Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10401–10500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Bhabani Offset And Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd v.Bhabani Graphics (Press) and 3 Ors.
The Gauhati High Court heard an appeal filed by Bhabani Offset And Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd against Bhabani Graphics (Press) and others. The court admitted the appeal for hearing, directing the appellant to ensure proper service of notice on all respondents via registered post and other usual processes. The matter was subsequently listed after four weeks.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5945/DELNP/2009) by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs. The appeal challenged the ground that the applicant failed to file a rebuttal against non-patentability objections under Section 25(1)(f). The Court decided to issue notice to Respondent No. 2 before determining the matter.
Jrpl Riceland Llp v.Neeraj Mittal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jrpl Riceland Llp against Neeraj Mittal & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting the identical use and color scheme (green and gold) of the 'Biryani King' trademark on both parties' rice products. This interim order restrains the defendants from using the disputed mark or any deceptively similar permutations until the final hearing, safeguarding the plaintiff against irreparable harm.
Abhinav Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'VISA EXPERTS - PARTNERING LIFE CHANGING DECISIONS' for visa and immigration consultancy services. The court ruled that the composite nature of the mark prevents it from being deemed merely descriptive under Section 9(1)(b). Furthermore, addressing the likelihood of confusion (Section 11(1)), the Court noted an agreement with the conflicting trademark owner to proceed provided a disclaimer of the word 'VISA' is included. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised for registration.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Edrich u.a.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-03) under reference UPC-001644, Philips IP Ventures B.V. appeared in dispute with Edrich u.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Edrich u.a.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-03) under reference UPC-001643, Koninklijke Philips N.V. appeared in dispute with Edrich u.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
University Health Network v.Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
University Health Network filed a Writ Petition challenging the grant of Patent No.439474 to Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step. The appeal before the Madras High Court focused on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the patent application originated in Delhi.
Biofarma v.Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Biofarma seeking the removal of a registered trademark (No. 3599190) held by Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default.
Tirupati Foam Limited v.Shri Vignesware Fibres Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by Tirupati Foam Limited against the entry 'SLEEP LIKE A DREAM' (No.2064365) in Class 20. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default. This highlights the importance of diligent representation in trademark litigation.
Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. v.M/S Vans Inc Usa
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. challenging an interim order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the word mark 'IVANS'. The court noted that the petitioners had previously withdrawn their challenge to the same interim order, and therefore, any substantive arguments should be reserved for the final hearing of the underlying cancellation petition. This decision reinforces the principle that challenges to IP decisions must be pursued through appropriate procedural channels.
Amagen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi -Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron pharmaceuticals Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-02) under reference UPC-001647, Amagen Inc. appeared in dispute with Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Sanofi -Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron pharmaceuticals Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dhama Innovations Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Dhama Innovations Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No. 628/CHE/2012, which related to a heat dissipation device. The appellant argued that the Controller erred by dissecting the combination into individual components for obviousness testing and failing to address their submissions on inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the dissection impermissible in law.
Mathys & Squire v.Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-12-28) under reference UPC-001648, Mathys & Squire appeared in dispute with Astellas, Healios, Riken, Osaka University concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_424/2023 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 22 December 2023 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego -
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
The suit alleged infringement of several patents held by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories was manufacturing and exporting Olaparib API, violating their patent rights. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the Defendant from commercially launching the product before the patent expiry date, subject to Section 107A provisions.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
GSP Crop Science Private Limited filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian patent no. 298645 (IN645) granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. The petitioner argued that IN645 is invalid because its main patent has expired and it suffers from anticipation by prior claims.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents Designs
Syngenta Participations Ag filed an appeal challenging the Controller's decision to reject its Indian patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds of lacking inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that sufficient data existed to prove significant enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d). The court allowed applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents before directing notice and setting the matter for further hearing.
