Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10301–10400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Board found all challenged claims of patent 8406733 unpatentable over prior art references TS-23.140 and Ogawa by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on demonstrating that conventional design choices, such as using SSL/TLS and implementing modems, would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Vinay Kumar Gupta
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and distributing infringing apparel using deceptively similar trademarks to its registered brand 'LEVI'S'. The court found that the defendant adopted the trademark/label 'Levi', leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms Dolphin International Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar Khatri
The plaintiff, an export company, filed a suit against its former employee, Vinod Kumar Khatri, alleging that he breached his employment contract by disclosing confidential business secrets and client information to a competitor. The plaintiff sought damages of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the alleged irreparable loss.
Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Mimozax Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, Patent Office Chennai
Mimozax Co. appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-obesity composition derived from Acacia, which was refused based on several grounds including reliance on undisclosed prior art. The High Court found that the Controller failed to provide all relevant materials to the appellant and emphasized the doctrine of fairness in patent proceedings.
Amba Motorcyles Thr. Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor / Top MotoComponents Private Limited v.Mahavir Prasad
In a significant development for trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to replace one plaintiff with its successor-in-interest, Top MotoComponents Private Limited, who had acquired the assets and liabilities related to the 'TOP' trademark. Furthermore, the court subsequently accepted a joint application from both parties, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of a comprehensive settlement agreement. This outcome provides clarity on succession in IP disputes while finalizing the underlying commercial dispute.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motion Offense’s file‑sharing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Houston, Garcia and Wu. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Motion Offense’s ’353 patent, asserting that claims 1‑7 and 16 are obvious over prior‑art patents Houston and Garcia. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the review.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The USPTO denied DISH Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' video‑compression patent.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on its cable‑network patent, arguing the panel misapplied obviousness standards and acted inconsistently with a similar case.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Entropic Communications' '759 patent, arguing that key concepts are obvious over prior art. The Board granted institution based on Fintiv factors and unique legal issues, allowing the IPR to proceed.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Motion Offense LLC's patent (11611520) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed file sharing and folder synchronization features are predictable combinations of prior art references like Houston, Garcia, Manzano, and Wu.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network LLC's IPR petition against Entropic Communications, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's argument that combining prior art systems would render the patent obvious.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Motion Offense LLC's patent, challenging claims 17-21 based on obviousness. The Board found that Dropbox demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several claims, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding prior art disclosure and prosecution history.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found claims 17-21 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of prior art references Houston and Garcia. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, concluding that 'representation' simply means a displayed sign or symbol. This decision validates the Petitioner's argument that a person skilled in the art would combine these references to achieve the claimed features.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. IN331314, titled 'PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF HALOGENATED CARBOXYLIC ANHYDRIDES', which was granted to Respondent no. 1. The petitioner claims that the patent ought not have been allowed due to various prior art and prior use evidence.
Bawa Masala Co Pvt Ltd v.Bawa Masala Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Trademarks Office's decision regarding the abandonment of an opposition. The core issue was whether service effected via email to a correct address constituted sufficient legal notice, allowing the opposition timeline to begin. Despite arguments that sending an email is a recognized mode of service, the court ruled that mere dispatch creates only a presumption, which can be rebutted by the recipient demonstrating non-receipt. Since the opponent successfully proved they never received the counter statement, the appeal was dismissed.
