IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 95 of 159 · 4,764 total
Singh And Singh Law Firm Llp v.Singh And Singh Attorneys
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs (Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP) against the Defendants (Singh And Singh Attorneys). The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and goodwill associated with the name 'Singh & Singh'. Despite modifications to the scope of relief sought, the court affirmed the right of the Plaintiffs to protect their brand identity, emphasizing the international reputation and established goodwill of the law firm.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Microcosm Pharma & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.
Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. v.Himanshu Bhandari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. against Himanshu Bhandari & Ors. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and filing certain annexures, while also proceeding with the main injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'AMAATRA BANQUETS' against the registered trademark 'AMAATRA'.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 28 May 2024, addresses the principles governing stays of revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court held that, as a general principle, the UPC will not stay revocation proceedings, and that the mere existence of parallel EPO opposition proceedings or even an EPO decision to accelerate those proceedings is insufficient to justify a stay. An exception may apply only when a rapid decision from the EPO may be expected, with the Court exercising discretionary power based on a balance of the parties' interests.
Hershey India Private Limited v.Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani and Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark litigation cases involving Hershey India Private Limited and Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute, which involved various commercial IP matters including suit and rectification petitions, was resolved through mediation before the court. The court accepted the terms of the settlement agreement dated May 1, 2024, thereby disposing of the main suit while adjourning related rectification petitions subject to compliance with the agreed-upon clauses.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'AMUL BINDASS' registered in Class 25. The court accepted the arguments that Amul is the owner of the well-known mark 'AMUL' and has associated device marks, initiating formal proceedings. Notice was issued to Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd, setting the stage for a detailed legal contest over trademark rights.
Network18 Media And Investments Limited v.Www.Brawlersfightclub.Com & Ors.
Network18 Media successfully secured interim relief in the Delhi High Court against various rogue websites operating under domains like brawlersfightclub.com. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of Network18's intellectual property, including copyright in an interview video and associated trademarks. Furthermore, the judgment issued critical directions to telecom and internet service providers to block the identified infringing URLs, providing immediate relief against online piracy.
Cipla Health Limited v.Aishwarya Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Cipla Health Limited against Aishwarya Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the Defendants' mark 'OMNICEL' is virtually identical to the Plaintiff's established mark 'OMNIGEL'. Furthermore, the court recognized the Plaintiff's copyright claim over the product packaging, leading to a comprehensive restraint order against the use of deceptively similar marks and trade dress.
Cipla Limited v.Bioxen Health Care & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Cipla Limited against Bioxen Health Care & Anr. regarding the use of deceptively similar trademarks for respiratory medicinal products. The court found that Cipla had established a prima facie case based on its registered marks ('BUDECORT' and 'RESPULES') and extensive market presence. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from manufacturing or selling goods under names like 'BUDECOT RESPULES,' while also being required to disclose their sales figures and current stock.
M/S Avon Cycles Limited v.M/S Avon Automotive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Avon Cycles Limited against M/S Avon Automotive & Ors. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement concerning the 'AVON' mark across various vehicle and cycle components. This immediate relief restrains the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with goods under identical or deceptively similar marks until further proceedings are concluded.
The Food Masters v.V G And Group & Ors.
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'THE FOOD MASTER', the Delhi High Court suspended an existing ex parte injunction. The suspension was granted to allow the court to comprehensively assess conflicting claims regarding prior use and senior adoption by both parties. The court directed both sides to place crucial documents, including evidence of user status from 2013 and details of a related suit filed in Faridabad, on record before proceeding.
cipla health limited v.syndicate pharma anr
Cipla Health Limited (formerly Cipla Limited) sued Syndicate Pharma and another for infringement of its trademark 'OMNIGEL' and trade dress, alleging the defendants were using a nearly identical mark 'ONMIGEL' on pain relief ointments. The plaintiff claimed extensive prior use since 2000 and significant sales revenue (INR 231 crores in FY 2023-24), arguing the defendant’s actions constituted passing off, dilution, copyright infringement, and misrepresentation.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Domind Pizza & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Domino's IP Holder LLC against several competing pizza businesses. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar trademarks, such as 'DOMIN'D PIZZA,' which was causing confusion and damaging the reputation of the established 'DOMINO'S PIZZA' brand. Furthermore, the court ordered food delivery platforms like Zomato and Swiggy to immediately de-list the infringing listings.