Enercon India Ltd. v.M/S. Wobben Properties GmbH
Enercon India Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220033 granted by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. Both parties submitted that the term of the said patent had expired on November 7, 2023.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian Patent No. 314523, granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & FMC Corporation. Natco argues that since the main related patent (IN 204978) expired in March 2021 and has identical claims, IN523 is invalid and liable for revocation.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd
The dispute between Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd and Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd was settled out of court. The Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in products protected by Indian Patent 394568, which covers specific formulations.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Https://Www.Cyberxg.Top/ And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Inter Ikea Systems Bv's application to implead the registrars of the infringing domain names in the ongoing trademark suit. This crucial procedural step allows the plaintiff to directly target the parties responsible for operating the websites, strengthening their case against trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court extended the existing injunction order to these newly added defendants, maintaining the status quo until the final judgment.
Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Union Of India
This judgment addresses a batch of suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (IMBRUVICA). The writ petition filed by Laurus Labs challenged the earlier decision of the IPAB. The Delhi High Court decided applications for interim relief in these cases. While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits, allowing them only to exhaust existing stock under strict conditions.
Pharmacyclics, Llc & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of patent infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Natco Pharma Limited. The core dispute revolves around the unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug covered by Indian Patent 262968. The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug while the suits are pending. However, it allowed them to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
M/s. Ramcides CropScience Pvt. Ltd. v.Kingdao Agrochem (India) Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (No. 299036) concerning 'ZINC HEDP -17%' by the defendant's product, 'Legion Zinc: Zn HEDP 17.0%'. The dispute was settled when the defendant submitted an Undertaking Affidavit agreeing to cease all infringing activities and pay compensation.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals Internationals Private Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation and Novartis AG seeking protection of their patent (IN 269841) covering the anti-cancer drug RUXOLITINIB. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had obtained manufacturing approval for this compound, leading to a quia timet action. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from commercially manufacturing or launching RUXOLITINIB without court permission.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications and noted that the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had filed a counterclaim under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of the Plaintiff's patent IN 363203.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited
This judgment addresses a batch of suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC concerning the alleged infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (marketed as IMBRUVICA). The court heard applications for interim relief in these patent infringement cases. While dismissing one writ petition, the Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits. However, it allowed defendants to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr.
This judgment addresses a batch of six infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Shilpa Medicare Limited. The core dispute revolves around the alleged unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug protected by Indian Patent 262968 (IN'968). The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug pending the final disposal of the suits.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. / Natco Pharma Limited / Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd / Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr. / Alkem Laboratories Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of six suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants who were launching or had launched the generic version of the patented drug. While the court dismissed one related writ petition, it granted interim relief restraining all defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending the final disposal of the suits. Furthermore, the court allowed defendants to exhaust their existing stock, provided they file an affidavit detailing the batch numbers and expiry dates.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
Walter Bushnell Private Limited & Anr. v.Ramesh Juneja & Ors.
Walter Bushnell Private Limited filed a petition seeking contempt action against Ramesh Juneja and others for violating an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order. The IPAB had previously directed the removal of the trademark 'DROTIKIND' (Registration No. 1309918). Despite this directive, the respondent renewed the impugned trademark. Consequently, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their appearance and initiating proceedings related to the alleged violation.
Phoola Rani v.Anita Kharbanda & Anr.
Phoola Rani filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Respondent No. 1's registered trademark 'PREM DI HATTI' (No. 2543229) in Class 43, arguing that she has been using the mark extensively since 1969 for similar food and restaurant services. The court found that the Petitioner prima facie is an aggrieved party due to the similarity of the marks and business purposes. Consequently, notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was scheduled for further proceedings.
M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited v.Selvam Hardwares
In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns a procedural request by the Appellants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH) for expedition of appeal proceedings, specifically seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of response pursuant to R.9.3(b) RoP. The appeal was directed against an order of the Court of First Instance concerning the language of the proceedings under R.323 RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request, finding that the interests of the Respondent (Panasonic Holdings Corporation) and principles of due process outweighed the Appellants' interest in expedition, even though this meant the Statement of defence in the main proceedings would have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
Inventprise, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Inventprise, Inc. challenged the requirement of prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) concerning its patent application for a 'Heat Stable Liquid Rotavirus Vaccine.' The NBA had previously insisted on compliance with Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, citing the use of human rotavirus strain isolated in India. However, Inventprise argued that the subject matter did not constitute a 'biological resource' under the Act. Recognizing this core dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the NBA Expert Committee to conduct a personal hearing and issue a reasoned order on whether the invention falls within the scope of the Biological Diversity Act.