Tajinder Soap And Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks Registry At New Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking cancellation of a trade mark registration, finding that the renewal was administratively irregular and illegal. The court noted that the mark had lapsed in 2007, and despite subsequent public notices offering opportunities for revival, the owner failed to act. Crucially, the court found that the Registry erroneously revived the expired mark after nearly fourteen years through an interlocutory petition, leading to its cancellation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This is a cost decision (Kostenfestsetzungsentscheidung) by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. Following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the first-instance decision—which had found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim—the defendants sought reimbursement of costs already paid under the original cost decision, as well as costs for both instances. The court held that when a cost decision is issued before appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is subsequently amended, the original cost decision loses its basis, and amounts already reimbursed are recoverable in subsequent cost proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-19) under reference UPC-001635, Dolby International AB appeared in dispute with HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatological device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity. The request cites the recent recission of the Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances that favor a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Serendia, LLC have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of substantive briefing.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering settled their IPR dispute before any trial, resulting in a Board order terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the associated IPRs. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of oral hearing. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding in its entirety.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia, LLC and Jeisys Medical Inc. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia have filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda’s participation in an IPR over U.S. Patent 10,869,812, citing a settlement of their dispute. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the parties also request the settlement be kept confidential.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple’s IPR against THL Holding’s patent 11,350,246 concluded with an adverse judgment after the patent owner disclaimed all challenged claims. The Board entered judgment against claims 20‑27 and terminated the proceeding.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent (9430042) in an IPR petition, asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argued that the claimed haptic feedback system was rendered invalid by combinations of prior art references like Ichinose/Levin and Rosenberg-I/Goldenberg.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku Co., Ltd. filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of CLX Engineering's patent (11386602) related to baggage tracking and visualization systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Cavada, Orito, Sommer, and Schmirler.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple challenges THL Holding Company's patent on location and tracking systems via an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art elements from mobile communication devices and Bluetooth technology. This action is part of ongoing litigation between the parties in District Court.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution in this IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation, covering claims related to Haptic Feedback/Tactile Sensing. The Board found that the prior art references (Komata, Tsuji, Rosenberg) sufficiently disclosed or suggested the challenged limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision moves the case toward trial, affirming the Petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 7 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 unpatentable. The decision hinged on the Petitioner's successful anticipation challenge over the prior art reference Komata.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 11-19 unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Kalliola and other references taught or suggested multiple limitations, particularly regarding UWB DoA and location tracking. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the device location/ranging space.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.Devender Kumar
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging infringement of its Suit Patent (IN384184) concerning a liquid composition of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant launched an imitation product named 'Pendamic' which matched the claims of the patent. Based on the prima facie case established, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
Living Seed Technologies Llp. v.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
1 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 18 January 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS 1. Meril GmbH Bornheimer Straße 135-137, 53119 Bonn, Germany 2. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. M1-M2, Meril Park, Su
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Riddhi Siddhi Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark suit against Riddhi Siddhi Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai. The court examined the jurisdiction clause and confirmed that Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, grants this court jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business location. Consequently, the court held that no special leave was required and made the petition absolute.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.C.K. Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Kamal Electricals And Sanitary
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a suit against Kamal Electricals and Sanitary regarding trademark infringement. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai, while the defendants were operating outside the court's jurisdiction in Telangana. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
M/S SNS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v.Mohammed Naim
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S SNS Products Private Limited against Mohammed Naim. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of spices under the 'SHAN-E-DELHI' brand, sought protection against the defendant who was using substantially similar packaging and the mark 'Proud-ek-Minar'. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established their case for infringement, noting the similarity in trade dress and the defendant's prior purchase of the plaintiff's products. Consequently, the defendant is temporarily restrained from using the infringing materials and must disclose all existing inventory.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Mr Ashish Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Mr. Ashish Singh and others. The Plaintiff, a statutory body protecting the 'KHADI' mark, alleged that Defendants were deceptively using similar marks like 'KHADI ORGANIC' on various products and websites to exploit public goodwill, particularly around religious events. The Court found a prima facie case for infringement and passed orders restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under infringing marks and mandating the suspension of the associated domain name.
Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Sangeeta Jaiswal
The Madras High Court closed two Original Petitions filed by Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd against Sangeeta Jaiswal regarding the rectification/cancellation of registered trademarks (Nos. 3207838 and 3207840). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the petitioner's agreement that the respondent would proceed with separate applications to cancel the marks. The Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite the cancellation process.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-17) under reference UPC-001638, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents, which rejected a second divisional application (grandchild application) because its claims were deemed to conflict with those in the original grandparent application. The appellant argued that filing the divisional application was necessitated by objections raised by the Controller. The High Court held that since the filing was a consequence of an objection, the division should be assessed on its own merits.
Amir Biri Factory & Ors. v.Mohd. Aslam
The Calcutta High Court vacated an injunction previously granted to Amir Biri Factory in favor of Mohd. Aslam. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, specifically regarding restrictions on their trademark's use and geographical limitations (West Bengal only). Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued they were a prior user operating outside West Bengal, challenging the basis of the injunction. This decision significantly weakens the plaintiff's ability to enforce their registered mark against the defendant.
Sh. Jaininder Jain And Ors. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the ongoing dispute concerning the 'KANGARO' trademark. Addressing requests for comprehensive information, the court directed the Plaintiffs to first compile a list of all trademark oppositions they have filed against Defendants. Subsequently, the Defendants were mandated to provide certificates and applications for all relevant foreign trademark registrations not contested by the Plaintiffs. This order aims to ensure full transparency regarding global IP rights related to the brand.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Daryaganj Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a passing off suit concerning the 'Moti Mahal' trademark. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were misleading the public by associating their restaurants with the Plaintiffs' famous brand, citing misuse of predecessor photographs and marks. While the Defendants vehemently disputed the claims, they offered a conciliatory gesture, committing to remove the disputed photograph from their website without conceding liability. The court proceeded to issue notices for an interim injunction while setting timelines for written statements and framing issues.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Patent Office's order rejecting its application titled "DISCOVERY OF SECURE NETWORK ENCLAVES". The rejection was based on grounds related to Sections 2(l)(j) and Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court released the matter from part-heard status and listed it for further hearing.
