Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11001–11100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Bharatiya Janata Party Kisan Morcha, Andhra Pradesh Unit v.Monsanto Technology, LLC
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology. The first respondent submitted that the term of this patent had already expired on June 5, 2022.
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 agreed upon in the Consent Minutes of Order.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Gupta Light House
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Gupta Light House infringed its registered cooker design (Registration No. 197906). The court found the plaintiff's design valid and maintainable, rejecting the defendant's claims regarding lack of novelty or prior publication. However, the court ruled against granting permanent injunction or delivery up of goods because the design had expired on September 13, 2019. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in favor of Ttk Prestige Ltd., directing the defendant to render accounts of earnings and awarding costs.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.Vikas Cosmetics
The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The Defendant agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards costs and full and final settlement, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
Sml Limited v.Mohan & Company & Another
Sml Limited filed a suit alleging that defendants are manufacturing and selling a fertilizer composition named 'Aladdin' which infringes upon its granted Indian Patent No. IN 282092. Chemical analysis confirmed the defendant's product contained sulphur (67.8%) and zinc oxide (22.7%), falling within the patented range. The court found a prima facie case of infringement.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a patentee, filed suit against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited regarding the alleged infringement of its patent (IN'536) covering the manufacturing process of Ferric Carboxylmaltose (FCM). The court examined whether the defendants' processes infringed upon Vifor's patented method for producing this intravenous iron complex. The judgment ultimately found that the impugned processes used by the defendants were non-infringing, allowing them to proceed with launching their product.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by Bluechip Amusements against Crazy Concepts and Mazes. The dismissal was due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner informed the court that they no longer operated their outlet under the name 'HORROR HOUSE.' This outcome highlights the importance of active litigation management in trademark disputes.
M.Sarojini v.M/s. Ce Biotech (P) Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by M.Sarojini seeking the expungement of the trademark ZIPROVIT (No. 1631278) from the register, which was held in the name of M/s. CE Biotech (P) Limited. The petitioner subsequently informed the court that they were withdrawing the petition due to the non-renewal of the relevant trademark registration. This outcome highlights the procedural necessity of maintaining active IP rights.
M/S.Verizon Trademarks Services Llc v.M/s. Verinon Technology Solutions Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking rectification and cancellation of Trademark No. 2110042 due to non-renewal. The court noted that since the trademark registration had lapsed (last renewed up to March 4, 2021), no further adjudication was required on the merits of the dispute. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take necessary steps within four weeks to rectify the register and cancel the mark.
Ramesh Gupta And Rajan Gupta Partners Of M/s Ganga Containers v.M.A.Hameed Proprietor, AH Food products
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark petition filed by Ramesh Gupta and Rajan Gupta Partners against M.A. Hameed Proprietor. The court noted that the core subject matter, Trademark Registration No. 1879905, had been cancelled. Since the underlying right was no longer valid, the entire petition became infructuous, leading to its dismissal without any order regarding costs.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Respondent
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 27/11/2024 Order no. ORD_63173/2024 APPLICANT (defendant in the main proceeding) Himson Engineering Private Limited Represented by Fabrizio Jacobacci
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Group
In this legal proceeding before Milan (IT) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-07-21) under reference UPC-001730, Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG appeared in dispute with Bhagat Group concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/s. Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Limited v.Mylsamy Ranga Ramanujam
M/s. Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the rectification or revocation of Patent No. 262529, alleging it was invalid and obtained by misrepresentation. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition.
M/S. Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.H.Omar Farook and The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/S. Hatsun Agro Product Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 2555577 in Class 25, arguing its invalidity or non-use. However, upon receiving an affidavit from the first respondent, H.Omar Farook, which confirmed that the trademark had expired on June 27, 2023, and that he would not renew it, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. This outcome highlights how a simple change in registration status can immediately resolve complex IP disputes.
M.Y. Mumtaj Begum & M. Badrudeen v.K.R. Iqbal Ahmmed & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed an Original Petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1509172, which was granted to K.R. Iqbal Ahmmed for beedies and tobacco products. However, before any substantive hearing could take place, the petitioners communicated their decision to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Novartis AG v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Novartis AG appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding an opposition filed under Section 25(2) concerning Patent No. 223313. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 223313 had expired on May 16, 2023.
