Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10701–10800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Mohd Shah Fahad Trading as Shah Enterprises v.Raghav Nathani
Mohd. Shah Fahad filed a suit against Raghav Nathani and others, alleging that Defendant No. 1 was infringing his registered trademark 'Classio' by using 'Classio Fashion' on e-commerce platforms, causing monetary loss and damage to goodwill. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's suit due to repeated willful and deliberate non-compliance with court orders and failure to prove a prima facie case.
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' by the Assistant Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 to D6. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the appellant's specific arguments and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd.
Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed an injunction seeking to prevent Fantasy Sports Myfab11 Pvt. Ltd. from unauthorizedly using its proprietary Fantasy Sports Mobile Application (EXCHANGE22). The Plaintiffs claimed that their unique game structure, components, and user interface were protected under copyright law. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately found no prima facie evidence of copyright infringement by the Defendants. Consequently, the court vacated the ex parte injunction previously granted to the Plaintiffs.
Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.Mr Basant Kumar Makhija & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that since the defendants raised a defense based on their registered mark (Section 30(2)(e)), and the plaintiff pleaded the invalidity of that registration, the plea was deemed prima facie tenable. Consequently, the Court framed an issue challenging the validity of the defendant's trademark and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the plaintiff to file a rectification petition.
Kalsi Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications while continuing the main appeal challenging a trademark registration. The court condoned the appellant's delay in re-filing the appeal and allowed an application for exemption from producing certified copies of documents. Crucially, the court issued notice to the Respondent No. 2 regarding the challenge to their 'KALSI' mark registration, which was previously granted by the Registrar.
Omrf Pipes And Products v.Itarsi Pipe Sales & Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against pipe manufacturers who were allegedly passing off their products. The court held that while the appellants lacked formal trademark registration for the specific color combination, the similarity between the 'RIVERLINE' (appellant) and 'METROSTAR' (respondent) product colors and shapes had the potential to mislead an ordinary purchaser. Consequently, the High Court granted the interim injunction, emphasizing that courts should assess potential consumer confusion from the perspective of a common person.
Raj Kumar Sharma v.Sandeep Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interconnected trademark disputes concerning the 'Pizza Galleria' brand between Raj Kumar Sharma and Sandeep Kumar & Anr. The court first resolved a factual contradiction regarding an MoU, accepting that the date should be 25th March 2018 instead of 9th June 2021. Furthermore, all applications seeking a stay on trademark registrations were dismissed as withdrawn by the Petitioner. Despite these procedural steps, the Court noted significant gaps in documentation and directed Respondent No.1 to file a comprehensive additional affidavit within six weeks.
Ayur United Care LLP v.Union Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses a procedural challenge concerning the jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions filed against decisions made by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner, Ayur United Care LLP, challenged an order passed by the IPAB that allowed rectification petitions against its trademark registration. The core legal question was whether these appeals required a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Intervet International B.V. v.Veko Care Private Limited
The plaintiff sued the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 283279, which covers the active ingredient 'FLURALANER' used in veterinary drugs like 'Bravecto'. The dispute involved the defendant promoting a counterfeit product under the mark 'FURALINE'. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement and filed a joint application.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction against the manufacture and sale of Sitagliptin products by the Defendant. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes through a settlement agreement dated September 15, 2023, which was recorded by the Court.
Hartek India Pvt Ltd v.Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed an interim injunction in favor of Hartek India Pvt Ltd, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Hartek Design And Software Solutions Private Limited. The court noted that the defendant's use of 'HARTEKDSS,' despite the added suffix, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'HARTEK.' This order serves as a crucial early victory for the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using the confusingly similar name while the full suit proceeds.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the date of service of a Statement of claim and the extension of procedural deadlines. The appellants (Sanofi entities and Regeneron) challenged a procedural order of the Munich Local Division that had rejected their request to recalculate the deadlines for lodging a Preliminary objection and Statement of defense based on the later availability of Annexes. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that while a Statement of claim without Annexes can be validly served under Rule 271 RoP, non-compliance with Rule 13.2 RoP (requiring simultaneous upload of Annexes) constitutes a reasoned request for extension of the terms under Rules 19.1 and 23 RoP.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
Flamagas S.A. v.Ashok Bafna and Bafna Agencies
Flamagas S.A. filed a civil suit against Ashok Bafna and Bafna Agencies, alleging infringement of its registered designs and trademarks concerning cigarette lighters. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and an accounting of profits due to the sale of similar 'BAIDE/TOYO' lighters. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit.
