Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

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…

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…