Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10801–10900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
FC Madras Trust v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by FC Madras Trust against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'FC MADRAS'. The initial objection was based on Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, claiming the mark was a common geographical name and lacked distinctive character. The court ruled that when viewed as a whole, the mark is not descriptive of the goods (printed publications), especially given its prior successful registration in other classes. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their device mark. The court found that when viewed as a whole—including the rooster image, stylized font, and corporate name—the mark was distinctive and did not fall under absolute grounds for refusal. Crucially, the prior registration of an identical mark in a related class bolstered the appellant's case, leading the court to set aside the objection and allow the application to proceed to registration.
Rana Steels v.Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications filed by Rana Steels concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademark RANA. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's continued use of similar marks (RANATOR/RAN INDIA) in relation to steel products, despite existing injunction orders. Recognizing the need for factual verification regarding ongoing usage and the disposal of old stock, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and examine account books.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural failures and misinterpretations, despite having addressed substantive objections raised in the Second Examination Report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoStrings Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This case concerns a request for provisional measures filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against NanoString Technologies entities before the Local Division Munich, alleging direct and indirect infringement of unitary patent EP 4 108 782. The court addressed key legal questions regarding the standard of certainty required for patent validity in provisional measure proceedings, the assessment of unreasonable delay in seeking such measures, and whether separate national enforcement of a non-unitary European patent constitutes an equivalent remedy to UPC enforcement. The decision was issued on 19 September 2023 following oral hearings on 5 and 6 September 2023.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company
This case involved Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company suing S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company for trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off, concerning their snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of similar marks and designs, as well as recovery of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement on August 7, 2023, which was subsequently formalized by the Madras High Court.
Astrazeneca Ab v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca filed a suit for infringement against USV Private Limited regarding the pharmaceutical preparations covered by three patents, including those for 'TICAGRELOR'. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes amicably and filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to record the settlement.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Biological E Limited
Vifor International Ltd., the patentee, filed a suit against Biological E Limited regarding alleged infringement of its patent (IN 221536) covering water-soluble iron carbohydrate complexes. The dispute centers on the use and manufacture of FCM for intravenous iron deficiency therapy. Given the impending expiry of the patent tenure in October 2023, the court issued interim directions. These directions mandate that the defendants maintain detailed accounts of their manufacturing and sales of FCM until the patent expires, while simultaneously prohibiting them from using the specific process claimed by Vifor.
Titan Company Ltd. v.Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Titan Company Ltd. against Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the trade mark in question, No. 925369 (Class 20), had not been renewed since May 17, 2010. Since the long stop date for renewal had expired, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Laticrete International, Inc. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in suits related to the patent IN 221536. The court vacated previous status quo orders following a Coordinate Bench's dismissal of injunction applications, but imposed conditions that defendants must not follow the patented process and must maintain complete sales accounts.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs sought interim directions based on a prior Division Bench order. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications concerning patent IN 221536. Consequently, the status quo orders previously passed were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The court addressed several interim applications filed by Vifor (International) Ltd. in various suits, primarily concerning the patent IN 221536 related to Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex. Following a prior judgment by a Coordinate Bench dismissing plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, the status quo orders were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in multiple commercial suits related to Patent IN 221536. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, leading to the vacation of previous status quo orders. The court declined to grant an immediate direction for deposit of entire sales amount but directed defendants to maintain and file complete accounts of sales.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
Honasa Consumer Ltd filed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered by Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The dispute arose after Honasa received a cease and desist notice from Visage claiming rights over the mark, which overlaps with Honasa's use of 'DETAN' in conjunction with its brand 'AQUALOGICA'. The Delhi High Court allowed procedural applications regarding document filing and issued notice to the Respondent for the stay application, setting future dates for hearing.
