Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10601–10700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr
M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against M/S Vrindavan Foods And Anr alleging violation of a prior court order dated March 6, 2023. The original order had restrained the respondents from operating under the 'SHREE RATHNAM' brand or utilizing the petitioner's trade secrets and confidential data. After hearing the arguments, the Delhi High Court disposed of the contempt petition, accepting the defense that the respondents had complied with the judgment in letter, spirit, and intent.
Biotron Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents & Designs & Anr
Biotron Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning novel antiviral compounds. The initial rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, insufficient disclosure, and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Mhg Ip Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v.Anantara Greens & Ors
This Delhi High Court order marks the initial procedural steps in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding against Anantara Greens. The court registered the plaint and set out the schedule for pleadings, while simultaneously addressing several interlocutory applications. Key decisions included condoning the plaintiff's delay in refiling the suit and granting exemptions necessary to proceed with the claim of continuing trademark infringement.
Lupin Limited v.Tablets (India) Limited
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order in favor of Lupin Limited, allowing its appeal against the registration of the mark 'CEFTRIL'. The court found that the Registrar's conclusion—that Lupin did not use its prior mark 'CEFF'—was erroneous and contradicted the evidence presented. Furthermore, given the 1st respondent's willingness to seek cancellation, the High Court directed the removal of the disputed trade mark from the register.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag filed an appeal challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent No. 208718. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that the patent had expired on October 1, 2019.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited v.E1 Entertainment Television , Llc Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the respondent's applications seeking to introduce a specific YouTube video into the rectification proceedings. The respondent argued that this video was crucial evidence supporting their claim of continuous use of the mark since the early 1990s, which directly counters the petitioner's request for trademark cancellation/rectification. The court ruled that since the link had been previously cited in the written statement, the video clip was not an 'additional document,' thereby allowing its admission to ensure a fair trial.
Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd v.H.Lundbeck A/S
Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian patent No. 229919 held by H. Lundbeck A/S under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court observed that the term of the said patent had already expired on July 12, 2021.
Sucampo Pharma Llc v.M/s.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sucampo Pharma LLC filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal sought to set aside the 2016 order and allow the patent application to proceed for grant.
M/s.Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. v.M/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
M/s.Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order from the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Compagnie De Saint-Gobain v.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India
Compagnie De Saint-Gobain filed applications alleging that Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India was continuing to use the protected Trade Mark 'SAINT-GOBAIN' for selling toughened glasses after their contract had been terminated. The respondents raised defenses regarding lack of compliance with mediation, contractual relationship, and arbitration clauses.
M/S Sachdeva And Sons Industries Ppvt Ltd v.M/S Jivan Ram And Sons
This matter involved a rectification petition filed by M/S Sachdeva And Sons Industries Ppvt Ltd against the Copyright registration held by M/S Jivan Ram And Sons for an artistic work titled 'PYARI'. The petitioner sought to challenge this copyright based on its own registered Trademark, 'PARI'. However, due to repeated failures of the Petitioner to appear in court and difficulties in serving notices, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the rectification petition for non-prosecution.
Mr Archit Lohia & Ors. v.Ons Mechcon Project Private Limited & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the defendants' product, 'Alumina Ceramic Adjustable Line Orifice', infringes upon their Indian Patent IN355705 concerning a variable orifice for regulating mass transport. The court registered the plaint and issued orders regarding pleadings, interim injunctions, and exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Exide Industries Ltd / Chloride Group Limited v.Vertiv Company Group Limited / R.G. Kapadia & Others
The Delhi High Court decreed two consolidated suits concerning the trademark 'CHLORIDE' after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute involved Exide Industries Ltd (and Chloride Group Limited) against Vertiv Company Group Limited regarding the unauthorized use of the mark on UPS products. Under the terms of the settlement, Vertiv agreed not to use the 'CHLORIDE' trademark or its variants directly or indirectly, effectively resolving the long-standing infringement claims.