Sri Amaresh Banerjee v.The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The petitioner, a manufacturer of coaltar under the trade name 'Anchor', challenged the rejection of his application for reinvestigation before the Calcutta High Court. The dispute involved alleged infringement of the petitioner's registered trademark and copyright by the opposite party no. 1. The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, finding that the investigation was conducted fairly and that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process since a civil suit on the same matter was already pending.
Temple University Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education v.The Controller Of Patents
Temple University Of The Commonwealth appealed against the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its patent application No. 201617007895. The court initially condoned the delay in filing the appeal and subsequently listed the main appeal for further hearing.
Drs Educational Society & Ors. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Drs Educational Society challenging the registration of the 'DRS' trademark. The petitioners argued that the registration was erroneous because the applicant had previously withdrawn their application, but the Registrar failed to act on this withdrawal. However, the court held that administrative lapses do not invalidate an accrued statutory right. It emphasized that disputes over trademark validity must be pursued through specific remedies under the Trademarks Act, 1999, rather than via a writ petition.
Castrol Limited v.Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala, Trading As EA & Sons and T-Max Lubricants Andr.
Castrol Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala regarding the use of deceptively similar packaging for engine oils. The Delhi High Court granted several critical interim reliefs to Castrol, including an exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance notice to the defendants. Crucially, the court allowed for the ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation on the defendant's premises to prevent further infringement.
Nectar Biopharma Private Limited v.M/S. Kashmik Formulations Private Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff's application seeking to implead Mr. Nilesh M. Patel, Director of Defendant No. 1. The court found that since Mr. Patel was the proprietor of M/s Nectar Lifecare and his marks were applied for registration, he was a necessary party due to the exclusive supply relationship between Defendant No. 1 and M/s Nectar Lifecare. This decision significantly expands the scope of the litigation by bringing in an individual directly connected to the disputed intellectual property rights.
Smt. Harbans Kaur / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Ascent Electronics / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the original proprietor regarding the trademark 'TANASHI'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior rights through long-standing use dating back to 1993, despite subsequent registrations by the defendant. Crucially, the court held that a distributor is merely a permissive user and cannot claim proprietary rights over a mark belonging to the original owner. Consequently, the suit for infringement was decreed, and the defendant's conflicting trademark registration was cancelled.
Sml Ltd. v.M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors.
SML Ltd. filed a commercial civil suit seeking protection against infringement of its patent (IN282092) by M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors., who market the product 'ZINKING'. The court, after considering submissions and expert reports, found that a prima facie case was made out.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for infringement of their patent along with claims for injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts of profits.
Sml Ltd. v.M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors.
SML Ltd. filed a commercial suit seeking protection against the infringement of its patent (IN 282092) by M/S Happy Agro Chemicals & Ors., specifically concerning their product 'SELZIC'. The court, after considering arguments and expert testimony, found that a prima facie case was made out.
Pratibha Proprietor Of Lamed India v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Pratibha Proprietor Of Lamed India against a registered trademark 'LAMED'. The court cancelled the registration (No. 1576720) after noting that one of the respondents, who held the mark, no longer intended to use it. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner to utilize the brand name.
Ms Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v.Jashpal Singh Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark and copyright infringement case filed by Ms Veerji Restaurant Private Limited against Jashpal Singh Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale. The court formally registered the plaint as a commercial suit, setting timelines for written statements and replication. Crucially, it issued notice regarding the plaintiff's application seeking permanent injunction to restrain trademark and copyright infringement and passing off of the 'VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE' brand.
Netgear Inc., Germany GmbH, International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns a request for discretionary review before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the admissibility of an appeal against an order by a judge rapporteur. The judge rapporteur had refused to refer his earlier decision (that the Applicants' preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings) to the panel for review under Rule 333.1 RoP. The standing judge allowed the discretionary review request, permitting the applicants to appeal the 11 December 2023 order, and referred the case to the President of the Court of Appeal for assignment to a panel.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Maa Bara Devi Namkeen Bhandar And Anr
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd filed petitions seeking the removal and cancellation of specific copyright registrations held by Maa Bara Devi Namkeen Bhandar. The court noted that a prior civil suit between the parties had been decreed on consent terms, wherein the Respondent agreed not to use any deceptively similar labels or trademarks. Since the respondent subsequently undertook to withdraw relevant trademark applications and cancel certain copyrights, the High Court allowed the petitions.
