Search Indian IP Case Law
Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and geographical indications — organised by Act and section, each with a link to the judgment on the court’s website.
65 results
for “Infringement”
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016, being advisory executive instructions without the force of law, cannot bind e-commerce platforms. Once goods bearing a registered trade mark have been put on the market with the proprietor's co…
E-commerceExhaustion Of RightsIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementOtherAmitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.
A celebrity's publicity rights in his name, image and persona may be enforced through an omnibus injunction that binds not only named defendants but extends to blocking directions against telecom and internet intermediaries, where…
Domain NamesDynamic InjunctionOnline InfringementPersonality RightsCopyrightANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC
An Indian court has jurisdiction if the plaintiff's principal place of business is in India, or if the defendant targets Indian users, even when the defendant's servers are located abroad. Even temporarily storing a copyrighted wo…
Artificial IntelligenceCopyright Fair DealingCopyright InfringementJurisdictionPatentsBishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries
An improvement on a device or process already known must involve more than a routine workshop improvement; it must independently satisfy the tests of novelty and inventive step by producing a new result, a new article, or a better…
Inventive StepNoveltyObviousnessPatent RevocationTrade MarksCadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In assessing deceptive similarity between trade marks for medicinal products, courts must apply a stricter standard than for ordinary goods because confusion can endanger public health, having regard to the nature of the marks, th…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical TrademarkPhonetic SimilarityDesignsCarlsberg Breweries A/S v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd.
A single suit combining a cause of action for infringement of a registered design with a cause of action for passing off is maintainable under Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where both claims flow from the sa…
Composite SuitCopyright Design OverlapDesign InfringementPassing OffTrade MarksChristian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors.
An e-commerce platform is not automatically entitled to the safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 merely because it calls itself an intermediary; the exemption applies only where the platform's role…
CounterfeitingE-commerceIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementPatentsCommunication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corp. & Ors.
In assessing infringement at the interim stage, patent claims are to be given a purposive construction covering the substance of the claimed technical solution, and a defendant's unexplained refusal to disclose technical data pecu…
Adverse InferenceClaim ConstructionInterim InjunctionPatent InfringementDesignsCrocs Inc USA v. M/s Bata India Ltd and Ors.
In commercial litigation, costs ordinarily follow the outcome of the case, and the successful party is awarded actual and reasonable litigation expenses. Parties pursuing commercial disputes must bear the financial consequences of…
Actual CostsCancellation of DesignDesign InfringementIndustrial DesignPatentsCrystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.
Where a complete specification and the patentee's own conduct during prosecution treat a claimed element as necessary to achieve the invention's stated technical effect, that element cannot later be characterised as non-essential …
Claim ConstructionDoctrine Of EquivalentsInterim InjunctionPatent Infringement