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited v.Kuldeep Sharma
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Kuldeep Sharma for using the 'LOTTOLAND' trademark and associated device. The Plaintiff, a global leader in online lottery and betting services, alleged that the Defendant's application was a dishonest attempt to appropriate its globally recognized mark. The Delhi High Court granted an interim status quo order, preventing the Defendant from launching any business under the disputed mark until further proceedings.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the refusal of its patent application, 'Scheduling in a High-Performance Computing System,' which was rejected by the Controller under Section 15 for lack of inventive step and non-patentability (Section 3(k)). The core argument centered on the Controller incorrectly applying outdated Computer Related Invention Guidelines. Raytheon contended that their invention provided a technical solution to HPC scalability issues, specifically reducing job scheduling time. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal order and directing a fresh examination without mandating novel hardware.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc v.Sanjeev Gupta & Ors
The commercial suit for patent infringement (CS(COMM) 823/2018) between Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors was settled. The parties agreed that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the validity of Patent IN'816 and the Defendants' infringing activities.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.
Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. v.India G6 Hospitality Ip Llc
The Madras High Court set aside an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) that had removed a trademark belonging to Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner successfully argued that the IPAB's decision was ex parte, having been passed without affording them a proper hearing due to their inability to engage counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the matter be presented before an appropriate bench for fresh consideration.
M/s.White House (Partnership Firm) v.White House Apparels Private Limited & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by M/s. White House seeking the removal of several registered trademarks belonging to its competitor, White House Apparels Private Limited. The petitioner argued they were a prior user of the 'WHITE HOUSE' mark since 1963, relying heavily on historical turnover and export documents. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous use or application of the mark to goods until much later (around 2015), concluding that the respondent's prior registration rights were valid.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Sumit Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling goods bearing falsified "Levi's" marks. The court found that the defendants were engaged in infringing activities and remained absent from court proceedings. Consequently, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff.
M/S Vajiram & Ravi Ias Study Centre Llp v.M/S Vajirao & Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction against passing off. The dispute involved two coaching institutes, 'Vajiram & Ravi' and 'Vajirao & Reddy,' both using names rooted in proper nouns. Despite the plaintiff claiming prior use and phonetic similarity between 'VAJIRAM' and 'VAJIRAO', the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of confusion at this preliminary stage. The balance of convenience tilted in favor of the defendant, allowing them to continue operating under their mark pending final trial.
Indoco Remedies Limited v.M/S.Micro Labs Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a dispute between Indoco Remedies Limited and M/S.Micro Labs Ltd regarding the trade mark 'CITALIFT'. The parties reached an agreement, leading the court to mandate the cancellation of the disputed registration (No. 1005556). Micro Labs agreed to change its mark to 'MICROLIFT' while being granted a six-month grace period to liquidate existing inventory bearing the old mark.
Uab Research Foundation And Anr v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The Uab Research Foundation appealed against an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The impugned order refused to grant a patent application titled 'Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase as Enzymatic Activator of Nucleoside Prodrugs' because the claims were deemed to fall within the scope of Section 3(i) of the Act.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection relied on outdated guidelines (CRI Guidelines, 2016), while the newer 2017 guidelines were already in effect and did not mandate novel hardware for Section 3(k) applicability.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused to grant a patent for 'Leave-on Compositions Containing Cellulose Materials' due to lack of inventive step. The core dispute revolved around the prior art cited against the application, particularly documents in Japanese. The court condoned procedural delays and directed remedial steps to ensure translated copies of the foreign language prior art were made available before listing the case for final hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Pcpatchers Technology Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
STP Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed STP Limited's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'SHALIMARK'. The initial rejection was based on similarity to earlier marks. However, the court permitted the application to proceed by restricting the scope of goods, specifically removing 'building material (non-metallic)' from the list. This decision allows the mark to be advertised in the trade mark journal for further opposition proceedings.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec, Inc. filed a miscellaneous petition seeking reinstatement of claim No. 32 in Patent Application No. 7133/CHENP/2009. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel was not pressing the petition and closed the matter at the SR stage.
Satish Kumar Panjwani v.Nitin Garg
The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction against the defendants for using trademarks ('Maa Shakti' and 'Nari Shakti') that were allegedly identical or deceptively similar to their registered copyright/trademark, 'Ruchi Shakti', used for edible oil. The court found that the packaging of the defendant no. 2 was almost identical to the plaintiff's, satisfying the test of likelihood of confusion.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.V.Senthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving trade mark infringement and rectification petitions between Aachi Spices and Foods and V.Senthil Kumar. The parties ultimately reached a comprehensive settlement, formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise dated August 31, 2023. Consequently, the court decreed the civil suit by granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of similar marks, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel and rectify the disputed registrations held by the respondent.