ABBVIE Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
ABBVIE Inc. appealed the refusal by the Deputy Controller of Patents to grant a patent for two polymorphic forms (Forms A and B) of the compound RTA-408. The appellant argued that these forms exhibited superior stability and properties, and that Section 3(d) did not apply because RTA-408 was not considered a known substance in this context. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the patent to proceed for grant on claims 1-6.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Oplus Mobitech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Koninklijke Philips N.V., filed suit alleging infringement of five Indian patents covering SEPs essential to 3G/4G telecommunication standards by the Defendants, who manufacture and sell OnePlus smartphones. The court addressed an application for a pro-tem arrangement, recognizing the importance of these SEPs in industry standards.
M/s Levi Strauss & Company v.Vishal Kashyap
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Vishal Kashyap alleging that he was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the defendant had illegally adopted the plaintiff's distinctive features and infringed upon its rights.
Priya Randolph v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision rejecting their patent application (201641026786) on the grounds that the invention was a 'business method' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The court examined the claims, which related to concealing physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software and hardware. The High Court held that the monopoly claim was on a technical solution for data privacy, not merely a business method.
M/s Meenu Electric Co. v.M/s Dynamic Electricals; M/s Golden Cab Industries; M/s Vijay Cable Co.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside a trial court's order that had stayed an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the defendants could invoke Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to halt proceedings pending rectification before the IPAB. The Court ruled that merely having rectification applications filed during the pendency of the suit is insufficient; the plea of invalidity must be raised specifically and before the commencement of trial, otherwise, it is deemed abandoned.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance regarding the language of the proceedings under R.323 RoP. The Appellants (OPPO and OROPE Germany) filed a request on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP for expedition of the appeal proceedings, seeking shortening of the time period for lodging the Statement of Response. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for expedition, holding that despite the procedural inconvenience, the interests of the Respondent and principles of due process required that the Statement of Response be filed in the normal time period, even though this meant the Statement of Defence in the first instance proceedings had to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
Balanced Body Inc. v.Yasmins Body Image Private Limited & Anr.
Balanced Body Inc., a U.S.-based company, filed suit against Yasmins Body Image Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents related to 'REFORMER EXERCISE APPARATUS' and 'ARM CORD SUPPORT RISERS'. The court examined evidence showing that the Defendant No.1 was operating gyms with machines clearly mapping on the Plaintiff's granted patents. Consequently, the Court issued directions for the Defendant No.1 to disclose the source and quantity of the alleged infringing equipment.
NEC Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
NEC Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its Patent Application No.7830/CHENP/2014, which was based on the alleged violation of Section 7(2) of the Patents Act due to the date of declaration by an inventor. The court held that there is a distinction between the date of assignment and the date of declaration, finding the impugned order unsustainable.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application sought to determine the method of inquiry regarding whether certain moulds/dyes were infringing material, considering the original patent had expired. The court considered the request for an independent scientific adviser under Section 115 but proceeded by allowing the parties to file their respective expert affidavits.
ATC IP LLC & Anr. v.Owner Of <Https://Atcindiatower. In/> & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of ATC IP LLC, granting a permanent injunction against the operators of infringing domain names. The court found that the defendants' websites copied the plaintiffs' registered trademarks ('ATC', 'ATC India') and logos, causing potential misuse. Furthermore, the court ordered NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the infringing domain name www.atctower.in to ATC IP LLC, effectively resolving the dispute through summary judgment.
Tvs Electronics Limited v.Jitender Kumar
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tvs Electronics Limited against a lower court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. The plaintiff, owner of the 'TVS Electronics' mark, sought restraint against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to CCTV cameras. However, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised regarding the balance of convenience, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark subject to maintaining accounts.