ITC Limited v.Godfrey Phillips India Limited & Anr
ITC Limited filed a Rectification Petition seeking the removal of the 'SUN FLAKE' trademark registration held by Godfrey Phillips India Limited. The petition, which also involved striking off certain paragraphs and documents from affidavits, was listed before the Delhi High Court on November 10, 2023. The court accepted notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 21, 2023.
Cabot Corporation v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Cabot Corporation successfully challenged the refusal of its word mark 'PROPEL' by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The High Court overturned the rejection based on two cited marks. For the first mark, the court noted that the proprietor had subsequently consented to registration despite differences in goods. For the second composite mark, the court clarified that protection only extends to the entire composite device and not its individual elements unless separately registered. This ruling paves the way for 'PROPEL' to proceed toward trademark registration.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Sai Mirra Innopharm Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Centaur Pharmaceuticals seeking the rectification or removal of Trade Mark No. 1409666 from the register. The court found that the trade mark's last valid registration expired long ago, specifically on December 28, 2015. Since the renewal period had lapsed and the petition was based on rectifying an active registration, the court held the case to be infructuous.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd & Ors
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' product infringes their patent titled 'A system and a method for creating and sharing interactive content rapidly anywhere and anytime'. The Defendants were previously restrained from making the product available in the market.
Arcturus Therapeutics Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arcturus Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent (IN'205) for 'Ionizable Cationic Lipid for RNA Delivery'. The refusal was based on non-submission of required data and pending claims.
M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Limited v.Khoday India Limited
The Madras High Court set aside a previous rejection order, allowing M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Limited to successfully challenge the registration of 'Khoday's Red & White'. The court found that the appellant possessed a well-known trademark used since 1940 for cigarettes, and crucially noted the prolonged non-use of the mark by Khoday India Limited from its application date in 1995. This decision reinforces the importance of continuous use and reputation when challenging subsequent registrations.
Almac Discovery Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Almac Discovery Limited filed an appeal challenging the Impugned Order dated July 19, 2017, passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Indian Patent Application No.82/CHENP/2009. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellants challenged the rejection of their patent application (No. 9445/CHENP/2013) by the Controller, which cited objections regarding insufficient disclosure and lack of clarity in the claims. The High Court held that the impugned order lacked the necessary specificity to enable the applicant to address the objections effectively.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
The Madras High Court upheld the interim injunction granted against the defendant for infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress related to 'Good Day' biscuits. The court found that the adoption of an identical blue color scheme by the competitor, Sunfeast, amounted to passing off and confusing the public. However, in a concession to the defense, the court permitted the existing stock of the offending product (23.7 tonnes) to be sold.
Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods v.Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BOOM BOOM'. The court noted prima facie merit in the appellant's claim regarding the long-standing use of the trademark since 2000. Given discrepancies in the starting date of use found by the lower court, the High Court granted a stay on the District Judge's previous order while reserving further consideration of the matter.
The Chocolate Spoon Company Private Limited v.Oceanleaf Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted leave for a plaintiff to combine claims of passing off with an existing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that they lacked territorial jurisdiction as their outlets were located outside Mumbai, but the court prioritized the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation. This decision allows the combined action to proceed while keeping the jurisdictional issue open for later determination.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu Trading As : Spot Light; Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Financiere Batteur Sas seeking the cancellation and removal of Trade Mark No. 2897583, which was registered in Class 5 for the mark 'physiolac' under Kalai Arasu Trading As : Spot Light. The court noted that the subject matter of this petition was identical to another pending case, (T)OP(TM)/481/2023, and consequently closed the current petition without passing any order on costs.
M/s. Honda Motor Co., Ltd v.M/s. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
M/s. Honda Motor Co., Ltd filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the refusal order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on March 27, 2019. However, the appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 6745/CHENP/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The Madras High Court noted that this appeal was a duplication of another pending appeal, leading to its closure.
Sheeja Menon trading as M's Shwethas Hygeine Products v.M/s. Novel Tissues Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, finding that the first respondent fraudulently registered an identical device mark (No. 2298691) in Class 16. The petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and ownership rights over the mark for cosmetic wet wipes since 2011. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the impugned registration, preventing confusion in the market.
