HIGH COURT
Bombay HC grants interim relief to Pidilite Industries Ltd.; restrains Dubond Products India Pvt. Ltd. from using marks “LW” and “LW+”
The plaintiff sought an order of injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its “LW” and “LW+” registered trade marks and for which necessary relief had been sought viz. for injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, and passing off of the plaintiff’s registered trade marks by the impugned marks of the defendant viz. LW with or without the marks HYDROBUILD or HYDROTITE and/or Power. R.I. Chagla, J., opined that the defendant’s use of the impugned mark “LW” with “HYDROBUILD POWER” and/or “HYDROBUILD” incorporated therein, would prima facie amount to an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “LW” as the impugned marks had encompassed the whole of the plaintiff’s “LW” mark. Thus, the Court restrained the defendant from using the plaintiff’s marks “LW” and “LW+”. Read more
‘Ordinary common man will be confused’; Bombay HC grants ad-interim injunction to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals for mark “ZITA-MET” against Gleck Pharma’s mark “XIGAMET”
Firdosh Pooniwalla, J., held that the ad-interim injunction sought by plaintiff, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in respect of defendants’, Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. mark was required to be granted as the word mark “XIGAMET” of defendant was phonetically and structurally similar to the word mark “ZITA-MET” of plaintiff and the two marks were used on medicinal products and there could be no doubt that there was a probability of confusion in respect of both these marks. Read more
‘Enough grounds to demonstrate that urgent relief was contemplated’; Bombay HC dismisses application seeking rejection of plaint on non-compliance of S.12A of Commercial Courts Act
The present application was filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff for trade mark infringement, Manish Pitale, J., opined that the fact that more than eight years had elapsed between September 2015 to August 2023, could not be a ground to ipso facto conclude that the plaintiff could not contemplate urgent interim reliefs. In the present case, the plaintiff provided details of the manner in which the defendant refuted the plaintiff’s rights, despite registered trademarks in the plaintiff’s favor and in that context, the plaintiff had indeed contemplated urgent interim relief while filing the present suit. Read more
Bombay HC discontinues ex-parte injunction granted to ATYATI against alleged device mark infringement by COGNIZANT
In an interim application filed by ATYATI Technologies (the plaintiff) , against COGNIZANT Technologies (the defendants) for infringing their device mark, for which the Court had granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff on the usage of the impugned mark by the defendants, the single-Judge Bench of Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J.* held that the injunction imposed earlier be discontinued due to suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to adhere to the duties applicable on the party applying for an ex-parte ad interim relief, such as the disclosure of full material facts, some of which were suppressed by the plaintiff. The Court held that the suppressed facts were important and should have been brought before the Court. Read more
Delhi High Court grants injunction against Fab India Emporium for trademark infringement of Fab India marks
A suit was filed by Fab India (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants, and all those acting for and, on their behalf, from manufacturing, selling, retailing, advertising, dealing with products under the mark ‘FABINDIA’ or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark and other attendant relief. Anish Dayal, J., held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction and balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff, and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted. Read more
[Domino’s v. Donito’s] Delhi HC grants interim injunction to Dominos IP Holder for its mark Domino’s in relation to pizzas and burgers
In an application filed for seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 and all those acting for and on their behalf from promoting, selling, marketing, packaging any product or material using, depicting and displaying in any manner in the marks “DONITO’S’, or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trade marks, Anish Dayal*, J., ordered ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants for stopping them to advertise, promote, sell, market, pack any product using, depicting, and displaying in any manner in the device marks or any other mark which is identical or deceptively like the plaintiffs’ registered trade marks. Read more
Delhi High Court upholds refusal of patent for Portable Vehicle Management System due to lack of novelty
An application was filed challenging the refusal of Indian Patent Application for the ‘PORTABLE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM’ (‘subject patent application’) issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs on 27-12-2018 (‘the impugned order’), asserting that the subject patent does not meet the inventive step requirement as stipulated under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patent Act, 1970 (‘the Act’). Sanjeev Narula, J., held that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step, therefore, the patent office’s decision to reject the application under Section 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, is justified and should be upheld. Read more
Delhi High Court remands patent application for Bifidobacterium longum for fresh consideration, due to insufficient examination of Novelty
An appeal was filed challenging refusal of the Indian Patent Application (‘subject patent application’) which involves formulation of a probiotic bacterium, specifically the strain of Bifidobacterium longum by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (‘Controller’) under Section 15 of the Patent Act, 1970 by the impugned order dated 27-11-2018. Sanjeev Narula, J., sets aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the respondents for a fresh consideration and restored the patent application number. Read more
[ICC T20 World Cup 2024] Delhi High Court grants dynamic + injunction to protect broadcast rights of Star India
In a petition filed by Star India Private Limited (plaintiff) seeking a dynamic+ injunction to protect their exclusive broadcast rights for the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2024 as well as restraining illegal and unauthorized dissemination and broadcast of the matches or parts thereof, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. granted a dynamic+ injunction and restrained the rogue websites from communicating, hosting, streaming, screening, disseminating or making available for viewing/downloading any part of the ICC events on any electronic or digital platform in any manner without authorization. Read more
‘No interim injunction for appeal filed at eleventh hour’; Delhi High Court dismisses application challenging “Yakshini” video adaptation by Disney+Hotstar
In an application filed for seeking temporary injunction for restraining defendant 1 and anybody on their behalf from commercializing the video adaptation in the television series of “Yakshini” on their website or on any other audio, video adaptation based substantially similar to the plaintiff’s work “Yakshini” on any other third-party media websites, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that the similarity of name cannot be the sole criteria, especially as it was a mythological character on which admittedly various works, movies and books are already available. Prima facie, there was nothing to reflect as copyright violation of expression of idea as asserted by the plaintiff. Read more
Delhi HC restrains South Infosys Limited from using mark ‘INFOSYS’ in its corporate/trade name
In an instant appeal filed by Infosys Limited (plaintiff) under Section 29(5) of Trademarks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) to prohibit Southern Infosys Limited(defendant) from using the mark ‘INFOSYS’ as part of its trade/corporate name, Sanjeev Narula, J., restrained the defendants from using the mark ‘INFOSYS’ in their trade name and gave a period of four months to make the transition to a non-infringing tradename. Read more
Madras High Court affirms rejection of IIT-M Patent on ‘Method of Doping Potassium’, for lack of inventive step
In an appeal filed by Indian Institute of Technology Madras(‘IIT Madras’) under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, praying to pass an order granting a patent and to set aside the impugned order of Controller of Patents & Designs, refusing registration; and a direction that the Controller of Patents & Designs, shall allow the application to proceed to grant on an expedited basis, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. while affirming the rejection of the patent application, the Court held that the rejection of the claimed invention by the Controller in the impugned order on the basis of Section 3(a) and on industrial applicability under Section 2(1)(j) is held to be untenable, whereas the rejection on the basis of Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja) is sustained. Read more
