Landmark Indian IP Cases Everyone Should Know

For law students in India, understanding Intellectual Property (IP) through key judicial decisions is essential to appreciating how courts interpret and shape the law. India’s IP jurisprudence has evolved rapidly over the past two decades, balancing innovation, trade, and public interest. This article explores landmark Indian IP cases across patent, copyright, and trademark law, connecting them with relevant statutes and global implications.

1. Novartis AG v. Union of India

(2013) 6 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India

Background:

Novartis sought a patent under the Patents Act, 1970 for the drug Glivec (Imatinib Mesylate), claiming it as a novel invention.

Issue:

Was the new form of Glivec a patentable invention or an attempt at “evergreening”?

Held:

The Supreme Court denied the patent, holding that Glivec failed to demonstrate enhanced therapeutic efficacy as required under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

Significance:

Reinforced India’s pro-public health stance.
Restricted evergreening (minor modifications of existing drugs to extend monopoly).
Strengthened India’s global image as a TRIPS-compliant but access-prioritizing patent regime.

Key Law: Section 3(d), Patents Act, 1970 — bars patenting of new forms of known substances without significantly improved efficacy.

2. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd.

(2009) Madras High Court

Background:

Bajaj owned a patent over its DTS-i (Digital Twin Spark Ignition) technology and alleged that TVS’s ‘Flame’ bike infringed its patent.

Issue:

Whether TVS used Bajaj’s patented technology and whether there was doctrinal equivalence.

Held:

The Madras High Court adopted the doctrine of pith and marrow, emphasizing that infringement exists even if an identical copy isn’t made, provided the contested invention performs the same function in substantially the same way.

Significance:

Established India’s judicial recognition of the doctrine of equivalents.
Strengthened enforcement of patent rights among industrial innovators.

Key Law: Sections 48–107 of the Patents Act, 1970.

3. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.

(2008) 37 PTC 71 (Del) & (2015) Delhi High Court Appeal

Background:

Roche accused Cipla of infringing its patent for the anti-cancer drug Erlotinib Hydrochloride sold under the brand Tarceva.

Issue:

Balancing IP exclusivity and access to affordable medicines.

Held:

The Delhi High Court initially refused an injunction, emphasizing public interest. On appeal, the court upheld valid patent rights but balanced them with affordability under Sections 83 and 84 (compulsory licensing principles).

Significance:

Promoted a balanced approach toward patent enforcement and public health.
Recognized that patents operate subject to “reasonable requirements” of the public.

4. Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd.

(Delhi High Court, 2024)

Background:

Ericsson filed a suit against Lava over infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) involving mobile technologies.

Issue:

Interpretation of FRAND terms (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory licensing) and valuation of damages.

Held:

The Delhi High Court awarded damages exceeding ₹244 crore, recognizing Ericsson’s patents as valid and Lava’s failure to negotiate in good faith.

Significance:

Marked one of India’s largest SEP-related awards.
Highlighted the need for transparent and non-discriminatory licensing.

Key Law: Patents Act, 1970 (Sections 107A, 108), global FRAND principles.

5. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

(2001) 5 SCC 73

Background:

Both companies used similar names — “Falcitab” and “Falcigo” — for anti-malarial drugs. Confusion among doctors and pharmacists was likely.

Issue:

When does similarity in mark amount to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Held:

The Supreme Court formulated detailed tests for deceptive similarity considering:

Nature of goods and trade channels;
Class of purchasers;
Visual and phonetic similarities; and
Degree of resemblance and surrounding circumstances.

Significance:

Pioneering precedent for evaluating similarity in pharmaceutical trademarks.
Reinforced consumer protection as the core principle of trademark law.

Key Law: Section 29, Trade Marks Act, 1999.

6. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd.

(2018) 2 SCC 1

Background:

Toyota claimed infringement of its global mark “PRIUS” against an Indian auto accessory company.

Issue:

Should foreign companies enjoy protection of unregistered marks in India under the universality or territoriality principle?

Held:

The Supreme Court applied the territoriality doctrine — trademark rights are territorial. Toyota lacked reputation or goodwill in India prior to defendant’s use.

Significance:

Landmark for cross-border IP protection.
Affirmed that global reputation alone doesn’t suffice; goodwill must exist within Indian jurisdiction.

Key Law: Sections 27 & 34, Trade Marks Act, 1999.

7. ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA

(2010) 42 PTC 572 (Del)

Background:

ITC owned the “CLASSIC” cigarette brand. Philip Morris used “Marlboro CLASSIC.”

