Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10901–11000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Ramada International, Inc v.La-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court reinforced the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc against La-Ramada World Private Limited. Finding that the defendants continued unauthorized use of the 'RAMADA' mark across various digital platforms and domains despite prior court orders, the court made the injunction absolute during the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner with extensive powers to seize evidence, including pamphlets and server data, and mandate the shutdown of infringing social media accounts.
Phonepe Private Limited v.Digipe Fintech Private Limited
Phonepe Private Limited challenged Digipe Fintech Private Limited in the Madras High Court, seeking an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'DigiPe', alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Phonepe argued that its distinctive 'PhonePe' brand had immense goodwill and reputation in the digital payment sector. However, the court dismissed Phonepe's appeals, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's arguments across various legal proceedings, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Mritunjay Kumar
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Mritunjay Kumar was settled between the parties. The Court accepted the Consent Terms, which were signed by both sides, and consequently disposed of and decreed the suit.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an information alleging that Boehringer Ingelheim (OP-1 and OP-2) was abusing its patent rights, specifically using the Second Patent to prohibit competitors from using 'Linagliptin' after the First Patent expired. The Commission found no prima facie case warranting an investigation into the matter.
M/s.VP Enterprises v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed M/s.VP Enterprises' appeal, overturning the Senior Examiner's rejection of their trade mark registration application (3894824). The court found that despite objections citing conflicting marks under Section 11(1), the appellant's composite mark was distinctive and distinguishable from the cited marks. Furthermore, evidence of prior use and an existing registration for an identical device in relation to the same services supported the appeal. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement.
United Biotech Private Limited v.Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court allowed United Biotech Private Limited's petition seeking the removal of the trade mark 'ONCONASE' (No. 447044) registered in favour of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited. The court found that the mark had not been used since its registration, thereby satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
Dxn Holdings Bhd v.Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by Dxn Holdings Bhd seeking the removal of specific trademarks from the register. The court noted that the last registration date of the marks was in 2021, and crucially, the first respondent (Daehsan Trading) was found to be under liquidation. Given these developments, the petitions were deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps for mark removal.
M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd v.Sh. Gopal Shinghal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd's petition seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'GMT' held by Sh. Gopal Shinghal. The court found that 'GMT' is deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'GM', which has been in continuous use since 1999 for electrical goods. Given the prior adoption and substantial goodwill of 'GM', the registration of 'GMT' was deemed contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Sun Pictures A Division Of Sun Tv Network Ltd.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark infringement suit filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Sun Pictures. The dispute centered on the use of the RCB team jersey in a derogatory manner within the film 'Jailer.' Through mutual agreement, the court decreed that the defendants must digitally alter all depictions of the RCB jersey and sponsor branding to ensure it is not identifiable before further release, effectively resolving the brand dilution concerns.
M/s.Navketan Enterprises v.Sandeep A. Jain and The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Navketan Enterprises seeking the removal of an impugned trade mark from the register. The court noted that the petitioner had been instructed to withdraw the petition, citing a deed of assignment dated July 3, 2019, which transferred ownership of the mark to them. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed as withdrawn.
Sprng Marketing Consulting Llp v.Union Of India
The Karnataka High Court allowed Sprng Marketing Consulting Llp's petition, setting aside an earlier rejection of its trademark application 'Spring.' The court found that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to present further arguments after a technical glitch during a virtual hearing. Consequently, the matter has been remitted back to the Trademark Registry for fresh disposal, with a specific date set for the petitioner's appearance.
M/S.Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions filed by M/S.Rspl Health Private Limited, which sought to have the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT' removed from the register. The court found that despite the petitioner's earlier marks, there was no likelihood of confusion among the average consumer when comparing 'XPERT' and 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's plea regarding bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii), stating that such a claim requires cogent evidence beyond mere similarity.
Dolphin Mart Private Limited v.Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr.
In this trademark infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed two key applications. First, it permitted the defendants (Avenue Supermarts) to introduce crucial trademark registration certificates into evidence, noting that since these were issued post-filing of the written statement and are in the public domain, they should be admissible. Second, regarding the plaintiff's request for an interim injunction against infringement, the Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored them.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Pradeep Dhidaria
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an Interim Application against Pradeep Dhidaria alleging that the latter had slavishly copied the original artistic work featured on the Plaintiff's product packaging. The court examined the resemblance, noting similarities in elements like the starburst and globe depiction used on the rival product's trademark 'MASTER'. Based on this prima facie finding of copying and subsisting copyright, the court continued the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier.
