|

Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.

Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (48) PTC 235 (Del.) (DB) Appellant was the proprietor of a label mark ‘KRISHNA’ having pictorial reflection of Lord Krishna standing on a lotus flower for dairy products. Appellant was also the registered proprietor of the word ‘KRISHNA’ written in a unique…

| |

Major (Retired) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics

Major (Retired) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi FAO(OS) No. 16 of 2014 The present Appeal was filed by the Appellants as the Appellant’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Judgment on admission) was dismissed by the…

|

South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Mills Marketing Inc.

South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Mills Marketing Inc. Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi FAO(OS) No. 389/2014 Decided On: 13.10.2014 Respondent was the proprietor of the mark ‘HAAGEN – DAZS’ for ice cream claiming use since 2007 in India. Appellant was using mark ‘D’DAAZS’. The use of both the parties…

|

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Novartis AG & Anr.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Novartis AG & Anr. Before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of Decision: 18.10.2014 FAO(OS) No. 447 of 2014 Respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from infringing Respondents’ Patent. The suit along with the application for interim relief came up for preliminary consideration…

| |

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. M/s. Reshma Collection

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. M/s. Reshma Collection Before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi FAO(OS) No. 506 of 2013 Date of Decision: 15.10.2014 Appellant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Copyright, Infringement of Trade Mark, Passing Off, Dilution, Rendition of Accounts, Damages, etc in respect of their Trade…

|

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. W.P.(C) No.3679 of 2014 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of decision: 9th October, 2014 Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Controller General), Government of India passed an office order dated 8th June, 2012. Clause 3 of the same…

| |

Anglo-Dutch, Colour & Varnish Works Private Limited v. India Trading House

Anglo-Dutch, Colour & Varnish Works Private Limited v. India Trading House PTC (Suppl) (2) 585 (Del) Plaintiff was one of the leading manufacturers of superior white zinc paint under trade mark 1001. The salient features of the Plaintiff’s trade mark were the numeral 1001 appearing in bold type in grey lettering on a white circle…

|

Takkar (India) Tea Company Vs. Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Takkar (India) Tea Company v. Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (44) PTC 90 (Del) Intellectual Property Appellate Board held that the mark of the Petitioner, being ‘GOLD LEAF’ is similar to the mark of the Respondent being ‘SONA’ for tea leaves and denied registration of the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner…

|

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Anglo French Drugs and Industries Ltd.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Anglo French Drugs and Industries Ltd. Decided on: 12.09.2014 In the High Court of Delhi Appellant, marketed Oxcarbazepine, an anticonvulsant and mood stabilizing drug used in the treatment of epilepsy and bipolar disorder under the trade mark OXETOL. Respondent adopted the trademark EXITOL for administering Lactitol. Appellant filed a suit…

|

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. In the Bombay High Court of Bombay 10.09.2014 Plaintiff was proprietor of registered trademarks, OROFER and OROFER-XT. Defendant was using COROFER and COROFOER-XT. Facts: • In 1996, the Plaintiff’s marks OROFER and OROFER-XT were registered. • In 2006, the Plaintiff noticed the Defendant’s advertisement in the Trade…