Author: ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Introduction The case of Ashim Kumar Bagchi versus Balaji Telefilms Limited and Others revolves around allegations of copyright infringement and breach of confidence in cinematic storytelling. The plaintiff, an aspiring scriptwriter, claimed that his original literary work, initially titled “Kal Kisne Dekha” and later re-registered as “The Show Must Go On”, was unlawfully copied by the defendants in producing the film “Dream Girl 2”. The Bombay High Court examined whether the plaintiff’s script merited copyright protection and if the defendants’ film constituted an infringement or misuse of confidential information. The judgment underscores that ideas, themes, and stock elements are not…

Introduction The case of Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Others represents a significant judicial pronouncement by the Delhi High Court in the realm of intellectual property law, specifically patent infringement in a cross-border context. This dispute centers on allegations that Ace Technologies, a South Korean company, infringed upon the plaintiff’s Indian Patent No. 240893, which pertains to innovative antenna technology designed to enhance spectral efficiency in cellular networks. The plaintiff, a Canadian entity, sought to protect its patent rights against defendants with limited presence in India, raising complex issues of jurisdiction, enforcement, and interim relief. The…

Case: C. Ganesh Narayan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Date of Order: 25 July 2025 Case Number: Writ Petition No. 17893 of 2025 (LB-BMP) Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum Introduction The case of C. Ganesh Narayan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. before the High Court of Karnataka concerned a challenge to two show cause notices issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), East Zone, directing the petitioners to explain why their trade licence should not be cancelled. The dispute lay at the intersection of…

Introduction This legal case study examines a trademark opposition dispute between Tablets (India) Limited and M/s. Spey Medicals Private Limited, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi. The core legal issues pertain to procedural compliance under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, particularly in regard to the timelines for filing and serving counter-statements, submission of evidence, and the consequence of failing to take appropriate steps within the statutory deadlines. The case reflects upon the tension between procedural technicalities and substantive rights and sets a precedent on whether failure to submit evidence or intimate non-submission can…

Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. v. Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. Introduction The case of Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. presents a detailed exploration of the legal thresholds that govern protection under the Designs Act, 2000 and the tort of passing off. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in piracy of a registered design and passed off their travel neck pillows as those of the plaintiffs. The key issue was whether the plaintiffs’ aesthetic design qualified for statutory protection and whether the defendants’ product was an obvious imitation causing consumer…

Trademark Dispute: Cordelia Cruises vs. Cordelia Inn In the evolving landscape of intellectual property law in India, disputes over trademark infringement and passing off are increasingly prevalent, particularly in industries where brand identity plays a pivotal role in consumer perception. The case of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v. Mukesh Prasad Thapliyal and Others is a significant judicial pronouncement by the High Court of Delhi that addresses the conflict between two entities operating in the hospitality sector over the use of the trademark “Cordelia.” This case study delves into the legal intricacies of the dispute, examining the arguments presented by…

Trademark Dispute: Suman Devi and Another Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Date of Order: 25 July 2025 Case Number: FAO (COMM) 189/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6149-DB Court: High Court of Delhi Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla Case Overview The case of Suman Devi and Another v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, represents a significant judicial examination of trademark infringement and passing off in commercial disputes involving scientific and laboratory instruments. Heard under First Appeal from Order (FAO) (Commercial) 189/2025, the case involves an appeal against an interlocutory order…

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…