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.
50 results
for “SUPREME”
Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors.
Revocation of a patent on a counter-claim under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 cannot be decided summarily; it presupposes a full trial in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly where patent exclusion under…
Biotechnology PatentCounter-claimInterim InjunctionPatent EligibilityCopyrightMy Space Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd.
An internet intermediary hosting user-generated content is not liable for copyright infringement merely because its business model derives revenue from such content or because it performs format-shifting or indexing; it forfeits t…
Copyright InfringementDigital PlatformsIntermediary LiabilityOnline InfringementTrade 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 MarksNandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
Registration in a particular class of goods does not confer a monopoly over the entire class; likelihood of confusion under Section 11 must be assessed by the real nature and target consumers of the competing goods, and honest, lo…
ClassificationDeceptive SimilarityDissimilar GoodsHonest Concurrent UseTrade MarksNeon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors.
Under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, actual continuous prior use of a mark in the market prevails over a rival's earlier-dated application for registration where the registrant remained inactive for a prolonged period; t…
Deceptive SimilarityNon-usePassing OffPrior UserPatentsNovartis AG v. Union of India & Ors.
Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 imposes a distinct and higher threshold of patentability for new forms of known substances, over and above the ordinary tests of novelty and inventive step. A new form of a known substance mus…
EfficacyEvergreeningInventive StepKnown SubstanceOtherNovenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Anr.
In actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing …
Commercial Courts ActContinuing InfringementPre-institution MediationRejection of PlaintTrade 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 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 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 Grinders