenge, the High Court stayed the lower court's order until further hearing.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh & Anr.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of a 21-day delay. The petitioner, Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited, expressed no objection to the delay being excused. Consequently, the court allowed the application, allowing the respondent's reply to be taken on record and granting time for filing a rejoinder.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Third Party
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2023-11-06) under reference UPC-001682, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Third Party concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Shree Dev Colour And Hardware and Ors.
The Bombay High Court disposed of a portion of the IPR suit after the parties reached a settlement via Consent Terms dated 31st October, 2023. Specifically, the suit against Defendant No.2 was disposed of based on these terms, which included undertakings to cease using infringing marks and destroy counterfeit materials.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Ayur Gen Herbals
The parties, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Ayur Gen Herbals, settled their disputes in the Bombay High Court. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patents by the Amazon Prime Video service, specifically regarding the Trending Now and Continue Watching features.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit against Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered designs for pressure cookers and passing off due to the defendant's use of identical shapes, configurations, and phonetically similar marks like 'Svachh'. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Mitsu Chem Plast Limited v.Abs Mediequip And Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a suit concerning the infringement of design rights and passing off related to hospital beds. Despite previous undertakings by the defendant acknowledging Mitsu Chem Plast Limited's rights and promising cessation of use, the plaintiff alleged continued infringement. The court found sufficient grounds to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from adopting or using designs identical or deceptively similar to the registered design and trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
V.C.Dinesh v.Aby K.George; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trade Marks) filed by V.C.Dinesh against Aby K.George and The Trademark Registry. The petition sought to remove an entry from the Register relating to registration No. 1507478, arguing it was wrongly made under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, the court noted a memo of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, confirming that the parties had reached a settlement in a prior case and agreed to withdraw this petition.
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited v.M/s. Seasco Dae Jong Bldg & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier opposition order related to a trademark application in Class 9. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Madras High Court accepted the memo of withdrawal and consequently dismissed the appeal without passing any orders regarding costs.
CRYTEK GmbH v.Hameed Firnas
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by CRYTEK GmbH, a German company specializing in computer games, seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the impugned mark registered to Hameed Firnas was deceptively similar to CRYTEK's earlier trademark and was likely to cause public confusion. Crucially, the respondent failed to provide any evidence of use for their mark despite being given an opportunity, leading the court to direct its cancellation.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors.
The long-standing dispute between Goodricke Group Limited and M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. regarding the use of the 'SUPER CUP' mark was amicably resolved by both parties. After multiple rounds in the Delhi High Court, including appeals to the IPAB and Supreme Court, the parties entered into a Co-Existence Agreement. Under this settlement, Girnar agreed to use 'Girnar Super Cup' for tea and other allied products, while Goodricke withdrew its suit and opposition claims. The court formally dismissed both the appeal and the original suit as withdrawn.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Infinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interlocutory injunctions regarding trademark infringement in the travel industry. While the court found prima facie evidence that Defendants 3 and 4 were infringing the plaintiff's registered marks by using deceptively similar spellings ('SHREENATH' vs 'SHRINATH'), it rejected the request to restrain Defendant 5 due to insufficient factual basis. The court issued a mixed order, granting injunctions against specific words and domain names while mandating removal of infringing marks and disclosure of earnings from Defendants 3 and 4.
M/S Vajiram And Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP v.Sh. S.S Choudhary and Anr / M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated a suit for injunction (CS(COMM) 43/2019) against M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd. with a related trademark cancellation petition (C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 213/2022). The core dispute involves the use of similar marks ('VAJIRAO' vs 'VAJIRAM') by two coaching institutes for civil services examinations. By consolidating the trials, the court aims to prevent multiplicity and address whether the defendant's trademark registration is liable for cancellation.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. v.Rps Infrastructure Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions against Rps Infrastructure Limited after a petition alleging trademark infringement concerning the 'World Trade Centre' brand in Faridabad. The court temporarily restrained the respondent from using the disputed trademarks on its projects, requiring immediate removal of the marks from all public materials and mandating disclosure to unit buyers that the developer holds no rights to the brands. While granting these protective measures, the Court deferred the adjudication of significant monetary claims (over Rs 31 crore) to the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
Nilkamal Crates And Contaners & Anr. v.Ms. Reena Rajpal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning plastic molded chairs, balancing claims over both word marks and device marks. While the court found no deceptive similarity between the word marks 'NILKAMAL' and 'NILKRANTI,' it did find that the defendants' adopted logo was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered device mark. Consequently, the injunction sought against the use of the word mark was rejected, but the defendants were strictly restrained from using the infringing device mark.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Hamburg (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-11-03) under reference UPC-001683, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited appeared in dispute with Tesla Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/s.Snapbizz Cloudtech Pte Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
M/s.Snapbizz Cloudtech Pte Ltd. filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant a patent. The appellant subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw the appeal, leading to its dismissal by the High Court.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Sardesai Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This case before the Bombay High Court addressed a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of a specific court after the transfer of civil suits. The petitioner argued that since the suit involved intellectual property (trademarks) and was valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-, it should fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Court ruled that because the valuation fell below the minimum threshold prescribed by the notification under the Act, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the jurisdiction rested with the District Judge-1 as per the Trademarks Act, 1958.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Parle Product Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Intercontinental Great Brands Llc seeking a stay of infringement proceedings. The plaintiff sought to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademark, FABIO, under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to raise any prima facie tenable grounds challenging the registration in its pleadings (plaint or replication). Consequently, the application for stay was rejected, allowing the main infringement suit to proceed.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K.
Pernod Ricard appealed a Commercial Court order that rejected their application for temporary injunction against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging trademark infringement of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by the defendant's use of 'London Pride'. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's finding that no deceptive similarity existed between the marks. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the main suit on merits without being influenced by the appellate observations.
Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading As Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v.Sss Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court addressed critical procedural issues concerning IPR litigation under the Commercial Courts Act. The court clarified that despite the plaintiff's freedom to value a suit, this principle cannot be used to undervalue IPR disputes below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold to avoid the rigors of the CCA. The judgment mandates that intangible rights must be ascribed a 'specified value,' considering both the relief sought and the market value of the IP right involved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order vacating the injunction, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
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.