Ufo Moviez India Ltd v.M/s.Real Image Media Technologies Private Limited
Ufo Moviez India Ltd filed a petition to revoke Patent No. 202969 before the Madras High Court. The court observed that the term of the said patent expired on 18.10.2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
The review petitions sought reconsideration of an earlier court order that had negated a preliminary objection to the maintainability of two applications. The core dispute revolves around alleged non-compliance by the respondent with directions, specifically concerning the payment of 'entire royalty amount' as mandated by previous orders.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its Divisional Application, arguing that the parent application lacked claims relating to multiple distinct inventions. The High Court addressed the legal questions regarding the maintainability of divisional applications under Section 16 of the Patents Act.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals filed by the BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. against the rejection of its 'BSA' trademark applications by the Registrar of Trademarks. The dispute involved conflict with Tube Investments of India Ltd., which uses 'BSA' for bicycles and related products. Recognizing the potential for confusion but also the distinct nature of their businesses (software vs. cycles), the Court directed both parties to coordinate and delineate their respective goods and services. This step aims to allow both entities to secure trademark registration without future litigation.
Salik Mukhtar And 4 Others v.M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt Ltd, upholding a lower court's order granting a temporary injunction. The suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the product 'Musa Ka Gul Super'. The High Court found that the plaintiff-respondents had established a prima facie case of infringement based on their registered trademarks and copyrights, concluding there was no legal impediment to maintaining the injunction pending the final trial.
Noumi Ip Pty Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Noumi IP Pty Ltd. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its trademark application 'MILKLAB,' which was deemed highly descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant argued that the mark relates to various milk-based products. Following arguments, the Court did not rule on the merits but instead sought instructions from the Appellant regarding potential remedies, such as amending the application into a logo/device mark or agreeing to a disclaimer concerning the word 'MILK'.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Jubilant Generics Limited And Anr
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories filed a suit seeking an injunction against Jubilant Generics for allegedly infringing on its trademark 'RAZO' with the mark 'RAZOEASE'. Following the filing, the Defendant proactively acknowledged an inadvertent mistake and issued assurances to immediately cease all manufacture and sale under the disputed mark. The court accepted these undertakings, leading to the disposal of the injunction application and directing the parties to file consent terms for closure.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4863), which was refused by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed in vitro method, used to measure sequence imbalance in biological samples from pregnant women, qualified as a non-patentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
Starpharma Pty Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Starpharma Pty Ltd appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 10044/CHENP/2013, which covered a method and gel formulation for treating bacterial vaginosis. The appellant argued that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and complete specification. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Chinese University Of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4812/CHENP/2012), which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed invention—a process for fetal genomic analysis from maternal samples—was an unpatentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that determining foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not 'diagnostic' in the statutory sense, allowing the patent application to proceed to grant.
T.V.Nagarajan v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.
UPL Limited v.Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. was manufacturing and selling a product containing the composition protected by UPL's Indian Patent No. IN 428514. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons to the defendants, and directed parties to file pleadings and respond to the interlocutory injunction application.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural disputes raised by PepsiCo in its appeal against a trademark rectification petition filed by Parle Agro. The court noted that the primary grievance concerned the alleged departure from prescribed procedures under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While acknowledging concerns about the fast-tracking of the original application, the Court allowed PepsiCo to file its reply and evidence within a specified timeframe, subsequently postponing the hearing date for the rectification proceedings.