Saint Gobain Construction Products Uk Limited v.Cyp Rock Industries
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK challenged the registration of 'GYP-ROCK INDUSTRIES' by Cyp Rock Industries, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their established trademark 'GYPROC'. The dispute centered on potential consumer confusion in the market. However, the court accepted the respondent's affidavit, wherein they voluntarily agreed to seek cancellation and cease using the mark. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed with the voluntary cancellation process before the Trademark Registry.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The suit between Unilever Global Ip Limited and Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after the parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in a decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons was settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which included a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and mutual undertakings regarding the destruction of seized goods.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex
The Commercial Suit filed by Unilever Global Ip Limited against Mukesh Kumar Trading As A H Impex was disposed of after both parties reached a settlement. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, which resulted in the decree being passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Marico Limited against MW & Sons regarding alleged trademark infringement was settled between both parties. The Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Novozymes A/S v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Novozymes A/S filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No.1691/CHENP/2010. However, the learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed the court to withdraw the appeal.
Adhya Kumar v.Mulligan Concept Teachers Association
The petitioner, Adhya Kumar, filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and restore opposition proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3010257 in Classes 16 and 41. The appeal was ultimately closed after the court noted the prior decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Marico Limited v.MW & Sons And Anr.
The dispute between Marico Limited (Plaintiff) and MW & Sons And Anr. (Defendants) concerning alleged infringement was settled on August 18, 2023. The parties entered into a Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Feroke Boards Limited v.Universal Hardware
The Madras High Court allowed rectification petitions filed by Feroke Boards Limited against Universal Hardware and the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that the petitioner had prior use rights for marks like 'FERO' and 'FEROPLY' since 1990, in a near-identical business sector (boards and construction materials). Despite the respondent's attempt to distinguish their composite marks by adding initials ('MK'), the court ruled that this adoption was not honest and was likely to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the infringing trademark entries were removed from the register.
Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. v.Narendra Kumar Gupta
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'KENNOL.' The court noted that the mark had been deemed abandoned because the first respondent failed to file a counter statement in response to the petitioner's opposition notice. Consequently, the original legal challenge became moot.
M/s.Sree Krishna Pipes v.M/s.Premier PVC Industry
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Sree Krishna Pipes' petition, directing the removal of a conflicting trademark registration (No. 1120546) held by M/s. Premier PVC Industry. The court found that despite minor spelling differences ('PREMIER' vs 'Preemier'), both marks were used for identical goods—PVC pipes—and their near-identical nature was highly likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers. This ruling reinforces the principle of preventing consumer confusion in trademark law, even when slight variations exist.
Venus Worldwide Entertainment Private Limited v.Popular Entertainment Network (Pen) Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, which sought to prevent Defendants from releasing a film titled 'Khiladi'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and determined that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants. Despite the Plaintiff claiming extensive goodwill and secondary meaning for its trademark 'KHILADI', the Court held that movie titles alone do not warrant an injunction without content similarity, ultimately allowing the disputed film's release.
V.Periasamy, Finetech Pipe Products v.V.Shanmugham, S.Sudha; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by V.Periasamy against V.Shanmugham and the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought to cancel a registered trademark (No. 1005460) in Class 17, alleging it was obtained unlawfully. However, due to repeated failure to appear before the court despite proper notice, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Shree Amba Industries
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shree Amba Industries, alleging that the latter was infringing Hero's registered design (No. 271199) of a motorcycle front fender used on the HERO HF DELUXE model. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's product was a copy and constituted piracy. However, while examining the prima facie case for an interim injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, noting that consumers could make informed choices between OEM and third-party parts. Consequently, the application for interim injunction was dismissed.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Syedmohideen v.Ms.B.SulochanaBai
The Madras High Court addressed the petition filed by Mr. Syedmohideen seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, IRUTTUKADAI. The petitioner had sought to challenge the registration of this mark held by Ms. B. Sulochana Bai. However, before any substantive hearing took place, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he intended to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed (T)OP(TM).No.118 of 2023 as withdrawn.