Issue:

Does dilution apply even if consumer confusion is unlikely?

Held:

Delhi High Court held that tarnishment or dilution of famous marks amounts to infringement, even without direct confusion.

Significance:

Expanded Indian law to cover protection of well-known marks under Section 29(4).
Highlighted brand distinctiveness as an independent value.

8. Daimler Benz AG v. Hybo Hindustan

(1994) PTC 287 (Del)

Background:

German automaker Daimler objected to “Benz” being used for undergarments by an Indian trader.

Held:

The Delhi High Court barred use of “Benz” for unrelated goods, holding that famous marks enjoy cross-category protection.

Significance:

Among the earliest Indian judgments protecting well-known trademarks.
Emphasized that dilution or exploitation of reputation is actionable even for dissimilar goods.

Key Law: Section 29(4), Trade Marks Act, 1999.

9. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak

(2008) 1 SCC 1

Background:

The publisher of Supreme Court Cases (SCC) claimed copyright in its law report formatting and headnotes.

Issue:

What is the standard of originality under Section 13 of the Copyright Act?

Held:

The Supreme Court recognized the “modicum of creativity” test, diverging from the “sweat of the brow” principle. Creative inputs like headnotes may be protected if they show intellectual effort.

Significance:

Defined originality in Indian copyright law.
Harmonized domestic law with U.S. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone.

10. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films

(1978) 4 SCC 118

Background:

Playwright R.G. Anand sued producer of Hum Hindustani for copying his play Hum Hindustani.

Held:

Ideas are not copyrightable. Only the expression of an idea, if substantially similar, leads to infringement.

Significance:

Laid the cornerstone of Indian copyright jurisprudence.
Established distinction between “idea” and “expression.”

Key Law: Section 13 & 51, Copyright Act, 1957.

11. Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India

(2005) 30 PTC 253 (Del)

Background:

Eminent sculptor Amarnath Sehgal sued the Government for destroying his mural installed in Vigyan Bhavan.

Held:

The Delhi High Court recognized the moral right of the author under Section 57, holding that destruction of the mural violated the artist’s right to integrity.

Significance:

Landmark on moral rights.
Affirmed that authorship confers perpetual dignity beyond economic control.

12. India TV Independent News Service v. Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd.

(2012) Delhi High Court

Background:

India TV used film clips belonging to Yashraj Films for news discussions and claimed fair dealing.

Held:

The Court held such use was not “fair dealing” under Section 52; re-broadcasting copyrighted film material for commercial benefit amounted to infringement.

Significance:

Limited the scope of fair use for commercial media.

13. Citizen Watch Co. Ltd. v. Dineshkumar Laxmanbhai Virda

(2024) 2 HCC (Del) 707

Background:

Citizen Watch sued for trademark infringement under Sections 29(2)(c) and 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act.

Held:

Delhi High Court clarified that when both marks and goods are identical, presumption of consumer confusion is automatic under Section 29(3).

Significance:

Reinforced statutory presumption favoring registered mark owners.
Modern marker for precision in IP enforcement jurisprudence.

14. Hershey Co. v. Dilip Kumar Bacha

(2024) 1 HCC (Del) 461)

Issue:

Jurisdiction for trademark rectification petitions under Sections 57, 47, and 91 of the Trade Marks Act.

Held:

Delhi High Court rejected an expansive “dynamic effect” interpretation, affirming jurisdictional boundaries based on statutory intent.

Significance:

Clarified forum jurisdiction and prevented forum-shopping in IP disputes.

15. Perry v. Truecaller AB (2024) — Hypothetical Future Trend

Though pending appellate clarification, recent trial court cases involving AI-generated content raise questions of AI authorship. Courts are exploring whether algorithmic creators can hold copyright or need human intervention—a milestone for future IP law study.

Conclusion

The evolution of intellectual property jurisprudence in India reveals a consistent effort to harmonize three priorities: innovation incentives, public welfare, and international compliance. From Novartis safeguarding affordability to Roche v. Cipla balancing patent exclusivity, from Cadila ensuring consumer safety to Amarnath Sehgal upholding moral rights, and new-age SEP and AI disputes leading future direction — Indian courts continue to shape dynamic doctrines.

For Indian law students, these landmark cases demonstrate not only black-letter interpretation but constitutional and socio-economic reasoning behind IP law. They collectively underline that intellectual property, though private in character, thrives as a public good within the architecture of India’s knowledge economy.