22 December 2016
Bombay High Court has, in a case of design infringement and passing off, granted an interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiffs. The case pertained to a design registration on copper tubes obtained by the plaintiffs, which the defendants, who were previously associated with the Plaintiffs, were allegedly infringing. The Court on ...
27 April 2016
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge Bench against a major mobile and personal computer manufacturer, for use of words ‘Split View’. The Court in its decision in FAO (OS) Comm. 11/2016, held that the issue for consideration was whether ‘Split View...
28 January, 2016
Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Delhi High Court has held that alleged use of the mark BECTODINE by the defendants subsequent to the documented use of the trademark BETADINE by the petitioner, by about 34 years, was fraught with malafide...
26 October, 2015
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the interim injunction granted by the trial court on the basis of ‘first in the market’ test in a dispute where the defendant had filed for registration of the mark six years prior to the commencement of user by the Plaintiff, but had refrained from using the mark. The Court on 5-10-2015 in this r...
19 June, 2015
In a suit involving breach of confidence action which also alleged infringement of copyright, the Bombay High Court has granted interim injunction restraining the defendant from releasing the offending film alleged to be based on the script/screenplay of the plaintiff. Noting differences between the statutory right of protection of copyright and the common law right...
22 January, 2015
Court can go into the question of validity of registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the said registration in an infringement suit. Larger Bench of the Bombay High Court recently while holding so observed that court in such cases is not powerless to refuse to grant an injunction but for est...
28 July, 2014
The Bombay High Court on 26-6-2014 has held that only a society registered under Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (amended in 1994), can carry on the business of issuing and granting licenses. The plaintiffs (Leopold Café) had been served notices in respect of certain ‘public performance’ of copyrighted material by the defendant (Novex Communications).
By Vindhya Srinivasamani
This case pertains to a suit filed by CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited against Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its patent IN202302 (suit patent) for “A system and method for preventing and/or detecting explosion and/or fire of electrical transformers”, with an appl...
By Sanuj Das
Nearly three years after Merck (patentee) initiated an infringement action over its patented diabetics drug sitagliptin (Indian Patent 209816, sold under the brand names Januvia and Janumet), the Delhi High Court recently permanently restrained the defendant from the business of Sitagliptin.
Dated: Oct 23, 2015
By Jasneet Kaur
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a recent decision dated 10-12-2013 held that the television commercial which compares the product ‘Pepsodent Germicheck’ with ‘Colgate ST’ is not per se disparaging. However, the print advertisement published by the respondent (Hindustan Unilever Limited or ‘HUL’) involving the same comparison was held as prima facie disparag...
© Copyright 1985-2016 Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, All Rights Reserved.