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.
106 results
for “Appeal”
Novenco 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 PlaintCopyrightOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Copyright)
A defendant cannot defend a copyright infringement suit on the basis of a registration that has been cancelled by an unchallenged rectification order which found the artistic work to be a copy of the plaintiff's pre-existing get-u…
Artistic WorkColourable ImitationCopyright RectificationLabel DesignTrade MarksOpella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Trade Marks)
Where a coordinate bench, following an unchallenged rectification order, has found the mark in question deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the infri…
Deceptive SimilarityPassing OffPharmaceutical MarksPrior UsePatentsOpenTV Inc. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The exclusion of business methods under Section 3(k) is absolute and unqualified, unlike the per se qualification applicable to computer programmes; the true nature of a claim is determined by its substance rather than its form or…
Business MethodClaim AmendmentComputer Related InventionsSection 3(k)Trade 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 MarksParle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Where two parties file competing applications for registration of an identical or deceptively similar trade mark on a proposed-to-be-used basis, priority for registration under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is determined…
Approbation and ReprobationPrior RegistrationPriorityProposed to be UsedTrade MarksPepsi Co., Inc. & Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. & Anr.
A trader may puff its own goods and compare them with a rival's, but may not denigrate or ridicule a competitor's product or mark; disparagement is judged from the intent, manner of presentation, storyline and overall message of t…
Comparative AdvertisingDisparagementInterim InjunctionTelevision CommercialsTrade 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 Grinders