E.Kiruthika v.(1)K.S.Moorthi Ram, (2)M.Maheshwari Partnership Firm M/S.Vishwak Garments, The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by E.Kiruthika seeking to cancel the trademark registration 'VISHWAK' (No.2406200). The court noted that the trademark registration had expired on October 4, 2023, and since the long stop date for renewal had passed, the petition was deemed infructuous. This highlights the critical importance of timely action regarding trademark renewals to maintain legal rights.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v.Meta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.
The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P. v.Home Needs
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an adverse commercial court order in favor of The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., which was seeking to protect its trademarks against 'POLOLIFETIME'. The court noted that the appellant holds registrations for 'POLO' and 'RALPH LAUREN', and referenced prior findings recognizing these marks as 'well-known'. Finding merit in the challenge, the High Court stayed the lower court's order until further hearing.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh & Anr.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of a 21-day delay. The petitioner, Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited, expressed no objection to the delay being excused. Consequently, the court allowed the application, allowing the respondent's reply to be taken on record and granting time for filing a rejoinder.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Third Party
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2023-11-06) under reference UPC-001682, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Third Party concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Shree Dev Colour And Hardware and Ors.
The Bombay High Court disposed of a portion of the IPR suit after the parties reached a settlement via Consent Terms dated 31st October, 2023. Specifically, the suit against Defendant No.2 was disposed of based on these terms, which included undertakings to cease using infringing marks and destroy counterfeit materials.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Ayur Gen Herbals
The parties, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Ayur Gen Herbals, settled their disputes in the Bombay High Court. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patents by the Amazon Prime Video service, specifically regarding the Trending Now and Continue Watching features.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit against Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered designs for pressure cookers and passing off due to the defendant's use of identical shapes, configurations, and phonetically similar marks like 'Svachh'. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Mitsu Chem Plast Limited v.Abs Mediequip And Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a suit concerning the infringement of design rights and passing off related to hospital beds. Despite previous undertakings by the defendant acknowledging Mitsu Chem Plast Limited's rights and promising cessation of use, the plaintiff alleged continued infringement. The court found sufficient grounds to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from adopting or using designs identical or deceptively similar to the registered design and trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
V.C.Dinesh v.Aby K.George; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trade Marks) filed by V.C.Dinesh against Aby K.George and The Trademark Registry. The petition sought to remove an entry from the Register relating to registration No. 1507478, arguing it was wrongly made under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, the court noted a memo of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, confirming that the parties had reached a settlement in a prior case and agreed to withdraw this petition.
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited v.M/s. Seasco Dae Jong Bldg & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier opposition order related to a trademark application in Class 9. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Madras High Court accepted the memo of withdrawal and consequently dismissed the appeal without passing any orders regarding costs.
CRYTEK GmbH v.Hameed Firnas
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by CRYTEK GmbH, a German company specializing in computer games, seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the impugned mark registered to Hameed Firnas was deceptively similar to CRYTEK's earlier trademark and was likely to cause public confusion. Crucially, the respondent failed to provide any evidence of use for their mark despite being given an opportunity, leading the court to direct its cancellation.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors.
The long-standing dispute between Goodricke Group Limited and M/S. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt Ltd. regarding the use of the 'SUPER CUP' mark was amicably resolved by both parties. After multiple rounds in the Delhi High Court, including appeals to the IPAB and Supreme Court, the parties entered into a Co-Existence Agreement. Under this settlement, Girnar agreed to use 'Girnar Super Cup' for tea and other allied products, while Goodricke withdrew its suit and opposition claims. The court formally dismissed both the appeal and the original suit as withdrawn.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Infinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interlocutory injunctions regarding trademark infringement in the travel industry. While the court found prima facie evidence that Defendants 3 and 4 were infringing the plaintiff's registered marks by using deceptively similar spellings ('SHREENATH' vs 'SHRINATH'), it rejected the request to restrain Defendant 5 due to insufficient factual basis. The court issued a mixed order, granting injunctions against specific words and domain names while mandating removal of infringing marks and disclosure of earnings from Defendants 3 and 4.