M/s.Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v.M/s.Prestige Estates Project Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of rectification petitions filed by M/s. Prestige Buildwell Private Limited against M/s. Prestige Estates Project Ltd. The petitions sought to rectify, revoke, or cancel several trademark registrations based on alleged non-use. However, the court noted that the petitioner had previously admitted in civil proceedings that the first respondent was the registered proprietor of the 'Prestige' mark and undertook only to use a specific trading style ('Prestige Buildwell Private Limited'). Based on this prior agreement, the court closed the rectification petitions.
Sanjeev Juneja v.Imaamuddin Khan And Anr
Sanjeev Juneja filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Dr. Ortho' registered by Imaamuddin Khan. The petitioner argued that his established use of the identical mark in orthopaedic goods (Class 10) would be violated by the respondent's registration for textiles and mattresses (Class 24). Despite the class difference, the court found the petitioner prima facie aggrieved and issued notice to the respondents, setting the matter for detailed arguments.
Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for the infringement of Patent No. 427110 and registered Design No. 275676, along with passing off and rendition of accounts.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v.La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd. and Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement of their Patent No. 224100, seeking an injunction, accounts, seizure, and Rs. 1 crore in damages. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited v.Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office
The Madras High Court overturned the Senior Examiner's objections against Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited's trade mark applications. The court found that the device mark was inherently distinctive and disregarded the examiner's narrow focus on the words alone. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the acceptance of the mark for advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over its constituent words when used individually.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
In this legal proceeding before Nordic Baltic Regional Division (decision issued on 2023-09-08) under reference UPC-001712, OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED appeared in dispute with AUTOSTORE AS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K K Academy (P) Ltd) v.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi and others
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'ALOHA' and copyrighted educational materials by using the similar mark 'ALAMA'. The suit also claimed damages for passing off related to mental arithmetic and abacus education programs. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear before the court despite repeated notices and previous dismissals for non-prosecution, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for default.
Jupiter Drugs Partnership Concern v.Mrs.M.Sarojini Proprietrix; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Jupiter Drugs filed an Original Petition seeking to expunge or limit the registered trademark 'ZIPROVIT' (No. 1306475) held by Mrs. M. Sarojini Proprietrix, citing issues related to geographical scope and use. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution because the petitioner could not be served notice due to an outdated address. This procedural dismissal effectively halted Jupiter Drugs' attempt to challenge the trademark registration.
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. challenged the Controller of Patents regarding systemic issues in the e-filing system, which prevented the submission of a divisional patent application following a remand by the IPAB. The petitioner's original parent application had been refused but was subsequently remanded for re-consideration. Since the online portal reflected the 'refused' status, the divisional application could not be filed digitally. The Madras High Court acknowledged this systemic glitch and issued several directions to facilitate the filing process.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products v.Deepak Kumar, Deepak Manocha, Sara Sales and Anr.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products filed a petition seeking rectification of a conflicting copyright registration held by Deepak Kumar. The petitioner claimed ownership over their artistic packaging design for 'Gulchhare' since 2009, asserting that the respondent's subsequent registration was based on an identical and slavish imitation. After examining the works, the Delhi High Court found that the respondent's work lacked originality compared to the petitioner's earlier creation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Promoshirt Sm Sa. v.Armasuisse And Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing Indian Patent No. 426553, which covers a combination therapy (Netupitant and Palonosetron) used as an antiemetic for CINV. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed both parties to file their respective written statements and pleadings.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its divisional application (No. 201918017795) concerning a bifunctional co-polymer composition. The refusal was based on outstanding objections regarding lack of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970.
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited v.Mr Jitendra Ravjani
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Ravjani, alleging infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'JAYPORE'. The Delhi High Court proceeded to frame seven key issues in the matter, including whether the defendant's use constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment. This order sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation by both parties.