H. Lundbeck A/S Through its Authorized Representative v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order holding that their invention lacked inventive step. The core contention was that the Controller improperly relied on certain prior art documents that had been given up or never properly contested during the examination process. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions.
Epitech S.P.A. v.The Controller Of Patents
Epitech S.P.A. appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents, which had denied the grant of its PCT national phase application (No. 6850/DELNP/2014). The Controller's initial decision was based on the finding that the data provided by the Appellant related to an irrelevant compound (PEA-OXA) instead of the claimed subject matter (PEA-OXLE). However, the Delhi High Court found this reasoning insufficient and factually incorrect, noting that the data did indeed include examples pertaining to PEA-OXLE. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order and directing the Controller to decide the application afresh.
Monsanto Technology, LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Monsanto Technology appealed the order of the Assistant Controller which refused to patent two independent claims related to transgenic soybean plants. The appellant argued that if objections were raised, at least the remaining eleven claims should have been patented. The High Court found the respondent had not applied its mind wholly to all claims.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Tracking Shoes Company
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a suit against Tracking Shoes Company alleging that the latter was counterfeiting and infringing upon Nike's trademarks (NIKE, Swoosh Device) in relation to footwear and apparel. The court found that the defendant had adopted identical marks and was causing deception in the market.
Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited v.M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity
In a trademark rectification case, Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited sought to register its mark against an existing registration held by M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity. Initially, the respondent opposed the petition based on deceptive similarity and infringement concerns. However, during the proceedings, the first respondent withdrew its objection regarding the petitioner's use of the mark under clause 2. Consequently, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar to consider the petitioner's application anew (de novo), effectively clearing the path for registration.
Imagine Marketing Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Ors.
Imagine Marketing Limited (boAt) successfully secured an interim injunction against several defendants accused of trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court recognized that the defendants were using deceptively similar domain names and creating fake websites to sell counterfeit or fraudulent consumer electronics, causing irreparable harm to boAt's goodwill. The court restrained these parties from operating such domains and ordered registrars to suspend the infringing sites within ten days.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Sen, Trading As Tridev Auto Parts & Anr.
In a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement, Castrol Limited successfully secured several critical interim orders from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions allowing the Plaintiff to proceed urgently without pre-litigation mediation or prior notice to the defendants. Crucially, the court authorized the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation against the Defendants for counterfeit products bearing deceptively similar marks and packaging.
Kalpaka Builders Private Limited v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kalpaka Builders Private Limited challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had cancelled the petitioner's trademark registration because the mandatory publication only featured the word 'Kalpaka,' while the registered mark was a device mark. The court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding no fault with the order as it merely remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Trademark Registry.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-01-10) under reference UPC-001641, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Autostore AS [et al.], Mathys & Squire LLP & Bristows (Ireland) LLP concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Onco Therapy Science, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Onco Therapy Science appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its application for a patent covering novel peptides used as vaccines against cancers. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and supporting materials when issuing the rejection order. The High Court allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.
Robert Bosch Limitada v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limitada appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application. The rejection was allegedly based on insufficient description, which the appellant argued was not properly communicated during the examination process. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Huck International, Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Huck International appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application based on an objection under Section 16 of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that they were denied a fair opportunity because the final decision was based on an objection not enumerated in the initial hearing notice. The Court agreed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent to issue a fresh notice.
3G Licensing S.A v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a patent application. The Appellant argued that prior art cited by the Indian Patent Office had also been considered and the patent granted in Europe. The Court issued an interim order allowing the Appellant time to submit the European patent record.
M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills v.M/S Haryana Strips Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHAILDU HEAVY'. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively and structurally similar to the Petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SALDU', which had been in continuous use since 1974. Given the identical nature of the goods (iron and steel shapes) and the clear evidence of prior usage by the petitioner, the registration of 'SHAILDU HEAVY' was deemed a contravention of the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
M/S Star Syringe Ltd v.M/S Tiger Surgical Disposable Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent and seek damages. The case is ongoing with preliminary objections raised by the defendants regarding maintainability due to insolvency proceedings.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis appealed an order that allowed certain amendments in its Indian Patent Application (IN'518) based on a finding that pre-grant opponents should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The core dispute centered on whether the examination process and opposition proceedings are independent or merged under the Patents Act, 1970.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
This appeal challenged the revocation of a plant variety registration (FL 2027) granted to PepsiCo. The initial Single Judge affirmed the revocation primarily due to incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale and failure to submit requisite documentation. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the revocation order while noting that the mistake in styling as 'new' was remediable.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
PepsiCo appealed the revocation of registration for its plant variety FL 2027. The original revocation was based on PepsiCo furnishing incorrect information about the date of first commercial sale and alleged non-compliance with documentation requirements. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment regarding the eligibility to apply for registration.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, citing technical objections and procedural issues. The High Court found that the significant delay between the hearing and the issuance of the refusal order was arbitrary and lacked confidence.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Dabur India Limited seeking the rectification and removal of a trademark registered in favor of Emami Limited. Despite arguments regarding prior injunctions related to passing off suits, the court ruled that since the rectification application had already been filed, there was no impediment to issuing notice. The court emphasized that rectification proceedings must be decided first before proceeding with the trial of the underlying suit.