Vega Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Sagar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Vega Industries challenging the registration of the trademark 'VIGA' by Vinod Sagar Jain. While noting that the correct remedy for the appellant might be rectification, the court preliminarily found no cause for grievance if certain listed products were excluded from the scope of goods. The stay application filed by Vega was ultimately rejected, and the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. v.Wefrew Educations P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. against Wefrew Educations P. Ltd., finding that Vidya Mandir had a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of its trademarks and proprietary course materials. The court observed that Wefrew was allegedly using these assets while simultaneously claiming disassociation, causing potential irreparable harm to the petitioner. Consequently, Wefrew was immediately restrained from using any material or marks associated with Vidya Mandir Classes.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 02/08/2024 concernant R.191 RdP DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - H
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp.Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request by the Appellants (OPPO and OROPE) for expedition of the appeal, specifically seeking shortening of the time period under R.9.3(b) RoP for lodging the Statement of response. The request was filed on the last day of the time periods under R.224.1(b) and R.224.2(b) RoP in an appeal against an order concerning the language of proceedings (R.323 RoP). The Court held that the request had to be dismissed in view of the interests of the respondent and principles of due process, even though this meant the Statement of defence in the first instance proceedings would have to be lodged in the contested language of proceedings.
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited v.M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited filed a review petition challenging an earlier dismissal by the Copyright Board on grounds of being time-barred. The core dispute involved objections raised by the petitioner against M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited's attempt to register copyright for the artistic work 'INDOBRINE DANDI SALT/DANDI NAMAK'. Although the initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays, the High Court considered the parties' claims and subsequent settlement. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Copyright Office for fresh consideration.
Atos India Pvt. Ltd v.The State of Maharashtra
Atos India Pvt. Ltd challenged an order from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, arguing that its work providing bug fixing and maintenance services on QAD Inc.'s ERP software was a service contract, not a sale of goods or developed software. The core dispute revolved around whether modifying existing proprietary code constituted 'development' leading to a taxable supply under the MVAT Act. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Atos India, holding that the transaction was fundamentally an indivisible contract for services.
Toyo Aluminium Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application ('MULTILAYER BODY AND CONTAINER') due to non-compliance with requirements for inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The court allowed a procedural exemption and directed the respondent counsel to file written submissions before listing the matter further.
Grasim Industries Limited v.Lenzing Ag & Anr.
Grasim Industries Limited filed a revocation petition against Patent no. IN 367685, granted to Lenzing AG for 'Fire-retardant cellulose fiber'. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications and initiated proceedings by issuing notice and setting timelines for filing the counter affidavit.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application concerns whether certain moulds/dyes are infringing material, despite the original patent having expired. The court considered the need for expert determination on this factual question.
Martinswerk GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748011754) by The Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the application qualified as a divisional application containing separate inventive concepts, while the respondent maintained it did not meet Section 16 requirements. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v.Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the trademark cancellation petitions filed by Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited against Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited. The dismissal was based on a pre-existing settlement agreement from 2010, which stipulated that both parties would continue using their respective shade numerals and adopt unique identifiers for future shades. This compromise effectively resolved all disputes related to the trademarks in question.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v.Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.
Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited v.Fashion One Television Llc and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Bennet, Coleman And Company Limited, quashing the trademark registrations held by Fashion One Television Llc. The court found that the respondent's mark infringed upon the petitioner's established 'NOW'-centric family of marks (such as TIMES NOW and ET NOW) because both operate within the same Class 38 for broadcasting services. The judgment emphasized that a viewer would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s repertoire, establishing a subsisting interest in the common element 'NOW'.
Manohar Singh v.Shyam Singh
Manohar Singh filed a civil suit against Shyam Singh and others, alleging infringement of his registered trade marks ('Singh') and associated copyrights in connection with mehandi products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Raju Singh' and 'Ram Singh'. However, due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation in recording oral evidence over the years, the court ultimately dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.
Til Healthcare Private Limited v.M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited
Til Healthcare Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited and others, alleging multiple infringements related to the brand 'APETAMIN'. The claims included trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress misuse, and copyright violation concerning its product label. Although the initial prayer sought permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The court heard matters concerning various parties, including T-Mobile Usa Inc vs Controller Of Patents. The hearing focused on issues related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestle Health
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-14) under reference UPC-001660, N.V. Nutricia appeared in dispute with Nestle Health concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.
The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.