Britannia Industries Limited v.Amar Biscuit Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Britannia Industries Limited against Amar Biscuit Private Limited. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'GOOD TIME' with a deceptively similar color combination and trade dress to Britannia's established 'GOOD DAY' butter cookies was likely to cause consumer confusion. Given the enormous goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's brand, the court ruled that immediate action was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
M/S Natures Magic World v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
M/S Natures Magic World filed a writ petition seeking the Trademark Registry's direction to formally record an Assignment Deed dated February 17, 2016. The petitioner sought to establish ownership of the mark 'COLORESSENCE' (TM No. 1541613) following its assignment from M/s Nature Essence Pvt. Ltd. Despite the existence of the valid assignment deed, the recordal had not been given effect due to administrative confusion stemming from a subsequent name change of the original owner. The Court directed further hearings to resolve these procedural issues and ensure the assignment is duly recorded.
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. Ltd v.Sudershana Singh
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Sudershana Singh alleging trademark infringement concerning wedding planning services. The Plaintiff holds a registered trademark 'BALAJEE EVENTZ' (No. 4175314) and claims the Defendant is infringing by using similar names like 'BALAJI EVENTS'. The Delhi High Court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from filing documents and instituting pre-litigation mediation, before formally registering the suit and directing the issuance of summons to the defendant.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Capital Tv And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tv Today Network Limited against Capital TV and others. The court found a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, noting that the defendants were imitating the plaintiff's distinctive program names and logos across various digital platforms. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using deceptively similar marks for news/current affairs programs and ordered to take down all infringing links online.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-10-11) under reference UPC-001695, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HELIOS K.K, RIKEN
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2023-10-11) under reference UPC-001694, ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE appeared in dispute with HELIOS K.K, RIKEN concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. v.C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of two petitions filed by Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. against C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. The challenge to the respondent's marks, which were under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, was rendered moot because the impugned trademarks had expired and subsequently been removed from the Register due to non-renewal. Consequently, the petitioner sought and received permission to withdraw the proceedings.
M/s.Jupiter Drugs v.Mrs.M.Sarojini
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. Jupiter Drugs' petition seeking to expunge or limit the trade mark 'ZIPROVIT.' The court noted that the last registration was valid only until December 14, 2017, suggesting the petitioner might no longer be an aggrieved party. Furthermore, due to the absence of a current address for service on the petitioner, the court found it impossible to proceed with the matter.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.Milka Nutriments Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Pioneer Bakeries, directing the removal of two specific trade marks (No. 821974 and No. 691534) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that both marks had long expired because their renewal periods had lapsed, making them liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision underscores the importance of timely maintenance and renewal of intellectual property rights.
M.Viyan Aarman v.Etecetra Entertainment
M.Viyan Aarman filed a suit for copyright infringement concerning the title of the film 'Saamaniyan'. The appeal challenged an order rejecting the application for injunction, arguing that the appellant had registered the title and faced breach of trust by the first respondent. However, the court found that the appellant was only alleging infringement qua title, which is not maintainable under existing legal precedents.
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited v.Rt Diagnostics
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark and passing off against Rt Diagnostics, which was using a similar trade name. The appellant sought temporary injunctions, which were previously rejected. This appeal challenged those rejection orders before the Madras High Court.
ITC Limited Of Virginia House v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks And Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a previous Registrar's decision that had treated ITC's opposition to the mark 'LUCKY NINE' as abandoned due to delayed filing of evidence. The court held that since ITC had clearly stated its willingness to rely on the grounds of opposition within the prescribed period, the abandonment was unjustified. Following this ruling and citing precedent, the High Court ultimately cancelled the registration of 'LUCKY NINE', restoring ITC's rights.
Crocs Inc.Usa v.Aquallite India Limited And Anr.
The plaintiff alleged infringement of the design of its footwear, known as the 'CROCS DESIGN'. The design registration was cancelled due to lack of novelty and prior publication.
