Bombay and Delhi High Courts Deliver Key Interim Injunctions and Patent Rulings in June 2024 IP Disputes

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Pidilite Industries Ltd., restraining Dubond Products India Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks “LW” and “LW+.” The plaintiff sought injunctions against infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off, specifically targeting the defendant’s use of “LW” combined with “HYDROBUILD,” “HYDROTITE,” or “Power.” Justice R.I. Chagla observed that the defendant’s marks encompassed the entirety of Pidilite’s “LW” mark, prima facie constituting infringement. Consequently, the Court restrained Dubond Products from using these marks.

In a separate trademark dispute, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. concerning the marks “ZITA-MET” and “XIGAMET.” Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla found the defendant’s mark phonetically and structurally similar to the plaintiff’s, both used on medicinal products, creating a likelihood of confusion among ordinary consumers.

The Bombay High Court also dismissed an application seeking rejection of a plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Justice Manish Pitale noted that the lapse of over eight years between 2015 and 2023 did not preclude the plaintiff from contemplating urgent interim relief. The plaintiff had demonstrated that the defendant had challenged its rights despite registered trademarks, justifying the pursuit of urgent relief.

In an interim application involving ATYATI Technologies and COGNIZANT Technologies, the Bombay High Court discontinued an ex-parte injunction previously granted to ATYATI for alleged device mark infringement. Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla found that ATYATI had suppressed material facts critical to the Court’s assessment, breaching the duty of full disclosure required for ex-parte relief.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Fab India Emporium, restraining defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under the mark “FABINDIA” or deceptively similar marks. Justice Anish Dayal held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience favoring Fab India and a risk of irreparable harm absent the injunction.

In another trademark matter, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Domino’s IP Holder against defendants using the mark “DONITO’S” for pizzas and burgers. Justice Anish Dayal ordered the defendants to cease advertising, promoting, or selling products under marks identical or deceptively similar to Domino’s registered trademarks.

Turning to patents, the Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of a patent application for a “Portable Vehicle Management System.” Justice Sanjeev Narula agreed with the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs that the invention lacked an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Conversely, the Delhi High Court remanded a patent application concerning a probiotic bacterium strain, Bifidobacterium longum, for fresh consideration. Justice Sanjeev Narula found the earlier examination insufficient regarding novelty and restored the patent application number, directing the Controller for re-evaluation.

Finally, in the context of broadcast rights, the Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction protecting Star India’s exclusive rights to broadcast the ICC T20 World Cup 2024, reinforcing the legal framework safeguarding sports telecast rights in India.