Abdulla A Olia (Director of M/s Imex Industries (I) Pvt.Ltd.) v.M/s. Shri Ashapura Hardware & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Abdulla A Olia seeking rectification or removal of the registered trademark 'STAR IMEX DEVICE' (No. 1625661). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear at multiple scheduled hearings despite receiving proper notice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888 before the Madras High Court. The petition was filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888, which claimed a priority date of January 31, 2003. The petitioner sought this action before the Madras High Court. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This case concerns a procedural dispute in damages proceedings before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Following a final 2025 decision finding that the Meril entities infringed Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 669 828, Edwards sought a deadline extension for filing its reply to Meril's defence because its UPC representative was not notified when the sub-registry changed the confidentiality status of documents. The court granted a limited two-day extension, finding Edwards' representative should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026, but acknowledged that the CMS's lack of automatic notifications needed to be addressed.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888. The petition, which sought to challenge the patent's validity, was contingent on its active status. However, upon submission of a document from the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, it was revealed that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. v.Guala Closures Patents B.V.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207928 against Guala Closures Patents B.V. The petition, which was filed under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, aimed to challenge the validity of the patent. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the term of Patent No. 207928 had already expired on June 2, 2018.
Brundaban Sahu v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Suneel Mahanty
The Madras High Court addressed the petition filed by Brundaban Sahu against The Registrar of Trademarks concerning trademark registration no. 1550492. Although the petitioner sought rectification and removal of the entry, counsel informed the court that a settlement had been reached between all parties involved. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
M/s.Aquasub Engineering v.M.Mandal Trading as Aqua Tech Enterprises
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by M/s.Aquasub Engineering seeking to rectify or cancel the registration of the trademark AQUATECH (No. 1925332). The court found that the trade mark had lapsed because its last valid registration expired on February 22, 2020, and was not renewed within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation and removal from the register of various Indian Patents held by Aloys Wobben. The court observed that the term of all the patents in question had expired.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions (TOPs) before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of various Indian Patents granted by the Controller of Patent Chennai. The petitions were filed under Sections 64 and 117D of the Patents Act.
Agfa Nv v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, The Patent Office, Delhi, India
Agfa Nv filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing the withdrawal of the appeal.
Enercon (India) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking to revoke several Indian Patents granted to Aloys Wobben. The court noted that the patents had expired but a counter claim was lodged by the petitioner in proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the refusal of its divisional patent application, which was rejected on grounds including lack of distinct invention (Section 16) and non-patentability as a computer program per se (Section 3(k)). The court set aside the impugned order regarding Section 16 but remanded the matter to the Respondent for fresh examination specifically concerning the objections under Section 3(k).
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (patents) challenging an earlier order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the advertisement of 'KENT' as a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The core dispute centered on jurisdictional issues, with the Respondent arguing that such challenges must be filed in the Bombay High Court. However, the Court also clarified procedural requirements for the Registrar, emphasizing that when an applicant relies on court orders to establish well-known status, the Registrar must scrutinize whether those orders constitute a specific declaration or merely preliminary observations.
Paymate (India) Private Limited v.Paymate Pty Limited; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, The Trade Marks Registry, Chennai
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by Paymate (India) Private Limited seeking to strike off a specific trademark registration. The court found that Trademark No. 1960699 was no longer in force because its last renewal date had expired on May 5, 2020, and the long stop period for restoration had passed. Consequently, the Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd., setting aside an order that had deemed its opposition to a trademark application abandoned. The core issue revolved around whether a communication sent to the Mumbai office, despite being addressed to the Chennai Registry, constituted substantial compliance with the Trade Marks Rules. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was sufficient compliance and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
M/s.Jaya Balaji Tex v.Senniappan Kuppusamy; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitions sought the removal of specific registered trademarks (No. 1607835 and No. 1464323) from the Register of Trademarks in Class 25. However, both parties reached an amicable resolution regarding the disputes, leading the petitioner to withdraw the cases before the court.
Lotte India Corporation Ltd. v.Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation; Ajanthaa K.T.K Products
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Lotte India Corporation against Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation and Ajanthaa K.T.K Products regarding the 'CHOCO PIE' mark. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical use of the mark, the court found that the plaintiff failed to adequately prove the infringement by the defendants. Consequently, the suit was largely dismissed on the core claims of trademark violation and damages.
