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.
52 results
for “Interim Injunction”
Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v. S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors.
An ex parte interim injunction restraining an alleged infringer of a registered design must be vacated where the defendant demonstrates a credible prima facie case that the design feature relied upon was already common to the trad…
CancellationDesign InfringementDesign RegistrationNoveltyTrade MarksSun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Mere delay in approaching the Court is not, by itself, sufficient to refuse an injunction, particularly in the pharmaceutical field where confusion between similar marks may also affect public interest.
Deceptive SimilarityDelayInterim InjunctionPANTOCIDOtherTabassum Jamal Hashmi v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
An individual's personality rights, encompassing name, image, voice, likeness and other distinctive attributes, are protectable by injunction against unauthorised commercial exploitation, and this protection extends to misuse effe…
AI And DeepfakesDynamic InjunctionIntermediary LiabilityPersonality RightsTrade MarksTata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr.
Use of a registered trade mark in a non-commercial context, for the purpose of parody, satire or criticism of the proprietor's conduct, does not amount to infringement or dilution under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, …
Comparative AdvertisingDilutionFreedom Of SpeechParodyPatentsTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.
In disputes over standard essential patents, an implementer who negotiates without genuine intent to license while continuing to exploit the patented standard is an unwilling licensee, and courts may order interim security, includ…
FRANDInterim InjunctionPatent InfringementStandard Essential PatentCopyrightThe Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors.
The exception under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957 for reproduction in the course of instruction is a substantive, purpose-based exception furthering access to education and is not confined by rigid quantitative fair-…
Access To EducationCopyright InfringementEducational ExceptionFair DealingCopyrightTips Industries Ltd. v. Wynk Music Ltd. & Anr.
The statutory licence for broadcasting under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 is confined to conventional, non-interactive radio and television broadcasting and does not extend to internet-based streaming or download service…
Assignment And LicensingBroadcasting RightsDigital PlatformsMusic And Sound RecordingsTrade MarksUnder Armour, Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd.
Although composite marks must be compared in their entirety under the anti-dissection rule, a mark may contain a dominant element that contributes disproportionately to its overall commercial impression, and such a dominant elemen…
Anti-Dissection RuleComposite MarksDeceptive SimilarityDominant MarkCopyrightUniversal City Studios LLC & Ors. v. DotMovies.Baby & Ors.
Where rogue websites persistently pirate copyrighted content and reappear under mirror or alphanumeric-variant domain names, a court may grant a dynamic injunction that extends, without a fresh suit, both to future mirror or redir…
Copyright InfringementDigital PlatformsDynamic InjunctionFilm And OTT ContentPatentsVifor (International) Ltd. & Anr. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
A product-by-process claim protects the novel product itself where the product cannot otherwise be defined by its structural features, and obtainable by language in such a claim is descriptive rather than limiting; infringement is…
Claim ConstructionInterim InjunctionNoveltyPharmaceutical Patent