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v.The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd filed an appeal challenging the order of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which dismissed a Post-grant Opposition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 312437. The opposition contended that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, or was not patentable under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court examined the technical aspects and found no infirmity in the impugned order.
Cryomass Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cryomass LLC filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application, '201917048279,' titled "Cryogenic Separation of Plant Material." The initial rejection by the Assistant Controller was based on a lack of inventive steps and falling under Section 3(f) of the Patents Act. Cryomass argued that their non-aqueous cryogenic system offered novel advantages not disclosed in prior art. The Delhi High Court, while setting aside procedural objections regarding delay subject to costs, directed further pleadings before listing the case for final hearing.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited filed a civil suit against M/s. Indianpasand Inc. and other defendants, alleging trademark infringement (SANGU vs. SHIPPY), copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of their registered marks and artistic designs by the defendants. However, due to the current non-sale status of the disputed products, the plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the suit against the first defendant while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case if infringement occurs in the future.
Intervet International B.V. v.Reyaansh Healthcare
The plaintiffs, holders of Indian Patent 283279 for the veterinary product Fluralaner, filed a suit against Reyaansh Healthcare for manufacturing and selling Fluralaner tablets under the brand Flurashield without a license. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the product until further hearing.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The dispute concerning the infringement of Patent IN 247381 related to Apixaban was settled through mediation. The settlement agreement required the defendant to confirm it did not distribute 'Apixaban' in India during the patent term and agreed not to challenge its validity.
ITC Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of ITC Limited, restraining defendants from using infringing domain names and sub-domains that fraudulently solicit franchises and dealerships under the guise of ITC's brand. The court reinforced previous orders, directing Domain Name Registrars to immediately lock and suspend the specified domains while also instructing the Cyber Cell to freeze numerous bank accounts linked to these fraudulent activities.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Glaxo Group Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Dermazone Pharmaceuticals in a trademark infringement suit. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendant's mark, 'BECLOVATE,' is phonetically and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark, 'BETNOVATE.' Given the identical nature of the products (skin treatments) and strong market presence of Glaxo, the court granted immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion. The injunction restricts the manufacture and sale of the infringing product moving forward.
AGFA NV v.Gucci
In this legal proceeding before Hamburg (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-10-04) under reference UPC-001698, AGFA NV appeared in dispute with Gucci concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.
Cde Asia Limited v.Propel Industries Private Limited
The court heard an application by Cde Asia Limited seeking to place additional documents related to a post-grant opposition concerning a subject patent. The court allowed these documents and also registered a counterclaim filed by Propel Industries Private Limited under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Cryomass Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cryomass LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated May 31, 2021, which refused Patent Application No. 201917048279 titled "Cryogenic Separation of Plant Material". The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) and claims falling within Section 3(f) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2072/CHENP/2011) because the current set of amended claims were deemed beyond the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined whether the amendments expanded or narrowed the original claim scope and found that the specificity incorporated in the amended claims curtailed rather than expanded the original scope.
Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors. v.Paragon Cable India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The core dispute revolved around the trademark 'ELEKTRON' for electric wires and cables. The court found that while the appellants claimed prior use dating back to 1992, they failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Conversely, the respondents successfully demonstrated a credible basis to challenge the validity of the appellant's registrations due to misleading claims regarding their usage period.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Kent Cables Private Limited challenged the inclusion of the trade mark 'KENT' in the list of well-known trademarks, which was advertised by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the matter involves complex procedural and substantive issues regarding the declaration of a well-known mark. After reviewing previous directions and legal precedents, the court issued notice to the respondents while keeping open questions of maintainability and jurisdiction, setting the stage for further detailed arguments.
Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited v.V.K.R.Venkatesan
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited seeking rectification and cancellation of a trade mark entry. The court noted that despite attempts to serve notice, the petitioner's address was insufficient, and their counsel confirmed they had no instructions to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications and made key interim directions in the case concerning the Geographical Indication (GI) for Chilean Pisco. The court allowed various exemptions related to documentation due to pandemic conditions, while also agreeing to delete one respondent from the array of parties. Crucially, the court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks & GI would not pass final orders on the GI application no. 689 until further notice, providing a temporary stay on the registration process.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
Unilever Global IP Limited filed a Commercial IP suit against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding the use of the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently arrived at a comprehensive settlement, which was accepted by the court.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
The suit concerning alleged trademark infringement was settled between Unilever Global IP Ltd. and Rajender Prasad Bandaru. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Triveni Interchem Private Limited
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban'. The parties reached separate settlement agreements with Defendants 1 & 2 and Defendant 3, mediated by the Delhi High Court. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on these terms.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Rajender Prasad Bandaru
The suit was filed by Unilever Global IP Ltd. against Rajender Prasad Bandaru regarding infringement related to the impugned mark COMFORT. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, which was accepted and taken on record by the court.
M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries for infringing the registered trade mark 'DHEEPAM' and engaging in passing-off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'V RICH DEEPAM OIL' and its deceptively similar packaging material constituted infringement, despite the defendant failing to appear in court. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known trademarks against confusingly similar marks.
Devanand Nagpal Prop. Nagpal Foods And Caterers v.Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Devanand Nagpal seeking the issuance of his Trade Mark registration certificate for 'NAGPAL'S SPECIAL CHOLE BHATURE'. Although the opposition against his mark was dismissed in July 2023, the certificate had not been issued. The Court ordered the immediate issuance of the certificate within 10 working days, but crucially stipulated that this registration would remain subject to the final outcome of a parallel appeal filed by the opposing party. This decision balances administrative delay with ongoing legal disputes.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-09-29) under reference UPC-001701, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation appeared in dispute with Meril GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Avtar Singh And Mr.Harkirat Singh Trading as M/s.Aero Club v.Chiranjeelal Bihani and The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a Trade Marks Original Petition filed by Avtar Singh and Mr. Harkirat Singh against Chiranjeelal Bihani. The core issue was the validity of Trade Mark No. 963781, which had expired on October 16, 2010, due to non-renewal. Since the statutory period for renewal had long passed, the court found the petition to be infructuous and dismissed it without further order.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by MGM Healthcare, the registered trademark owner of 'VARAM', against an interlocutory injunction order. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the respondent, Varamm Healthcare, had presented prima facie evidence suggesting prior and continuous usage of its mark 'VARAMM'. While noting the burden of proof lies with the prior user, the appellate bench was reluctant to interfere with the lower court's discretionary findings on initial evidence, allowing the main suit to proceed based on full evidence.
Meenambigai Products v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Meenambigai Products against The Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought rectification of a trade mark registration entry (No. 1524417 in Class 30). However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite receiving proper court notice, the High Court dismissed the case without making any substantive order regarding costs.
Rigo Trading S.A.Societe Anonyme v.Unigum Gida Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rigo Trading S.A.Societe Anonyme seeking to expunge the device mark 'BLOX' (Registration No. 1706420) from the register. The court noted that the trade mark's last registration was valid only until July 3, 2018. Since the statutory long stop date for renewal had expired, the petition was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
M/s.Mysore Silk Udyog v.M/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by M/s. Mysore Silk Udyog seeking to expunge or limit the scope of registered trade marks belonging to M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog LLP. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the trademark dispute, but rather because the petitioner failed to appear and could not be served notice at the address provided in the petition. This highlights the critical importance for IP litigants to maintain accurate contact information throughout legal proceedings.
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Edrich u.a.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-09-27) under reference UPC-001704, 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 2023-09-27) under reference UPC-001703, Koninklijke Philips N.V. appeared in dispute with Edrich u.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-09-27) under reference UPC-001702, Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG appeared in dispute with Himson Engineering Private Limited concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application for 'N-substituted indole derivatives as PGE2 receptor modulators'. The appellant argued that it was not given a proper opportunity to justify the inclusion of the expression 'pharmaceutically acceptable salts' in its claims before the rejection. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan News Network & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan News Network. The court found that the defendant was attempting to pass off its news channel and name as being connected with the long-established 'HINDUSTAN' mark owned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing mark and logo, and orders were issued compelling domain registrars (GoDaddy) and tech platforms (Google/Meta) to suspend the infringing website and take down related content.