Home Box Office, Inc. v.Danish Salim; The Registrar of Trademarks
In this matter concerning trademark cancellation, Home Box Office challenged an entry in the Register of Trademarks. However, the court noted that the registered proprietor of the impugned mark had subsequently agreed to cancel the registration. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to complete the necessary steps for cancellation and removal of the entry within a specified timeframe.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.R. Hanumantha Rao
Pfizer Products Inc. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to expunge the registration of the trademark VECOREX (No. 980006) from the register. The court noted that the mark had not been renewed since December 29, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the entry within four weeks, effectively clearing the mark for potential use by the petitioner.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased) & others v.1/183 & others
This case involved complex disputes among the partners and legal heirs of a newspaper publishing firm, Dinamalar. The core issue revolved around the status and ownership of the firm's trademark following its dissolution. The Madras High Court addressed several related civil suits and original applications concerning partnership rights and intellectual property.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Trivigya Bioscience
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'KIND' family of marks, Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an undertaking from Trivigya Bioscience. The respondent acknowledged the propriety of Mankind's marks and voluntarily agreed to cease using the contested mark CDKIND in relation to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of as not pressed, resolving the conflict amicably.
B.M.Dhananjaya.S v.M/s.Billionsmiles Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petition (Trademarks) No. 26 of 2023 after the petitioner, B.M.Dhananjaya.S, filed a request to withdraw the case. The original petition sought the expungement and removal of an entry related to the registered trademark 1485593 from the Trademark Registry. The withdrawal was based on a settlement reached between the contesting parties, concluding the dispute without a formal judicial ruling on the merits.
Foodvista India Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in trademark applications filed by Foodvista India Pvt. Ltd., which were previously refused by the Trademark Registry on grounds of descriptiveness. The court found that the refusal orders were unreasoned and failed to consider the appellant's evidence of use and acquired distinctiveness, particularly under the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, mandating a reasoned decision based on all submitted evidence.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Genova Biotechniques Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a specific trademark, 'PSO KIND,' from the register. The court observed that while the mark was initially registered, its renewal had lapsed after November 8, 2020. Consequently, the time limit for both renewal and restoration had expired. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration certificate and remove the entry within four weeks.
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. challenged the procedures followed by the Controller General regarding a post-grant opposition filed against its granted patent (IN 287720) for HIF-1α prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the Opposition Board's recommendations were unsustainable due to procedural irregularities in how evidence was presented and processed. Consequently, the court quashed the previous findings, allowed Akebia to lead additional evidence, and remanded the matter back to the Opposition Board for a fresh decision de novo.
Histogen Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and designs
Histogen Inc filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an order passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents and designs regarding Indian Patent Application No. 5341/CHENP/2010. However, the appellant instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt.Ltd. v.Sanku Soap Works
Bharathi Consumer Care Products filed a suit against Sanku Soap Works alleging multiple infringements. The plaintiff claimed violations related to the deceptively similar use of their registered trademark 'SILVER FOAM XXX' and copyright in its artistic label/trade dress, as well as passing off. The initial prayers sought permanent injunctions and damages.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application, 'Stabilized Agricultural Oil Dispersions,' citing errors and inaccuracies in the Controller's objections. The appellant argued that key prior art documents were wrongly cited or misinterpreted, particularly regarding thermal stability claims. Recognizing significant procedural flaws and incorrect references in the impugned order, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh examination.
Iftikhar Alam v.M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal filed by Iftikhar Alam, setting aside a prior temporary injunction granted against him by the District Judge. The court found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider crucial evidence, including documents suggesting the plaintiff's rights might have been abandoned or that the defendant was a prior user of the product. Consequently, the case has been remanded back to the trial court for a fresh and detailed hearing on the injunction application.
Roxtec Ab & Anr v.Sukant Chakravarty & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Roxtec Ab & Anr seeking permission to file rectification petitions against registered trademarks, which the defendants argued were monopolizing common industry terms. The court examined the claims related to a 'Bulls Eye' device mark and the slogan 'We Seal Your World'. While addressing the scope of trademark rights, the Court ultimately disposed of the application but framed an issue regarding whether Roxtec India Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) was a necessary party in the ongoing suit.
Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.New Hope Food Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of multiple Original Petitions filed by Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd seeking cancellation of several trademarks. The court noted that both parties had reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2018. This agreement defined specific usage rights for the 'MILKA' mark in Class 30, ensuring mutual non-infringement across various product categories. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of based on this existing compromise, avoiding a full judicial hearing.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patent Act, 1970, challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 12, 2023, which rejected its application for patent registration.
