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.
40 results
for “Costs”
Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
A trader may be restrained at the interim stage from adopting a corporate or trade name deceptively similar to a widely reputed name, even for a different line of business, where it is likely to cause confusion or suggest a trade …
Corporate NameDissimilar GoodsInterim InjunctionPassing OffPatentsMerck Sharp & Dohme Corporation & Anr. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Where infringement of a pharmaceutical patent is established at trial, the patentee is entitled to a decree and actual costs; damages require a framed issue and proper evidence.
Actual CostsCounterclaimPatent InfringementPharmaceutical PatentTrade MarksMidas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors.
In cases of infringement of trade mark or copyright, an injunction should normally be granted where a prima facie case of infringement is shown; mere delay in bringing the action is not sufficient to defeat the grant of an injunct…
Copyright InfringementDelay and LachesInterim InjunctionPassing OffTrade MarksN.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation & Anr.
A passing off action does not depend on registration of the mark in the country where protection is sought, and the goodwill necessary to sustain such an action may be established through transborder reputation built up by adverti…
GoodwillInterim InjunctionPassing OffTransborder ReputationTrade MarksParle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore
Deceptive similarity is judged by the overall impression on a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, not by a side-by-side comparison of details.
Deceptive SimilarityGet-upImperfect RecollectionInfringementTrade MarksPeople Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.
Where defendants dishonestly continue to exploit a well-known online mark and leave the suit uncontested, the court may decree infringement and passing off and award substantial costs.
CostsDishonest AdoptionDomain NamesEx Parte DecreeTrade MarksPernod Ricard India Private Limited & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
Composite marks must be compared as a whole. A proprietor cannot combine features drawn from different marks to build a case of infringement, and cannot claim exclusivity over a common or laudatory element of a composite mark, or …
Anti-Dissection RuleCommon to the TradeComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityTrade MarksPerundurai Chennimalai Gounder v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
A registered mark cannot be removed from the Register without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Act, including notice to the proprietor; a removal made without it will be set aside.
Natural JusticePrior NoticeRemoval of Trade MarkRestorationTrade MarksPower Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Where infringement of a trade mark, copyright and design is prima facie established, an injunction pending the suit should ordinarily follow; defences such as acquiescence must be established on the facts.
AcquiescenceDelayInterim InjunctionMixer GrindersCopyrightRadhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
A producer who proves ownership of rights in a film is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief against rival exploitation, with costs.
CostsDeclarationFilm RightsOwnership