Robin Sebastian (CJ Buildware) v.Shyjumon Joseph
The Kerala High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of CJ Buildware against Shyjumon Joseph. The court found that despite a prior contractual agreement, the respondent began using a trademark ('SJ BUILDWARE') that was phonetically and visually deceptive to the plaintiff's registered mark ('CJ BUILDWARE'). Given the established reputation of the plaintiff and the balance of convenience, the court deemed it appropriate to restrain the defendant from continued use pending further proceedings.
Sundaram Industries Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Sundaram Industries Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration for the word mark TRISTAR. The court found that despite arguments regarding differences in goods, the appellant's proposed mark was near identical to an earlier registered mark (TM No. 308929). Given that both marks were applied to similar goods—solid industrial tyres and tyres/tubes for motor land vehicles—the court concluded there would be a likelihood of confusion or association among the public, thereby upholding the refusal under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Manoj Kumar Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Manoj Kumar Jain and others. Although the matter was resolved amicably through a settlement, leading to the decreeing of specific terms, the court also independently declared the Plaintiffs' mark 'BETNESOL' as a well-known mark due to its long history and extensive market presence in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes: resolution via negotiation alongside judicial recognition of brand status.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies filed a suit against Eexpedise Technologies alleging infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of confidential information by former employees who formed competing entities. The Plaintiffs sought interim injunctions restraining the Defendants from copying, publishing, or providing services related to their proprietary software. While the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants were infringing copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court recognized the highly technical nature of the dispute.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action where the Plaintiff is enforcing rights in Indian patent no. IN240893 titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The patent relates to a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Helion Biotech ApS v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helion Biotech ApS appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which denied grant of a patent for antibodies to MASP-2. The appeal was filed seeking consideration of further amended claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back for examination of the amended claims.
W R Grace And Co Conn v.The Controller Of Patents
W R Grace & Co Conn appealed the Patent Office's refusal of its patent application (201717030699), which related to a crystalline form of Nicotinamide Riboside. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and failure to meet requirements under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The Appellant subsequently filed amended claims restricting the scope to the method aspect, leading the Court to remand the matter for fresh examination by the Patent Office.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
In a dispute concerning the trade mark 'LADLI/SABKI LADLI', the Delhi High Court addressed parallel proceedings related to trademark rectification. Recognizing that simultaneous litigation could lead to multiplicity of suits, the court permitted both parties to withdraw their respective pending rectification petitions. This decision aims to consolidate the issues and streamline the legal process for a comprehensive trial.
M.S.Earthevents (I) Private Limited v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside an administrative order that had removed a registered trademark (No. 1249884) from the register. The appellant successfully argued that the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically by not issuing the required notice (Form O-3) to the proprietor before taking action. Consequently, the court allowed the appellant to take necessary steps for the renewal of their trademark.
Harsh Vardhan v.Alna Biotech Pvt Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Harsh Vardhan seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to forthwith cancel the 'GLAMROOT' mark, which was registered in favor of Respondent 1 (Alna Biotech Pvt Limited). This decision effectively removed the disputed mark from the registry.
United Breweries Limited v.Rajesh Kumar Kohli And Anr
United Breweries Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KINGFISHER' mark registered by Rajesh Kumar Kohli, arguing exclusive association with its brand. However, due to the Petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the court, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. This case highlights the procedural requirements in trademark litigation and the importance of consistent representation.
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd v.Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd filed a petition seeking rectification of the copyright held by Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd concerning the artistic work 'NAGRAJ HARFANMOLA'. The Petitioner argued that its own artistic work, 'SATMOLA', was the prior adopter and user. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work bore a striking resemblance to the Petitioner's, noting that the pouches were copied in terms of color scheme and images of children. Consequently, the court directed the rectification/expungement of the impugned copyright registration.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision to reject a patent application concerning 'BIO-BASED POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE POLYMER AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME'. The appellant argues that all grounds for patentability were satisfied, despite the rejection based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The court allowed applications for exemption from filing documents and condoned delay in filing the appeal.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching." The Petitioner sought restoration of the application, alleging that repeated follow-ups to their patent agent were ignored, leading to the deemed abandonment. The Court directed the Patent Agent firm to file an affidavit detailing all correspondence related to the abandonment process. Furthermore, the bench raised broader concerns regarding the lack of regulatory supervision over IP agents in India.