M/S Vajiram And Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP v.Sh. S.S Choudhary and Anr / M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated a suit for injunction (CS(COMM) 43/2019) against M/s Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd. with a related trademark cancellation petition (C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 213/2022). The core dispute involves the use of similar marks ('VAJIRAO' vs 'VAJIRAM') by two coaching institutes for civil services examinations. By consolidating the trials, the court aims to prevent multiplicity and address whether the defendant's trademark registration is liable for cancellation.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. v.Rps Infrastructure Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions against Rps Infrastructure Limited after a petition alleging trademark infringement concerning the 'World Trade Centre' brand in Faridabad. The court temporarily restrained the respondent from using the disputed trademarks on its projects, requiring immediate removal of the marks from all public materials and mandating disclosure to unit buyers that the developer holds no rights to the brands. While granting these protective measures, the Court deferred the adjudication of significant monetary claims (over Rs 31 crore) to the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
Nilkamal Crates And Contaners & Anr. v.Ms. Reena Rajpal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning plastic molded chairs, balancing claims over both word marks and device marks. While the court found no deceptive similarity between the word marks 'NILKAMAL' and 'NILKRANTI,' it did find that the defendants' adopted logo was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered device mark. Consequently, the injunction sought against the use of the word mark was rejected, but the defendants were strictly restrained from using the infringing device mark.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Hamburg (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-11-03) under reference UPC-001683, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited appeared in dispute with Tesla Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/s.Snapbizz Cloudtech Pte Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
M/s.Snapbizz Cloudtech Pte Ltd. filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant a patent. The appellant subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw the appeal, leading to its dismissal by the High Court.
Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v.Sardesai Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This case before the Bombay High Court addressed a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of a specific court after the transfer of civil suits. The petitioner argued that since the suit involved intellectual property (trademarks) and was valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-, it should fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Court ruled that because the valuation fell below the minimum threshold prescribed by the notification under the Act, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the jurisdiction rested with the District Judge-1 as per the Trademarks Act, 1958.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Parle Product Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Intercontinental Great Brands Llc seeking a stay of infringement proceedings. The plaintiff sought to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademark, FABIO, under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to raise any prima facie tenable grounds challenging the registration in its pleadings (plaint or replication). Consequently, the application for stay was rejected, allowing the main infringement suit to proceed.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Karanveer Singh Chhabra Trading As J.K.
Pernod Ricard appealed a Commercial Court order that rejected their application for temporary injunction against Karanveer Singh Chhabra, alleging trademark infringement of 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' by the defendant's use of 'London Pride'. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's finding that no deceptive similarity existed between the marks. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the main suit on merits without being influenced by the appellate observations.
Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel Trading As Rakesh Pharmaceuticals v.Sss Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court addressed critical procedural issues concerning IPR litigation under the Commercial Courts Act. The court clarified that despite the plaintiff's freedom to value a suit, this principle cannot be used to undervalue IPR disputes below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold to avoid the rigors of the CCA. The judgment mandates that intangible rights must be ascribed a 'specified value,' considering both the relief sought and the market value of the IP right involved. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order vacating the injunction, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Bharat Vastralaya v.Karishma Silks & Sarees
The Madras High Court disposed of a Trade Marks Appeal between Bharat Vastralaya and Karishma Silks & Sarees based on a settlement reached between the parties. The consent terms mandate that while the Respondent can continue using 'KARISHMA' for one specific outlet in Bangalore, they must withdraw their existing trademark registration (No. 572267) in Class 24. This resolution provides a clear path forward for both parties to manage their respective rights and prevent further litigation.
