Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Case Overview The case of Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade v. The State of Karnataka, adjudicated by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, represents a pivotal judicial review of procedural compliance in criminal proceedings related to intellectual property. Heard under Criminal Petition No. 102679 of 2025, the petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet and related proceedings initiated for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 65 and 68…

Case Summary: S. Sudhakar vs. Leela Udhyog Case Title: S. Sudhakar Vs Leela Udhyog Date of Order: 8 July 2025 Case Number: C.S. (Commercial) No. 52 of 2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1634 Name of Court: Madras High Court Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy Overview The case of S. Sudhakar v. M/s. Leela Udhyog, adjudicated by the Madras High Court, involves a significant judicial examination of copyright infringement and passing off in commercial trademark disputes. Filed under C.S. (Commercial) No. 52 of 2024, the plaintiffs—S. Sudhakar, S. Dhinakar, and M/s. T.M. Karuppiah Nadar Sons—alleged that the defendants, M/s. Leela Udhyog…

Introduction The case of Naga Limited Vs. Cherukuri Gopi Chand, adjudicated by the Madras High Court, explores the scope of Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which concerns groundless threats of legal proceedings. Heard under C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025, this case involves an application by the defendant, Naga Limited, seeking summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. The suit sought declarations and injunctions against alleged threats made through notices of opposition to the plaintiff’s trademark applications. The central issue was whether such notices constitute actionable threats under Section 142, raising significant questions about statutory interpretation…

Case Summary: Lalita Goyal v. Sumit Garg The case of Lalita Goyal v. Sumit Garg, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, represents a significant judicial intervention in the realm of design law under the Designs Act, 2000. This appeal, lodged under FAO (COMM) 125/2025, challenges the decision of the District Judge (Commercial Court), North District, Delhi, which granted an interim injunction in favor of the respondent, Sumit Garg, restraining the appellant, Lalita Goyal, from using a design registered in Garg’s favor. The core issue revolves around the procedural mandate of Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, which requires the…

Case Summary: Aquestia Limited v. Automat Industries Private Limited The case of Aquestia Limited v. Automat Industries Private Limited represents a significant judicial examination of patent infringement within the realm of fluid control valve technology. This legal dispute centers on allegations that the defendants’ product, marketed under the “Hydromat” brand, infringes the plaintiff’s registered patent, IN 427050, titled “A Fluid Control Valve.” The case raises critical questions about patent claim construction, the relevance of a defendant’s own patent as a defense to infringement, and the role of prior employment relationships in intellectual property disputes. Factual Background Aquestia Limited, the plaintiff,…

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 16459 OF 2023 Date of Order: 7 June 2025 Neutral Citation: 2025-BHC-OS-1183 Court: High Court of Bombay Judges: Hon’ble Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Karnik Overview The case of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited is a pivotal judicial examination of design infringement and passing off under the Indian Designs Act, 2000. Heard before the High Court of Bombay, this commercial appeal addresses the refusal of an interim injunction sought by Atomberg to restrain Luker Electric…

Exide Industries Limited vs Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited The case of Exide Industries Limited versus Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited represents a significant adjudication in the realm of intellectual property law, specifically concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Heard in the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the High Court at Calcutta, this dispute encapsulates the tension between established brand identity and alleged imitation by a trade rival. Exide, a long-standing leader in the lead-acid battery industry, accused Amara Raja, a key competitor, of adopting a deceptively similar trade dress and trademark elements, threatening its century-long goodwill. This…

The case of Products and Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nilkamal Limited represents a significant legal battle in the realm of intellectual property law, specifically concerning trademark infringement and the principle of international exhaustion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The dispute centers around the use of the trademark “STELLADEXIN” and related marks, involving a plaintiff seeking to protect its registered trademark rights in India and defendants asserting prior use and authorization from the original trademark owner. This case study delves into the factual matrix, procedural developments, core legal issues, judicial reasoning, and the law settled by the High Court…

GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Limited and Anr The case of GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Limited and Anr represents a significant judicial pronouncement in the realm of Indian patent law, particularly concerning the enforcement of patent rights against secondary actors in the supply chain, such as marketers or sellers. The plaintiff, GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., a prominent agrochemical company, initiated legal action against BR Agrotech Limited (Defendant No.1) and another entity (Defendant No.2) for infringing its Indian Patent No. 394568, which pertains to a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation comprising Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The…

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anr. versus Zydus Lifesciences Limited Introduction: The case of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Anr. versus Zydus Lifesciences Limited represents a significant patent infringement dispute in the realm of biological drugs, specifically concerning the monoclonal antibody Pertuzumab, used in treating breast cancer. Factual Background The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and its affiliate, hold two Indian patents relevant to this dispute: Indian Patent No. IN 268632: “Pharmaceutical Formulation Comprising HER2 Antibody” – a product patent covering an aqueous pharmaceutical formulation of Pertuzumab with specific excipients. Indian Patent No. IN 464646: “Pertuzumab Variants and Evaluation Thereof”…