Cresset Capital Management Llc & Anr. v.Registrant Of Www.Cressetcapital.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Cresset Capital Management LLC against domain name registrants. The court recognized the global goodwill associated with the 'Cresset' mark, despite its lack of Indian registration, finding that several registered domains were being used to commit fraud and misrepresent the Plaintiffs' business. Consequently, the Court directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing websites, while also directing law enforcement to commence action against the perpetrators.
N.C.Nanu v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by N.C.Nanu, whose trademark application for 'PAYYOLI MIXTURE' was deemed abandoned by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that the petitioner had complied with Section 21(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, as the initial counter statement was filed within the stipulated two-month period from receiving the notice of opposition. The High Court quashed the abandonment order and directed the Registry to consider the application on its merits.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation) v.Sharp Tools; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha against a trademark registration order. The core issue was whether to set aside the Deputy Registrar's decision that rejected Sharp's opposition to the mark 'SHARP.' However, the court found the appeal moot because the challenged trademark (No. 1185252) had lapsed and not been renewed since March 2013. Consequently, the legal challenge became infructuous.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Fast Cure Pharma And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration, declaring the mark 'RAZOFAST' illegal. The court found that 'RAZOFAST' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark 'RAZO', which is used for the pharmaceutical compound Rabeprazole. Consequently, the registration of 'RAZOFAST' was cancelled and removed from the register.
Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopa Lakshmi Bhat; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Spalon India Pvt. Ltd.'s application for rectification against Trademark No. 2280919. The court noted that the last registration of the mark had expired on February 10, 2022, making its continued presence in the Register invalid. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the entry from Classes 3, 41, and 44 within four weeks.
Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust v.Samina Mahmood
The Madras High Court dismissed four original petitions filed by Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust seeking the revocation of several 'Headstart' trademark applications. The dismissal was based on a prior decree from Bengaluru, which included a memorandum of compromise. Under this agreement, the petitioner had undertaken not to infringe upon or pass off educational services using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. Given this binding commitment, the court found that the petitioner could no longer prosecute the revocation petitions.
Quikr India Private Limited v.Sellquikr Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the writ petition based on a joint compromise memo between Quikr India Private Limited and Sellquikr Private Limited. The core agreement stipulated that Sellquikr acknowledged having no rights over Quikr's registered trademarks and copyrighted material. Furthermore, Sellquikr committed to immediately changing its corporate name by removing 'QUIKR,' taking down all associated websites and applications, transferring the domain name sellquikr.in/ to Quikr, and ceasing any use of Quikr's intellectual property.
World Animal Protection v.The Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Examiner's rejection of World Animal Protection's device mark application. Although the court acknowledged that the individual words are descriptive, it ruled that when considered as a composite device mark, the registration was sufficiently distinctive to warrant protection. The appeal was allowed, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over the constituent words.
Frenway Products Inc. v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned a refusal of trademark registration granted by the Assistant Registrar. Frenway Products Inc., seeking to register a device mark for handtools, challenged the objections raised under Sections 9 (lack of distinctiveness) and 11 (likelihood of confusion). The court found the Section 9 objection untenable, noting the mark was not generic or descriptive. Furthermore, it noted that the cited conflicting mark had lapsed, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
Insta Rooms Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection of Insta Rooms Private Limited's device mark application. The Examiner had objected that the mark was highly descriptive of temporary accommodation services. However, the court ruled that when considered as a whole—including the visual elements (bed and lamp) alongside the words 'Insta Rooms Book Instantly'—the mark possesses sufficient distinctiveness to overcome the Section 9 objections. The registration was allowed, though with a caveat limiting the appellant's exclusive rights over the individual words 'insta' or 'rooms'.
Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Team-Venture; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. seeking to remove or rectify the trade mark 'SHEAR MAGIC UNISEX SALON AND SPA' from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was based solely on the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite multiple notices being served. This ruling highlights the strict procedural requirements in trademark litigation.