M/s.Ghanshyam Perfumery And Co. v.S.Shri Kasim Ramaiah
This Madras High Court case involved a Trade Marks Appeal challenging the rejection of an opposition against Trademark Application No. 582422. The parties, M/s. Ghanshyam Perfumery And Co. and S.Shri Kasim Ramaiah (trading as M/s. Shanker Perfumery Works), reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. Under the terms, they agreed to exclusive rights for 'SONA CHANDI' and other 'SONA formative trademarks,' respectively, while also agreeing not to use deceptively similar labels. The court disposed of the appeal based on these mutual consent terms.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants, inspect their Preconditioned Air Units (PCAs), and audit related accounts to demonstrate infringement of Patent IN 330145. The court dismissed the application, holding that the prayers were misconceived and did not meet the strict criteria required for appointing a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC.
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Rudra Marketing
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rudra Marketing and others for infringing its trademarks ('GLEN') and passing off its products. The plaintiff alleged that defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'GLEE' on home appliances, confusing consumers.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
M/S. M.L. Brothers Llp v.Uma Impact Private Limited
In a case concerning trade dress infringement, the Delhi High Court facilitated ongoing settlement talks between M/S. M.L. Brothers Llp and Uma Impact Private Limited. The court confirmed that the ad-interim injunction, previously limited to the trade dress of three specific products, would continue during the pendency of the suit. Both parties expressed willingness to resolve disputes amicably, with the Plaintiff proposing a decree based on the Division Bench's order while leaving the trademark dispute over the slogan 'BORN TO WIN' open for separate resolution.
M/s.Moti And Company v.M/s.B.Braun Melsungen AG
M/s. Moti And Company filed a petition seeking to revoke or invalidate Patent No. 221306 held by M/s. B.Braun Melsungen AG. The petitioner later submitted that the patent had already expired on July 13, 2021.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 363203, which pertains to a 'Light Blocking Sheet, Imaging Lens Module and Electronic Apparatus'.
Nripendra Kashyap v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nripendra Kashyap filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant subsequently instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal.
M/s.Moti And Company v.M/s.B.Braun Melsungen AG
M/s. Moti And Company filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation or invalidation of Patent No. 221306 held by M/s. B.Braun Melsungen AG. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the patent had already expired on July 13, 2021.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Kba Notasys Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for printing currency notes. The core dispute revolved around whether the prior art documents cited in the International Search Report (ISR) could be considered grounds for rejection during the appeal process. The court acknowledged the relevance of the ISR citations but directed the Respondent No. 2 to file written submissions on this specific point.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Mr. Kunhimoideen Kazhungumthottathil
The Delhi High Court issued an order on October 31, 2023, directing the parties to proceed with the completion of pleadings in the trademark dispute. The court set a date for further proceedings while granting specific opportunities for both the plaintiff and defendant to file rejoinders in various interlocutory applications (IAs). This procedural step indicates that the case is moving forward through the discovery and pleading phase.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh And Anr.
In a dispute over trademark rights, Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. sought to cancel registrations held by Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh concerning the 'TIGER' device logo. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks used by both parties and issued an interim order. The court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the registration, preventing any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademarks until further hearing.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited filed an action for revocation of European Patent 2 794 928 against Harvard before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the Court of First Instance. The Central Division revoked the patent entirely and ordered Harvard to bear NanoString's legal costs, prompting Harvard to appeal. After the appeal was filed, NanoString applied to withdraw the action, refrain from a cost decision, and release the security deposit of €300,000 it had previously provided.
DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Ethylene-based polymers' on the ground of lack of inventive step, citing prior art documents D4 and D5. The court set aside the impugned order, holding that the arguments regarding non-obviousness were not properly engaged by the respondent. Consequently, the matter was remanded to allow reconsideration while taking into account the passage of time and foreign patent grants.
New York University v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
New York University appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 9210/CHENP/2011) for an invention related to targeting pathological tau proteins. The High Court found that the rejection lacked cogent reasons, particularly regarding amendments and inventive step, and consequently set aside the impugned order.
Nripendra Kashyap Constituted Attorney of Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller of patents and Designs Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
The appellant, representing Huawei Device Co., Ltd., filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order granting a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 9270/CHEN/2013. The learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed to withdraw the appeal.
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v.Puma Stationery Ltd. and Anr.