NEC Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural deadlines for filing Statements of Defense in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant, NEC Corporation, sought to shorten the deadline for Defendants 3), 4), and 6) to May 23, 2024, arguing they belonged to the same group as Defendant 1) and shared a coordinated defense. The Defendants requested an extension to July 8, 2024, citing the Claimant's failure to upload the correct HEVC standard annexes with the Statement of Claim. The Court extended the deadline for Defendants 1), 3), 4), and 6) to July 8, 2024, rejecting the Claimant's requests.
Kathakaar Films Production House v.Shane Ali & Ors
This appeal concerns allegations that Kathakaar Films Production House infringed upon the registered trademarks and copyrights of Shane Ali & Ors. The dispute centers on the use of a logo/mark deceptively similar to the respondents' property in the film 'MAIN LADEGA'. While the appellant admitted using the similar mark, they contested both trademark infringement and copyright violation, arguing the usage was incidental under Section 52(1)(u)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The court listed the appeal for further consideration on merits.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.M/S R.M. Foods & Ors.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed a suit alleging that M/S R.M. Foods & Ors. adopted a deceptively similar trade dress for their products in the fitness and peanut butter industry. The Delhi High Court, while allowing the main suit to proceed, addressed several interlocutory applications regarding documentation and mediation. Crucially, the court noted the dispute over whether the Defendants' alleged infringing trade dress has been discontinued or if the current suit also covers a newer design adopted by the Respondents.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Raghav Jaggi
Rupa Gujral and others filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking removal of an impugned trademark (No. 3777931) related to 'Original Dal Makhani & Butter Chicken'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent, Raghav Jaggi, requiring him to file a reply within six weeks. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 25, 2024.
Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. v.Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Shivkumar Shankarrao Thakur & Ors. against a trademark registration granted to Shiv Biri Manufacturing Co P Ltd. The court found that the impugned trademark was not deceptively similar to the appellants' existing trademarks, thereby negating the core grounds of opposition and prior use claims. This ruling reinforces the principle that similarity between marks is paramount in determining infringement or opposition success.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Orca Security filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all claims of its cloud‑virtualization patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board improperly introduced new evidence—misinterpreting Veselov’s description of a file system—as teaching the claimed virtual‑disk location, violating procedural rules.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB issued an errata to correct a grammatical mistake in the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685. The correction clarifies the Board’s language about Hufsmith’s teaching on detecting sensitive data.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied WIZ, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2024-00863 and a related IPR, upholding the decisions against Orca Security's patent.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Patent 7480637, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining known SSL/TLS protocols with biometric authentication methods yields predictable results. The challenge centers on whether the combination of prior art elements—specifically Rescorla and Mathiassen's technologies—is inventive or merely an obvious modification for a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging Jabaa, L.L.C.'s patent claims related to biometric customer authentication apparatus. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Mathiassen, Ryan, and Lim. The petitioner seeks to institute proceedings leading to the cancellation of all ten challenged claims.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging several of Orca Security Ltd.'s patents related to virtual machine and cloud asset protection. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of existing prior art references, including Veselov, Price, Hufsmith, and Huseinović.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Askeladden L.L.C. against Jabaa, L.L.C., challenging claims 7-20 of patent 7480637 related to secure transaction authentication. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail based on prior art combinations.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness claims (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board preliminarily agreed with Wiz's claim construction arguments regarding snapshot analysis and API usage based on prior art references.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller cancelling his registered design for an Air Cooler (No. 233559) based on alleged prior publication in China. The appeal contended that the cancellation relied only on insufficient evidence from the CNIPA website and ignored previous rejections of similar claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Jaipuria Edutech Foundation & Anr. v.Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaipuria Edutech Foundation against Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust. The court found that the defendant continued to use deceptively similar trademarks despite a terminated franchise agreement and cease-and-desist notices. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using 'Jaipuria International Schools' and 'Seth M.R. Jaipuria School' marks, though the injunction will not take effect until July 15, 2024, allowing time for compliance.
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.