Fitflop Limited v.Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions in a trademark infringement suit filed by Fitflop Limited against Urban Shore Wholesale India Private Limited. While directing the Defendant to immediately cease all use of the 'FITFLOP' mark, the court allowed the continued existence of current stock. A Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and segregate the existing inventory at the Goa warehouse to determine which products are genuine and which may be unauthorized, paving the way for future valuation and dispute resolution.
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the refusal of their trademark application by The Registrar of Trademarks. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant chose to withdraw the case. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed (T)CMA(TM).No.56 of 2023 as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Rajendra Singh
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark 'Levi's', copyright, and passing off against the defendants who were manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel. The court found that defendant no.1 was engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing counterfeit products, leading to a decree for damages.
Mex Switchgears Pvt Ltd v.Twinkle Luminaires Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued orders in two connected trademark appeal matters, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 140/2021 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2022. In both cases, the court addressed procedural issues regarding service of documents, specifically the counterstatement filed by the respondents. The appellant argued that they were never properly served with these crucial documents. Consequently, the Court granted time for both parties to place their respective evidence on record and scheduled further hearings in January 2024.
Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel v.Husenali Anwarali Charaniya
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged a lower court's decision to reject a plaint filed by Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel against Husenali Anwarali Charaniya. The original suit sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement (KANTI KAKA) and copyright violation concerning Betel Nut products. The core legal issue revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, as the plaintiff failed to adequately explain why the suit was filed in Dahod when both parties operated primarily from Surat or Surendranagar.
Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. successfully appealed a rejection by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its word mark 'QuiK-Tap' for temperature measuring devices. The Madras High Court overturned the refusal, finding that the original order and grounds of decision were unsustainable and lacked proper reasoning. The court accepted the evidence of use provided by the appellant, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement.
Cashgrail Private Limited v.Blue Horizone Infotech Llp
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the suit filed by Cashgrail Private Limited against Blue Horizone Infotech LLP concerning alleged infringement of online games and trademarks. Cashgrail claims that the defendant's 'LUDO TOURNAMENT' replicates essential features of its proprietary skill-based games, such as 'Ludo Supreme League.' The court allowed the suit to proceed while ensuring the defendant receives an opportunity to respond before any interim orders are passed.
Theobroma Foods Private Limited v.Karan Narula And Ors (Theos Food Pvt. Ltd.)
The Delhi High Court finalized a complex trademark dispute between Theobroma Foods and Theos Food Pvt. Ltd., leading to a comprehensive decree based on an amicable settlement. The judgment clarified the usage rights for both 'THEOBROMA' and 'THEOS' in the confectionery market. Key terms include mutual non-opposition, allowing Theobroma nationwide expansion while restricting Theos to the Delhi-NCR region for its mark use.
Pranay Satyendrakumar Goyal v.Muza Hospitality Private Limied
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application concerning alleged trademark infringement. The Plaintiff accused the Defendants of breaching a prior undertaking by continuing to use the impugned mark 'DIVE' on their website and selling services under the similar name 'DEEPDOWN DIVE'. While the court did not rule on the merits, it granted the Plaintiff leave to file an Affidavit in Rejoinder and simultaneously granted the Defendants liberty to file an Affidavit in Sur Rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for further consideration.
Kurlon Limited v.M/S.Peps Industries Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trade Marks) filed by Kurlon Limited against M/S.Peps Industries Private Limited. The petition sought to rectify the trademark register by removing the mark 'NO TURN' held by the respondent. This dismissal was not based on merits but followed a settlement agreement reached between the parties, requiring the petitioner to withdraw the rectification request.