CCL Product (India) Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.
Abhishek Jain (Trading As M/S Trip Planners) v.Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited
The dispute between Abhishek Jain (M/S Trip Planners) and Trip Planners Holidays Private Limited was amicably settled through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The settlement mandates that the defendant must cease all use of the trademark 'Trip Planners' and its derivations in perpetuity, including removing it from business names, websites, social media handles, and closing associated domains/email suffixes by December 31, 2023. Furthermore, the defendant agreed to withdraw a pending trademark application for the disputed mark.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-08-28) under reference UPC-001717, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation appeared in dispute with Meril GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
AIM Sport Vision AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki (FI) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-08-28) under reference UPC-001714, AIM Sport Vision AG appeared in dispute with Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the registration of the mark “NANO CUR”. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because the appellant could not be served notice due to having vacated the specified office address.
Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Pawajot Kaur Baweja & Ors.
The plaintiffs, who sell Ayurveda products, sued former employees (Defendants 1 and 2) for using confidential data, customer databases, marketing material, and copyrighted content to run a competing business under the brand 'Adya Ayurveda'. The core legal issue was whether the suit was maintainable given previous judicial precedents. The Court found that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Triology Solutions Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.
British Engines (UK) Limited v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed British Engines (UK) Limited's appeal against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its mark. The court found that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable because it failed to adequately address the appellant's arguments regarding the device nature and international use of the mark. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to advertisement, though with a crucial caveat: the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual words 'British' or 'Engines'.
Nokia Technologies OY v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Technologies OY appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its system and method for listening to audio content. The appellant argued that the refusal order failed to consider their amended claims and responses to objections raised under Section 3(k).
Sintex Industries Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
Sintex Industries Limited appealed against an order revoking Indian Patent No. 197086 on the ground of insufficiency of disclosure. The court noted that the subject patent had already been revoked by the Controller, satisfying the main prayer of the appellant for revocation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Sri.Hitesh Chouhan, Proprietor M/s.Metro Marketing v.Sri.Ganapathlal, Proprietor M/s.Jaya Stationery
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'LEO' registered by Sri.Ganapathlal. The court found that the respondent adopted a near-identical mark for identical goods (rubber bands), and this adoption was deemed dishonest and fraudulent, especially given prior undertakings to change the branding. Consequently, the registration certificate was cancelled, maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
M/s.United Spirits Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. United Spirits Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trade mark registration. The court noted that the petitioner had assigned several marks to Grover Zampa Vineyards Limited, rendering them no longer an aggrieved party regarding the impugned mark. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the door remains open for the assignee to initiate proper rectification proceedings.
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No. 314/CHE/2009, concluding that the claims lacked inventive step. The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions regarding prior art and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of a patent for application No. 421/CHE/2009, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of the appellant's contentions regarding prior art and Section 3(e), and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
Prakash Ferrous Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'TIRUMALA' (Application No. 2080181). The High Court set aside the impugned order primarily because it was cryptic and lacked sufficient reasons for its decision. However, since evidence of use was not placed before the authority, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for a reasoned decision after the appellant provides proof of use.
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of a patent application. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions and remanded the matter for re-evaluation by a different officer.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 646 825 before the Local Division Munich. The Defendants (Meril) filed late applications requesting the Court to approach the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences) and to reopen the written procedure. The Court rejected the requests as untimely, finding they were filed after the closure of the written procedure and the oral hearing, and noted that no formal investigation had been opened by the European Commission.
Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision regarding its patent application. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.4 Square Pharmaceuticals Of ... and The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking the removal of Trademark No. 1803072 (XYDI). The court noted that the last registration for this trademark had expired on April 6, 2019. Since the underlying issue—the status of the mark's validity—had changed, the petition was deemed infructuous. Mankind Pharma was granted leave to re-apply should the trademark be restored.
Perennial Health Care India Private Limited v.Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court case involving Perennial Health Care India Private Limited and Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain was concluded when the petitioner chose to withdraw their original petitions. The petitions, which sought various remedies under the Trademarks Act, 1999, including removal of specific trademark entries in Class 5, were formally dismissed as withdrawn by the court on August 23, 2023.