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. successfully secured a decree in its trademark infringement suit against Puma Stationery Ltd. and A.W. Faber-Castell (India) Ltd. The judgment was based on an amicable settlement where the defendant, A.W. Faber-Castell, formally acknowledged Hindustan Pencils' ownership of the trademarks 'PLASTO' and 'NON-DUST'. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using these marks in stationery products and withdraw pending opposition and rectification proceedings against the plaintiff’s rights.
Fullstack Education Pvt Ltd v.Institut Europeen D Administration Des Affaires (INSEAD) Association & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, overturned an earlier single judge's decision that had sought to strike off the mark 'INSAID' from the register. The appellate bench held that while phonetic similarity and likelihood of confusion were noted, the original judgment relied too heavily on 'prima facie' findings regarding honest use and adoption. The court emphasized that rectification under Section 57 requires a definitive and conclusive determination, not merely preliminary impressions.
Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed two appeals filed by Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to allow TM-16 applications. These applications permitted the substitution of the trademark applicant's name in pending opposition proceedings, citing that allowing the change would not prejudice the opponents' rights. The court noted the Appellant's lack of appearance and concluded that since the impugned order only related to the name change and did not affect the merits of the final opposition, the appeals were dismissed.
M/S Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Pvt. , Ltd.
The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Chirec Public School challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to stay an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the petitioner had sufficiently established that the respondent's trademark registration was prima facie invalid, thereby warranting a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that despite averments in the written statement, the plea of invalidity lacked sufficient substantiation and could not be inferred as prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Commercial Court's decision to proceed with the infringement suit was upheld.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. v.Mr. Aman Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application in a trademark infringement suit brought by the Hero Group against various defendants. The court upheld the previous injunction granted on June 1, 2022, which protected the Plaintiffs' trademarks ('Hero Electric', 'Hero') and related intellectual property. Specifically, the existing orders directing the disclosure of details for infringing domain names (like www.elctricbikedelearship.com) and freezing associated bank accounts were maintained throughout the pendency of the suit.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.K. Sarinivas Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. against K. Sarinivas Reddy for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SRI AROGYA,' coupled with a deceptively similar color scheme, get-up, and packaging design, infringed upon the plaintiff's registered mark 'AROKYA.' Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction to stop the unauthorized use and directed the defendant to pay costs.
10xGenomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-10-26) under reference UPC-001687, 10xGenomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
AIM Sport Vision AG v.Supponor Oy, Limited, SASU, España SL, Italia SRL
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki (FI) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-10-20) under reference UPC-001689, AIM Sport Vision AG appeared in dispute with Supponor Oy, Limited, SASU, España SL, Italia SRL concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Strix Ltd v.Maharaja Appliances Limited
Strix Ltd filed a suit against Maharaja Appliances Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 192511/95) related to thermally sensitive overheat controls used in liquid heating vessels, specifically electric kettles. The defendant counter-claimed challenging the validity of the patent. Although the life of the patent had expired by the time of final judgment, the court found infringement and decreed the suit for damages and costs.
M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. v.Divyam Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. against Divyam Gupta, finding that the defendant was attempting to ride on the plaintiff's established trademark rights. The court recognized the substantial use and reputation of the 'CP CENTURY' mark in kitchen hardware products. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'CENTUARY PLUS/ACE CENTUARY PLUS' until the final hearing of the suit.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies(India) Limited
The court heard an application filed by the defendant (Intex) seeking modification of existing interim royalty rates. The court dismissed this application, noting that the defendant was straining to avoid complying with prior directions for royalty payments. Separately, the court disposed of an application concerning the reconstitution of a confidentiality club.
Lombard Brands Ltd. v.United Spirits Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Lombard Brands Ltd against United Spirits Limited regarding the trade mark 'STORM'. The court found that the registration for STORM in Class 33 was liable to be cancelled because the first respondent failed to demonstrate continuous use of the mark for at least five years, as required under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the impugned trade mark from the register.