Colgate-Palmolive Company v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Colgate-Palmolive Company appealed the refusal of its national phase patent application (4411/DELNP/2007) for 'An Oral Composition'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). However, due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite repeated notices, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused their patent application (201717017554) due to a lack of novelty. The court directed the respondent to file a reply, specifically addressing the inconsistency of the claims cited by the Controller.
Freebit As v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS filed a suit seeking an injunction against Exotic Mile Private Limited regarding its granted patent, IN 276748, for an 'Improved Earpiece'. The Defendant challenged the validity of this patent by presenting evidence that corresponding foreign patents had been invalidated or refused in several jurisdictions, including based on lack of novelty.
Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. v.Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark cancellation petition filed by Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. against Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd. The dispute centered on the conflicting marks 'DROTIN' and 'DROTAGAN' in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to Respondent No.1 agreeing to surrender its registration for 'DROTAGAN' and acknowledging the Petitioners' rights in 'DROTIN'. The court accepted this agreement, effectively resolving the dispute.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc & Anr v.Varshaben Kantilal Talreja & Anr
In this trademark dispute, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in Delhi High Court, arguing they only operate in Gujarat. The court permitted the defendants time to file their written statement and replication. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on both the injunction application and the issue of maintainability.
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. v.M/S.Supreme Tile Works
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. filed two Original Petitions seeking the expungement and removal of registered trademarks belonging to M/S.Supreme Tile Works from the register. The petitions targeted marks like 'SUPREME TILE WORKS' and 'AMARJYOTHI' in Class 19, alleging grounds for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, before any substantive hearing could take place, the petitioner chose to withdraw both Original Petitions.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Jogaram Sirvi And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement. Crucially, the court affirmed that the 'ATOMBERG' brand qualifies as a well-known trademark across all classes of goods and services. This landmark decision reinforces the high level of protection afforded to coined and inherently distinctive marks with established national reputation.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant, Manya Vejju, from publishing statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent, Sapna Bhog. The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism between their respective romance genre literary works. The core legal question was whether the threat of infringement action fell under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The High Court found that the trial court's inquiry into the merits of the copyright claim exceeded its remit and consequently quashed the impugned order, remitting the matter back for a fresh determination.
Quantum University v.International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc
This case involved a challenge by Quantum University against an arbitration award that directed the cancellation of its domain name (www.quantumuniversity.edu.in). The respondent, International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc., had successfully argued that the petitioner's domain was confusingly similar to their prior formative domain names (e.g., quantumuniversity.com). The Delhi High Court examined this challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ultimately upholding the original award.
Arkema France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Arkema France appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a 'Heat Transfer Method'. The appellant argued that the rejection relied heavily on a new prior art document (D5) introduced only at the hearing stage. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing potential amendments under Section 59 if disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant (Manya Vejju) from making statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent (Sapna Bhog). The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism and unauthorized copying between their respective literary works in the romance genre. The court held that determining whether actual infringement exists is beyond the scope of a suit under Section 60, as it risks prejudging an action for infringement. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the District Judge for fresh determination after considering the underlying infringement suit.
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, IPR Building, SIDCO Plot, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to quash an earlier order and direct the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No.395/CHENP/2012. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for an 'IMAGE CONSTRUCTION APPARATUS'. The appellant challenged the refusal order on grounds that the conclusions regarding obviousness and patent eligibility (Section 3(k)) were unreasoned. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sujatha Manthri trading as Herald Healthcare
The Madras High Court allowed Corona Remedies' petition to rectify the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'B9' (No. 3281514) registered by Sujatha Manthri. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established mark 'B29', especially considering both marks were used for pharmaceutical products. Given Corona Remedies' long history of use, significant sales turnover, and reputation, the court ruled in favor of removing the conflicting registration.
Contitech USA Inc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Contitech USA Inc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'TORQFLEX'. The court found that there was an arguable case suggesting the goods associated with TORQFLEX (power transmission belts) were not similar enough to the cited conflicting mark (TORSIFLEX, used for couplings). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that protection is only granted if identical or similar marks are used on identical or similar goods, thereby directing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Shri Dhruv Gupta v.M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Shri Dhruv Gupta against M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited concerning the trademark 'UJALA'. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions for alleged infringement, passing off, and dilution. Given that the original owner of the mark is under insolvency proceedings (NCLT), the court deemed it necessary to issue notice to the Resolution Professional (RP) to ascertain their position before proceeding with the case.
