Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Case Analysis: Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Knoll Healthcare Pvt Ltd. Case Title: Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Knoll Healthcare Pvt Ltd. Date of Order: 19 June 2025 Case Number: C.S. No.355 of 2020 Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1441 Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Name of Judge: Hon’ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy This case explores the nuanced distinction in trademark law between a mark being merely common on the register and truly common in actual trade. The High Court of Madras, in deciding the dispute between Apex Laboratories’ mark “ZINCOVIT” and Knoll Healthcare’s mark “ZINOLVITA,” examined whether the plaintiff’s…

Case Summary: Mrs. Preeti Vs Vijay Kumar Chopra Date of Order: 23 June 2025 Case Number: O.A.No.183 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025 Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras Judge: Hon’ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy Introduction This case study examines how the High Court of Madras, in deciding an interlocutory application for interim injunction in a copyright infringement suit, analyzed the plaintiffs’ conduct, particularly their failure to disclose critical facts and inconsistencies in their pleadings. The judgment underscores that suppression or nondisclosure of material information by a plaintiff can significantly weaken a claim for equitable relief like an injunction,…

Rupali P. Shah Vs. Adani Wilmer Limited and others Date of Order: 11 June 2025 Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No.101 of 2012 Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8516 Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division Name of Judge: Justice Manish Pitale Overview This case revolves around a fundamental principle of civil procedure: that a party is not permitted to advance arguments at the stage of final hearing which have no foundation in its pleadings. In Rupali P. Shah Vs. Adani Wilmer Limited and others, the Bombay High Court confronted this very proposition, addressing whether…

Om Prakash Gupta vs. Parveen Kumar and Anr. Date of Order: May 19, 2000 Case No.: Suit No. 1744/99 Neutral Citation: 86 (2000) DLT 181 Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Goel Summary This dispute revolves around the trademark “SURAJ CHHAP,” a label tied to the tobacco trade, and pits Om Prakash Gupta, claiming registered proprietorship, against Parveen Kumar and another, who challenge the plaintiff’s assertions with a tale of prior use and alleged deceit. The High Court’s ruling not only vacates an interim injunction but dismisses the suit entirely, spotlighting the sanctity of judicial processes…

Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. & Anr. Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Date of Order: January 11, 2019 Case No.: RFA No. 18/2019 Citation: AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 96 Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Valmiki J. Mehta Introduction In the realm of intellectual property law, the case of Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. & Anr., decided by the High Court of Delhi, stands as a significant exploration of copyright ownership and enforcement rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. This legal battle pits Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd., a company claiming ownership of…

Introduction In the intricate tapestry of intellectual property law, few cases weave together tradition, commerce, and legal nuance as vividly as the dispute between the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) and Girdhar Industries. This case, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, delves into the contentious realm of trademark rights, pitting a statutory body tasked with preserving the legacy of “Khadi” against a private entity wielding a registered composite mark. At its core, this legal battle questions the boundaries of trademark exclusivity, the validity of registrations, and the equitable principles governing interim relief. Detailed Factual Background The plaintiff, Khadi…

Novartis AG & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd. (2015) In the intricate tapestry of intellectual property law, few cases exemplify the tension between patent rights and public health as vividly as Novartis AG & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd., decided by the Delhi High Court on January 9, 2015. This legal skirmish revolved around the enforcement of a patent for INDACATEROL, a groundbreaking bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), against the backdrop of India’s burgeoning public health crisis. The plaintiffs, Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary, sought to protect their statutory monopoly, while the defendant, Cipla Ltd., challenged the exclusivity by…

Case Title: National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. Vs. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. Date of Order: May 7, 1953 Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1952 Citation: 1953 AIR 357, 1953 SCR 1028 Name of Court: Supreme Court of India Name of Judges: Hon’ble Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justices Vivian Bose and B. Jagannadhadas Overview Decided by the Supreme Court of India on May 7, 1953, this landmark judgment not only resolved a dispute over the registration of a trade mark but also clarified the scope of appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court. At…

Narender Kumar Sharma v. Maharana Pratap Educational Center Case Overview The case of Narender Kumar Sharma v. Maharana Pratap Educational Center exemplifies this tension, spotlighting the judiciary’s approach to delays in refiling legal documents. Decided by the High Court of Delhi on December 13, 2018, this appeal wrestled with the question of whether a delay in refiling a written statement—after its initial timely submission—warranted the drastic consequence of closing the defendant’s right to defend. Detailed Factual Background The dispute originated in a commercial suit, CS(COMM) 22/2018, filed by Dr. Narender Kumar Sharma and others (the plaintiffs) against Maharana Pratap Educational…

IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. v/s Puma SE The case of IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. Vs. Puma SE addresses the critical interface between trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The principal dispute revolved around whether the inclusion of a registered trademark in the drop-down menu for product listings on an online platform amounts to infringement and if the operator of such a platform can seek immunity under the safe harbour provisions of the IT Act. This case examines the obligations of digital intermediaries when enabling product descriptions that involve reputed trademarks and…