H-D U. S. A., Llc v.Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of H-D U. S. A., LLC against Vijaypal Dhayal Owner/ Proprietor Of Red Rose Industries. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off because the defendant's mark replicated the plaintiff's registered 'Eagle Logo/ Device mark.' Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendant's preliminary objection regarding the authority to file the suit, confirming that the Power of Attorney granted omnibus powers covering all intellectual property rights. The injunction mandates that the defendant cease dealing in infringing goods pending the final disposal of the suit.
Major League Baseball Properties Inv. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, Delhi
Major League Baseball Properties Inc. appealed the Registrar's decision that their opposition against the 'BLUE-JAY' trademark application was abandoned due to procedural delays in filing evidence. While the initial rejection was based purely on technical grounds, the Delhi High Court allowed MLBP to pursue its substantive claims. The court disposed of the appeal but permitted MLBP to file a cancellation petition, ensuring the merits of their opposition would be considered.
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.
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents
Manu Chaudhary appealed against the Controller of Patents' order dated May 31, 2023, which refused his patent application (No. 2545/DEL/2010). The refusal was based on non-fulfillment of various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearings.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg
The suit is a patent infringement action concerning Patent No. IN240893 ('Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'). The court proceeded with the recording of cross-examinations of the Defendants' witnesses on September 22, 2023. Evidence has now been concluded, and directions were issued for parties to file written submissions before final arguments.
Ganesh Grains Limited v.K.R.Nagendra And K.N.Shoba; The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ganesh Grains Limited filed two Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the cancellation and expungement of specific registered trade marks (No. 460314 and No. 2000889). The petitions aimed to challenge the validity or registration of these marks. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw both Original Petitions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the proceedings as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
*** v.OrthoApnea S.L.
Lokale afdeling Brussel Bevel van het gerecht van eerste aanleg van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht (UPC) Lokale afdeling te Brussel Gegeven op 21 september 2023 Betreffende EP 2 331 036 Bevel ex R.192 RoP tot bescherming van bewijsmateriaal en het maken van een beschrijving
The Delhi Public School Society v.Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society
This case revolves around a dispute between The Delhi Public School Society (DPSS) and Aviral Education Welfare And Cultural Society (AEWCS) concerning the termination of a Joint Venture Agreement. DPSS had permitted AEWCS to use the 'Delhi Public School' name and logo for its school, but this usage was explicitly limited by the agreement. Upon termination of the JVA, DPSS sought an injunction against AEWCS for continued use of the brand identity. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that once the agreement ended, AEWCS lost all rights to use the IP, thus constituting infringement and passing off.
Shah Mayankkumar Bharatkumar v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed a revisional application before the Calcutta High Court, aggrieved by the excessive delay in disposing of an opposition filed by opposite party no. 2 against their Registered Design (No. 304927). The court disposed of the application by directing the Controller of Patents and Designs to conclude the pending opposition proceedings within two months.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited
Kubota Corporation filed a suit for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court against Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited. The dispute centers on Kubota's 'HARVES KING' combined harvester, which the Plaintiff claims is infringed by the Defendants' product, 'Ruilong Plus ++'.
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop v.M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop, seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SRI MURUGAN IDLI SHOP.' The plaintiff claimed infringement of their registered trademark and copyright related to their business name and branding. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the defendant was not operating under the impugned name, leading the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V. Mahendran
This case involved a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement concerning 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' used on rice products. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and artistic works. However, despite multiple opportunities and court directions to file necessary affidavits and proceed with evidence, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the case management schedule. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit for default.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action regarding a patent titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency', which relates to methods and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
Novozymes v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Novozymes appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs to grant a patent for its phytase variants. The rejection was based on Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection concerning claims 1-7, allowing the application to proceed towards grant.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Tri Parulex Fire Protection System & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking an injunction against the Defendants for allegedly infringing Patent No.202302, which covers a specific operational sequence involving differential relay, Buchholz relay, and circuit breaker in fire prevention systems (NIFPS). The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants not to use this specific patented sequence but directed both parties to file affidavits addressing the technical scope of the patent.