V. R. Holdings v.Hero Investocorp Limited & Anr.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court questioned the correctness of a single judge's decision that dismissed an appellant's petition for rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The core legal debate centered on whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable, particularly in light of restrictions imposed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Given the serious dispute and potential impact on pending cancellation proceedings, the Court granted an interim stay on the impugned judgment to balance the interests of both parties.
Upl Limited v.Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association and Anr.
Upl Limited filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenging an earlier order issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademark. The court admitted the appeal, noting that no interim relief was warranted at this stage. The judgment sets out a clear procedural roadmap, directing the appellants to prepare and file comprehensive informal paper books within specified timelines for the matter to be heard on its merits.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
M/S. Tradall S.A. v.The Learned Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by M/S. Tradall S.A. against the Learned Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant had sought to revoke a previous refusal order and allow the registration of the mark 'HALLMARK' in Class 33. However, due to repeated non-appearance of the appellant's counsel during scheduled hearings, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.M.Safiullah, Trading as M.N.A.Mohammad Sulthan & Sons, and also as Tajmahal Tobacco Co., Partnership Firms; Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a rectification proceeding initiated by Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. against the trademark 'HANS CHAAP SCENTED KHANI, TAJMAHAL.' The court noted that the first respondent (M.Safiullah) had categorically stated their willingness to surrender the trademark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the entry relating to Trademark No. 865412 from the register within four weeks.
M/s.Amit Agarwal Trading as M/s.Seetu Electicals v.M/s.Hitesh Kumar Rastogi (Trading as M/s.Avon Electrical Industries)
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/s. Hitesh Kumar Rastogi against M/s. Amit Agarwal, which sought to remove the 'ORBIT THE CABLE PEOPLE' trademark registration. The court held that since the pending civil suits between the parties have not yet framed an issue concerning the invalidity of the registered mark, the rectification petition was not maintainable. This ruling underscores the strict procedural requirement under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, mandating that validity issues must be addressed in the rectification proceeding before infringement actions can proceed.
Venator Materials Uk Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Venator Materials UK Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
Venator Materials Uk Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Venator Materials Uk Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order dated 14 December 2020 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appeal sought to set aside that order and allow the patent application No.7188/CHENP/2012 to proceed to grant.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in the patent revocation petition (CO (Comm. IPD-PAT) 3/2021) under Section 10 of the CPC, citing a previously instituted suit filed by Respondent 2 (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The court analyzed whether a revocation petition and an infringement suit have identical issues and causes of action.
M/S. Malar Publications Ltd. v.M/s.Malar Network Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal concerning Trademark No. 1066201. The court noted that the registration for this trademark had lapsed and was only renewed up to December 11, 2011. Furthermore, it was established that M/s. Malar Network Private Limited, one of the parties involved, had been struck off and dissolved from the corporate register. Consequently, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the lapsed trademark entry from the register.
Marico Limited v.Mathewsons Exports And Imports Pvt.Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Marico Limited, directing the removal of the trademark 'KASTHOORI MANJAL' (Registration No. 1451234) from the register. The core issue was that the mark had not been renewed since April 26, 2016, and the statutory long stop date for renewal or restoration had expired. This decision underscores the critical importance of maintaining trademark registrations through timely renewals.
Allegro Pharmaceuticals Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Allegro Pharmaceuticals LLC filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to set aside an earlier order and amend its claims to secure a patent. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Astellas Deutschland GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Desingns
Astellas Deutschland GmbH filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by The Controller of Patents and Desingns. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Lakha Ram Sharma (Kundan Cable India) v.Balar Marketing (P) Limited and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KUNDAN CAB' trademark (No. 389177) due to pending opposition proceedings. Given that the petitioner had successfully appealed an earlier dismissal and the matter was remanded for re-consideration by the Registrar, the court ruled that the registration certificate was liable to be cancelled. The High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the entry within four weeks, while also setting a six-month deadline for the Registrar to pronounce the final decision.
Wellpet LLC v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Wellpet LLC filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'WELLNESS' in Class 31. The appeal sought to set aside the initial refusal order from August 2018 and allow the trademark application to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits, Wellpet LLC filed a memo instructing its counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
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.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Huawei Technologies Co. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier order passed by Respondent No. 3. The Madras High Court noted that the matter had already been remanded for reconsideration by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in a previous order and closed the appeal without further adjudication.