Jupiter Aqua Lines Limited v.Vtsrn Systems Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction in a prior order concerning trademark disputes. The court allowed the petition, correcting an inadvertent error where Respondent No. 2 was incorrectly directed to remove the Petitioner's mark. Instead, the corrected order mandates that Respondent No. 2 must remove the registration of the specific 'JAL' (Device) mark belonging to Respondent No. 1 from the Trademark Register and update its website accordingly.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this matter concerning a trademark opposition, Louis Vuitton Malletier sought relief after being unable to complete the payment for its notice of opposition due to a technical glitch with the payment gateway. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim regarding the non-fault nature of the delay and took steps to ensure all parties were heard. Consequently, the applicant of the disputed mark was impleaded as Respondent No. 2, allowing the litigation to proceed fairly.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v.Extra Tech World and Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to file a Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit against the respondents. The core issue was establishing the court's jurisdiction, given that the infringing websites were accessible across India.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner, an association of pesticide manufacturers, challenged the dismissal of their pre-grant opposition against a patent application (No.538/DEL/2010) filed by Crystal Crop Protection Limited. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent failed to serve notices correctly after the petitioner changed their email address.
Bundi Technologies Private Limited v.Chandrasinh Dhirubha Rathod
The plaintiff, Bundi Technologies Private Limited (owner of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY'), filed a suit against several defendants for illegal adoption and unauthorized use of its trademark. The defendants were allegedly manufacturing confectionery products under or with deceptive similarity to the 'SWIGGY' brand name to deceive the public.
Omved Lifestyle Pvt Ltd. v.Sanjay Jain
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for rectification, ordering the removal of the trademark 'OMVEDA' (Registration No. 1953655) from the Register. The petitioner, Omved Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., successfully argued that the impugned mark was dishonest and unfair, causing potential confusion with its own established marks ('OMVED'). The court found that allowing the registration would amount to passing off and deceive the public, thereby upholding the petitioner's claim as the exclusive owner of similar marks.
Xero Degrees v.M/S Frankart Global Private Limited & Ors.
In a dispute over the 'XERO DEGREES' brand, Xero Degrees sought an interim injunction against M/S Frankart Global Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement. The court noted that the plaintiff owns the registered trademark and operates extensively in the Food & Beverages sector. Despite the defendants claiming prior ownership of the name and logo, the court proceeded to issue notice for a hearing on the injunctive relief, setting the stage for further litigation.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.Sanjay Rungta T/As M/S Bonsai Pharma
The Gujarat High Court directed the removal of the trademark 'TERCOREX' from the official registry website. The court noted that the trademark was likely to be removed due to non-filing of a renewal request within the prescribed time limit, citing precedents from other high courts. This order effectively cleared the mark from public record, allowing the petitioner liberty to file again should the mark eventually be renewed.
Eastman Auto And Power Ltd v.Mr. Amritpal Singh Proprietor Of Akai Battery House
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Eastman Auto And Power Ltd against Mr. Amritpal Singh Proprietor Of Akai Battery House. The plaintiff, a major battery manufacturer, alleged that the defendant was infringing its registered trademarks by using confusingly similar marks like 'EASTPOWER' on batteries. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.
M/S Arm Limited v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Arm Limited, setting aside a previous refusal order that blocked the registration of their trademark 'AMBA'. The court accepted the reasoning from the dissolved IPAB and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 2) to proceed with the advertisement and registration process within four weeks. Furthermore, the Court highlighted systemic issues regarding the retention and authentication of records from defunct tribunals, mandating a status report on this matter.
Jack In The Box Inv. 9330 Balboa Ave. San Diego, CA v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for rectification, ordering the removal of the trademark 'Jack in the Box' registered by Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd. The petitioner, Jack In The Box, successfully argued that its mark is an earlier and well-established brand with significant international reputation. Furthermore, the court noted evidence suggesting non-use of the impugned mark by the respondent, leading to the removal order.