Rishabh Jain v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Rishabh Jain against The Registrar of Trade Marks. Despite multiple notices and previous hearings, key procedural steps remained incomplete, notably the service report and the required affidavit from the Respondent regarding notice of opposition. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner's counsel to inform the opponent of the orders and scheduled the matter for July 5, 2022, pending the filing of the necessary affidavit.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
Vennila Clothing Company filed a suit against M/s.Arrs Silks alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('RAMRAJ'/'RAJARAM') and copyright over its trade dress in the textile industry. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar labels by the defendants, leading to claims for injunction, damages, and account of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement via a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
Optimus Drugs Private Limited v.Union of India
Optimus Drugs Private Limited challenged the hearing notice issued during the post-grant opposition proceedings against Patent No. 281489 for 'An improved process for the preparation of Linezolid'. The petitioner argued that since both parties filed additional evidence after the initial Opposition Board recommendations, a fresh board should be constituted to consider all facts and amended claims. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention, directing the Controller of Patents to reconstitute the Opposition Board and examine the entire record expeditiously.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors
The plaintiffs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, sought an interim injunction regarding their patented anti-cancer molecule 'dasatinib' (SPRYCEL). The court disposed of the application for interim injunction as the patent term had expired. However, the court allowed amendments to the plaint to include new manufacturers and directed further proceedings.
Joseph Taheny v.Tektronix Inc.
Joseph Taheny challenged an arbitral award that directed him to transfer the domain name 'tek.in' to Tektronix Inc., arguing that his registration predated the respondent's trademark filing. The petitioner contended that the domain was registered as a generic Turkish term and not in bad faith. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the arbitral award. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing that the complainant only needed to be a registered proprietor of the mark for the INDRP rules to apply.
R.Nagarajan @ K.R.Nagarajan v.S.Ravichandran
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by R.Nagarajan against S.Ravichandran concerning Trade Mark No. 3102490 (RAVIRAM'S). The decision was based on a joint memorandum of compromise where the defendant agreed to withdraw and cancel the registered trademark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v.Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions filed by KSRTC seeking rectification of trade mark entries held by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The court found that despite KSRTC's claim of prior use dating back to 1965, the respondent was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act due to 'other special circumstances.' Given both entities operate in the transportation sector and utilize distinct regional scripts (Malayalam vs. Telugu), the court ruled that peaceful coexistence is possible, thus upholding the existing registrations.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Batra Brewries And Disttilleries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark infringement suit between Allied Blenders and Batra Brewries. The court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction against the defendants, noting their adoption of the mark 'PRINCIPAL PREMIUM.' However, permission for the defendants to exhaust existing stock was recalled due to non-compliance with providing a stock statement. Furthermore, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement and dismissed an application seeking the deletion of one defendant.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore companies
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2023-12-11) under reference UPC-001665, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Autostore companies concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Te Bios Co. Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Te Bios Co. Ltd filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Ashok Oswal v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Ashok Oswal appealed the rejection of his patent application (No. 201811029748), which covered a system and method for determining textile raw material quality attributes. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claims under Section 3(k) and Section 2(1)(ja).
Institute Of Directors v.Worlddevcorp Technology And Business Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, ruling against the use of 'Directors' Institute' by the defendants. The court held that because the plaintiff previously represented to the Trademark Registry that its device mark contained common English words and was descriptive, it could not claim exclusivity over those words. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff failed in its duty of fair disclosure by suppressing this prior representation, thereby disentitling it from equitable relief.
Harbans Lal Wadhwa Trading As Uttam Chemicals v.Subhash Chand Trading As Subhash Chand And Sons & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark ('UTTAM') held by the Respondent. The Petitioner, claiming prior use since 1999 for various cleaning products, sought cancellation based on their earlier market presence. Recognizing that the dispute required detailed proof of goodwill and sales figures beyond mere pleadings, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file lists of witnesses and lead evidence.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-12-08) under reference UPC-001666, Panasonic Holding Corporation appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Techniligy Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.