Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 AUGUST 2007

No Interlocutory Injunction If Damages are Adequate Remedy

Lex Orbis
Explore more from Lex Orbis

It is a settled rule that when damages can form adequate remedy, injunctions are not awarded. In the case of Dart Industries Incorporation Anr. V. Technoplast & Anr. 2007 (35) PTC 139 (Del.) apart from reiterating the above principle, the Delhi High Court dealt with the questions of passing off and infringement of designs and copyright.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Manisha Singh
Manisha Singh
Author LinkedIn connections

It is a settled rule that when damages can form adequate remedy, injunctions are not awarded. In the case of Dart Industries Incorporation & Anr. V. Technoplast & Anr. 2007 (35) PTC 139 (Del.) apart from reiterating the above principle, the Delhi High Court dealt with the questions of passing off and infringement of designs and copyright.

The Plaintiff No: 1 Dart Industries Inc. was a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA. The Plaintiff No 1 claimed ownership and possession of proprietary, know-how, innovative technology, intellectual property rights and trade secrets for creating designs to manufacture products popularly known as Tupperware products globally. Plaintiff No. 1 licensed Plaintiff No: 2 M/S Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. the right to use its moulds to manufacture the products along with the right to use and apply the registered design for manufacture and for sale of the products in India. The Plaintiffs claimed that the said designs became very popular in

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law