Ind Swift Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
In this trademark opposition matter, Ind Swift Limited sought an exemption from strict procedural requirements regarding document submission. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, permitting the Appellant to produce original documents later as required by law. The court also noted that the appellant's mark 'AMYCLOX' is opposed by Cedar Properties and Trading LLP, directing necessary intimation to the opposing counsel before listing the matter for further proceedings.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-10-18) under reference UPC-001690, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Array Biopharma Inc filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No.450/DELNP/2015) by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on June 30, 2023. The court issued notice and directed written submissions from the Respondent.
M/s.Ufo Moviez India Ltd. v.M/s Real Image Media Technologies Pvt.Ltd
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 202980. The court observed that the term of this patent had expired on October 18, 2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
The University of Houston v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The University of Houston filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. 379/CHENP/2008) to proceed for grant. The petitioner subsequently endorsed that it did not intend to prosecute the appeal, leading the court to dismiss the petition.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Business Objects Software Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its patent application (No. 7583/CHENP/2011). The Appellant subsequently sought permission to withdraw this appeal to file it before the High Court of Madras. The court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn.
Shyam Enterprises Private Limited v.Hotel Amaravati
The Madras High Court partially decreed a suit filed by Shyam Enterprises Private Limited against Hotel Amaravati concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully proven its claim regarding the use of the registered trademark AMARAVATHI in the hotel and hospitality sector. Consequently, the defendant was granted permanent injunctions restraining them from using the mark or suggesting a connection to the plaintiff's services. However, since the plaintiff did not press for claims related to damages or accounting of profits, those specific reliefs were dismissed.
M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons v.M/s.S.Jaffer Mohideen Alias Noushad
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons against the rejection of their opposition to a trademark application (No.676174). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of prior use of 'S', the respondent's mark, which prominently features 'FILTER BEEDI,' was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. However, the judgment imposed strict conditions on the respondent, requiring them to use their label in combination with two other specific labels and formally undertake not to use the 'SS' logo independently.
landmark crafts private limited v.sohan lal gupta
M/s Landmark Crafts Private Limited sued M/s Sohan Lal Gupta alleging infringement of its trademark 'HP'. The dispute centered on the identical packaging and color combination used by both parties for competing products, raising concerns about passing off. The Defendants agreed to change their product's packaging.
Shyam Sel And Power Limited v.Atibir Industries Company Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Shyam Sel And Power Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Atibir Industries Company Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'ISEL' on TMT bars constituted passing off, as it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'SEL'. Relying on the principles of trade law and the lack of defense from the respondent, the court expedited the judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Nalli Sambbasivam Trading as M/s.Nalli's Silks Sari Centre v.M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty & Ors.
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Nalli Sambbasivam against M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty regarding the trade mark 'Nalli'. The core issue was whether a rectification petition could proceed when an earlier infringement suit concerning the same marks was pending before the Bombay High Court. The court held that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, a party must first convince the civil court to frame a triable issue on the validity of the registration before seeking rectification.
Bidisha Ghoshal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Bidisha Ghoshal appealed the rejection of her trademark application '42 orchids' by The Registrar of Trade Marks, arguing that the Examiner's refusal was mechanical and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and devoid of substantive discussion regarding similarity or likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a fresh examination, ensuring due process.
Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh v.Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed three trademark rectification petitions filed by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh against Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited. The original petitions, which sought to expunge specific trademarks from the register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were withdrawn by the petitioner before a final ruling could be made. This outcome highlights that procedural decisions, such as withdrawal, can conclude IP litigation without substantive judgment on the merits.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION'. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the specific submissions made by the appellant.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
In this legal proceeding before Nordic Baltic Regional Division (decision issued on 2023-10-17) under reference UPC-001692, OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED appeared in dispute with AUTOSTORE AS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs
Huawei appealed an order rejecting its patent application (IN 4561) for a radio communication system. The appeal argued that the Patent Office failed to consider detailed arguments against obviousness and rejected amendments without proper justification. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of reasoned consideration and set it aside, remanding the matter.
USV Private Limited v.Symed Labs Limited
USV Private Limited filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 229267. The court observed that the patent's term had expired on October 16, 2023, rendering the petition infructuous.