Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Case Summary: Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S & D Hospitality Case Number: CS(COMM) 111/2017 Date of Order: 3rd January 2018 Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta Neutral Citation: 2018:DHC:14 Overview This case study analyzes the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. S & D Hospitality (CS(COMM) 111/2017). The dispute centers around alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and the territorial jurisdiction of the court in internet-related disputes involving the use of similar marks ‘SOCIAL’, ‘SOCIAL MONKEY’, and ‘STONE WATER’. The case…

Trodat GMBH Vs Addprint India Enterprises Introduction This case presents a significant examination of the principles governing design infringement, particularly emphasizing the perspective from which a design is to be evaluated. It underscores the importance of understanding whether a new design infringes upon a registered design by considering the “informed eye,” a concept distinct from the usual perception of an average consumer. This case also clarifies procedural aspects concerning the scope of appellate intervention in design disputes, and the approach courts should adopt when dealing with design comparisons, especially in relation to registered shape and configuration protections. Factual Background TRODAT…

KG Marketing India Vs Rashi Santosh Soni & Others – Case Summary Case Title: Details: Date of Order: August 23, 2024 Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 16/2024 Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6385-DB Name of Court: Delhi High Court Name of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Sachin Datta Case Overview: This case study delves into the dispute between KG Marketing India (the appellant) and Rashi Santosh Soni & others (the respondents) concerning allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents, and misuse of the trademark “SURYA.” The matter primarily concerns the appropriate legal proceedings for handling forged evidence filed in court, and the…

Dr. Praveen R. Vs. Dr. Arpitha Date of Order: 31 August 2021 Case Number: Writ Petition No.19448 of 2015 Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna S Case Overview This case study examines the legal proceedings involving Dr. Praveen R. and Dr. Arpitha, a matrimonial dispute that delves into the serious issue of perjury within the judicial system. It underscores the importance of timely and effective judicial action against false testimonies and fraudulent statements that threaten the integrity of the courts. The case primarily revolves around allegations of perjury, the court’s discretionary powers in addressing such…

Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. v. Kamdhenu Industries Ltd Overview The case of Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd. v. Kamdhenu Industries Ltd. and related suits represents a complex trademark dispute involving multiple parties, all centered around the use of the “Kamdhenu” trademark and associated intellectual property. The litigation revolves around allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and the validity of family settlements that purportedly govern the rights to use the trademark for different goods. The plaintiff, Kamdhenu Ispat Ltd., sought to protect its registered trademarks and restrain the defendants from using similar marks and corporate names that could cause confusion in the market. The…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Date of Order: 28 May 2025 Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 266 of 2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:16349 Name of Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla Overview The present case before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed whether a civil dispute over an alleged patent misuse could be converted into a criminal case. The judgment provides much-needed judicial clarity on the misuse of criminal proceedings for enforcing civil rights, particularly in patent-related matters, and…

Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH v/s Assistant Controller of Patents Case Summary This case revolves around the refusal by the Controller of Patents to grant a patent to Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH for a claimed invention involving an improved Ziegler-Natta catalyst system. The appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenged the rejection on the ground that the invention lacked an “inventive step” under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act. The High Court of Delhi adjudicated whether the appellant’s invention involved sufficient technical advance and non-obviousness to merit patent protection. Factual Background Lummus Novolen Technology GmbH is a German entity…

This case pertains to the registrability of the phrase “ONE FOR ALL” as a trademark in respect of educational books under Class 16. The appellant, Oswaal Books and Learnings Pvt. Ltd., challenged the refusal of its application by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that the mark lacked distinctive character as per Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court of Delhi, in appeal, considered whether the slogan had acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning sufficient for registration. Factual Background: Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited is engaged in publishing help books for a variety of…

Landmark Case Analysis: Prina Chemical Works & Others v. Sukhdayal & Others Introduction The case of Prina Chemical Works and Others v. Sukhdayal and Others marks a significant ruling in Indian intellectual property jurisprudence. Delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the decision explores the doctrine of passing off, particularly addressing whether longstanding business use and goodwill can offer protection to an unregistered trade name. Factual Background The plaintiff, Sukhdayal, was the sole proprietor of Prina Chemical Works, established in 1953, known for manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines, particularly “Zalim Lotion”. Over time, the business earned a strong reputation, with its products…

Ivy Entertainment Private Limited Vs. HR Pictures Date: March 27, 2025 Case No: (COMM) 264/2025 Court: High Court of Delhi Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Introduction In the bustling world of Indian cinema, where creativity meets commerce, the High Court of Delhi’s judgment on March 27, 2025, in the case of Ivy Entertainment Private Limited versus HR Pictures stands as a testament to the delicate balance between contractual obligations and commercial imperatives. This dispute, revolving around the Tamil film “Veera Deera Sooran”, pits a plaintiff seeking to protect its assigned rights against a defendant eager to…