M/s. Wockhardt Limited v.Apex Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging a trademark registration refusal. The appellant argued that the lower court's review was improperly exercised as an appeal, citing strict limitations on review jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the original decision failed to address key submissions made by the respondent regarding prior use and lack of evidence from the appellant. Consequently, the Court held that these omissions constituted 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' allowing the review order to stand.
Suresh Steel Tubes Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Suresh Steel Tubes Pvt Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of Trademark Registration No. 1973721, arguing that its validity had lapsed. The Madras High Court reviewed the status provided by the Trademarks Registry and found that the long stop date for renewal and restoration had expired. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous, effectively upholding the existing registration.
Wynk Limited v.Ec Media (International) Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by Wynk Limited seeking the cancellation of an infringing mark registered under No.2020253. The court noted that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed after September 8, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the defunct trademark from the register within two weeks, effectively resolving the dispute in favor of Wynk Limited.
Kishorkumar Gokaldas v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed three Transfer Original Petitions filed by Kishorkumar Gokaldas against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitions sought to remove or rectify specific trademark registrations (Nos. 2224503, 2224504, and 2224505). However, both parties agreed that these trademarks had not been renewed and were therefore no longer in force, rendering the legal challenges moot and infructuous.
Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd v.Bal Kishan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark (No. 5320418) registered by Bal Kishan. The petitioner argued that its established mark 'ACKO' for insurance services was being infringed upon by the respondent's mark 'ACKOLITE' in Class 11 (household appliances). Given the likelihood of confusion and Acko's strong prior rights, the Court cancelled the impugned registration, reinforcing the principle against conflicting marks.
Ceat Limited v.Amjad Khan Trading As Bharat Traders
In a matter concerning the cancellation of the trademark 'CEART', the Madras High Court disposed of the petition based on a settlement reached in a connected civil suit. The court noted that the first respondent had agreed to take steps for the mark's removal. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to expunge Trademark No. 3871567 from the register within four weeks.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Neospark Drugs And Chemicals Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited, directing the removal of the trademark MAXCAL GEL (No. 2102511) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed within the statutory time limits. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark rights through timely renewal procedures.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.B.B. Mohan Kumar Trading As East West Pharma & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Trademark No. 1764708. The court noted that the trademark in question had expired on December 17, 2018, and was not subsequently renewed. Consequently, the petitioner's request to remove the entry from the register became infructuous.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Ennar Enterprises
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against M/s.Ennar Enterprises alleging multiple infringements, including the unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark ('GOLD PRIME') and passing off their edible oil product. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions protecting their registered trade mark 'Gold Winner' and associated copyright in packaging design. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution and settled the dispute.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.M. Senthilkumar
The applicant/plaintiff sought continuation of previously granted exparte ad-interim orders related to a passing off claim. Despite serving notice, the defendants remained absent. The court decided to continue the existing interim orders until further orders.
Oyster Point Pharma Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs Anr.
Oyster Point Pharma Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller, which cited prior art under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the mono-citrate salt demonstrated enhanced efficacy and stability, supported by experimental data filed during prosecution. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider this crucial evidence regarding efficacy and stability.
Syngenta Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta Limited appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application (No. 7059/DELNP/2011). The dispute centered on whether the parent application (No. 6114/DELNP/2005) truly disclosed multiple inventive concepts, which is a prerequisite for filing a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Sushil Prajapati
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Sushil Prajapati regarding the use of impugned marks SUPER SURF and Splat device. The parties subsequently settled their disputes, leading to the court decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Neptune Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and distributing generic versions of Sitagliptin under the trade name 'HAPPY JAAN M', infringing Indian Patent No. 209816. Although the suit patent had expired, the court decreed the suit against Defendant 2 based on its failure to file a response, directing it to pay damages.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff based on the terms of the Consent Minutes of Order.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties in the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement. The suit was subsequently disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, Unilever Global Ip Limited, based on the terms agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
Sml Limited v.Mohan & Company & Another
Sml Limited filed a suit alleging that defendants are manufacturing and selling a fertilizer product named Zeeka Sulf, which infringes upon its Indian Patent No. IN 282092. The plaintiff provided chemical analysis reports and expert opinions confirming that the composition of Zeeka Sulf falls within the scope of the patented claims.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Others
Qualcomm appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected their patent application (No. 5159/DELNP/2007) primarily citing Section 3(k) and lack of definitiveness. The High Court found that the rejection order suffered from manifest non-application of mind as it failed to address the appellant's submissions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.