In this case, Plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction before the Madras High Court against Defendant for infringement of its copyright and trademark. The Court herein granted an interim injunction in favor of Plaintiff. 

Following that, the Applicant/Defendant filed three petitions, each with a request to rescind the temporary relief granted on the basis of urgency. The appeal was predicated on the fact that the medications were in large quantities, had a one-year expiration date, and were in high demand because of the ongoing epidemic since they helped relieve Covid-19 symptoms. The Court determined that the Respondent/Plaintiff had shown a prima facie case for the continuation of the interim injunction since the balance of convenience remained in their favor/patent registration in Delhi.

While holding this, the Court noted that they could not allow a party to violate another person’s intellectual property rights, despite the fact that the country was facing an unprecedented medical emergency. The Court affirmed the interim injunction and stated that it would stay in effect pending the outcome of the complaint.

In this case of an alleged trademark infringement, the defendants laid primary emphasis on the ground that the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction on the case, since neither the plaintiffs’ nor the defendants’ primary place of business was Delhi. It is important to note herein that the products bearing the mark ‘V Guard’ which was allegedly infringed upon were being offered for sale, advertised, and sold through online portals which in turn were accessible by the people living in Delhi inasmuch as it was accessible by the Indian public at large. 

Following an assessment of the facts, the Court concluded that it had territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff had a business in Delhi and the product carrying the mark was advertised and sold in Delhi via online means.

  • Decided by the Delhi High Court on 4th June, 2021

Herein, the plaintiff was a Saudi Arabia-based business group operating since 1986, who owned a chain of restaurants and food products. They had recently started operating in India – in 2017 – but had to retreat significantly since the effect of the pandemic. They had, however, several trademark registrations over the mark ‘Albaik’, in word and logo forms.

The defendants in this matter were offering franchises over the plaintiff’s mark for a five (5) percent franchise fee, and information of the same was posted on the defendants’ websites and social media pages/PCT filing in India.

Convinced by the plaintiff’s prima facie case, the Court granted an ex-parte injunction in their favor.

  • – Decided by Delhi High Court on 28th April, 2021

In this matter, United Spirits filed an application for an ad interim injunction against the Defendants for the use of its well-known trademark, SIGNATURE for and on gutkha. The parties had previously engaged in a settlement agreement relative to the Defendants’ use of the said mark for tobacco and associated products, and United Spirits contended that the Defendants had breached the settlement agreement and related commitment, rendering the settlement null and void.

The Court disagreed, stating that steps were taken by parties regarding trademark applications filed after the settlement, making the agreement valid. Recognizing that well-known marks are afforded more protection, the Court directed the Defendants to utilize the trademark, SIGNATURE, in accordance with the settlement agreement; it did not halt the Defendants from using the Gutka mark.

  • – Decided by the Calcutta High Court on 22nd March, 2021

The case was instituted by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., who are the proprietors of the trademark ‘Amul’. It was contended in the Plaint, that the Defendants were incorporating the ‘Amul’ trademark with a deceptively similar font in the labels of candles marketed by them, which was alleged to be an act of trademark infringement/Design registration lawyers in Delhi.

The counsel appearing for the Plaintiff also pointed out that the ‘Amul’ trademark was recognized as a well-known mark by the Trademark Registry, and as the Defendant’s products were being sold at cake shops and confectionaries, there exists a high likelihood that consumers would associate such infringing products with the Plaintiff. The Calcutta High Court duly passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from using the ‘Amul’ mark until the disposal of the suit.