Humanity Life Extension Llc v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner, a US-based medical device manufacturer, challenged the amendment to Rule No. 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003, arguing that it removed the provision allowing extension of time for international patent applications and conflicted with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The petitioner sought directions to entertain its National Phase Application despite missing the deadline.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioners filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondents sought to transfer these petitions to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to consolidate them with ongoing infringement suits related to Patent IN243301 covering Linagliptin. The court dismissed the applications for transfer/consolidation.
Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. v.Mohammad Akil And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement case following a comprehensive settlement between Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. and Mohammad Akil And Anr. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner's exclusive rights in LIVFAST/ and agreed to cease using confusingly similar marks like LEFAST/. Crucially, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to forthwith cancel two specific registrations (4059607 and 4380874) in favor of the respondent, finalizing the dispute while allowing a grace period for existing stock exhaustion.
Body Cupid Private Limited v.Mr Gaurav Bhadani
Body Cupid Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the lower court's refusal to grant an ex-parte temporary injunction against Mr. Gaurav Bhadani. The core dispute revolved around alleged infringement of Body Cupid's 'WOW SKIN SCIENCE' trademark, trade dress, and registered design by the respondent using similar marks like 'WAW SKIN COSMO'. The Karnataka High Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition but extended the interim restraining order until the Trial Court could dispose of the underlying injunction application.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
M/S Sharad Enterprises v.M/S Saboo Emery Stone Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/S Sharad Enterprises, which sought to overturn a lower court's rejection of its plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent's trademark infringement suit was subject to mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court found that since the respondent had filed an application for temporary injunction and pleaded recurring business loss, the matter clearly contemplated urgency, thus exempting it from the strictures of Section 12-A.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
Kurian John Melamparambil v.Sulbha G. Shenoi; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Kurian John Melamparambil seeking rectification of Trademark No. 1301085. The dismissal was based on a submission from the first respondent, stating that the trademark had not been renewed since August 6, 2014. Consequently, the petition to remove or rectify the entry became infructuous.
AIM Sport Vision AG v.Supponor Oy
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki (FI) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-07-17) under reference UPC-001732, AIM Sport Vision AG appeared in dispute with Supponor Oy concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd v.M/S Gokuldas Intimatewear Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an Original Suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their granted patent (IN 306901) related to 'Fab-Shield Period Panty'. The dispute, which also involved challenges to the patent's validity, was subsequently settled by both parties. A Patent License Agreement was entered into on January 01, 2023, and the suit was disposed of accordingly.
M/S.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food v.M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by M/S.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 1408388, which was registered in favor of another party. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, the petitioner voluntarily chose to withdraw the Original Petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa (Trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store) and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited v.G.Kannan (Trading as D.S.K.Garments)
This case involved a suit filed by Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited against G.Kannan and Hitlar Fashions for alleged infringement of their trademark 'TECHNO' and copyright in artistic works used on garments. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa Trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited v.G.Kannan Trading as D.S.K.Garments
This case involved a suit filed by Mr. Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa (trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store) and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited against G.Kannan (D.S.K.Garments) and Hitlar Fashions. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the 'TECHNO' brand used on garments. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Novartis AG v.Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. IN/PCT/2001/00016/CHE) to proceed to grant. However, the appellant failed to note that Patent No. 223313 had already expired on May 16, 2023. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
Upl Limited v.Basf Se
UPL Limited filed an Original Petition (Patent) seeking the revocation of Patent No. 262428 against Basf Se and The Controller of Patents. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the petition.
Novartis AG v.Asst.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Novartis AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding a Post Grant Opposition to Patent No. 237273. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant.
India Nippon Electricals Limited v.M/s. Denso Corporation
India Nippon Electricals Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent 240996 granted by the Controller of Patents. However, the petitioner's counsel subsequently instructed to withdraw the petition.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Britannia Industries Ltd. alleging imitation of its trade dress for biscuits. The defendant sought to reject the plaint on grounds including lack of urgency, failure to comply with pre-mediation requirements, and jurisdictional challenges. The Madras High Court dismissed the application to reject the plaint, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction and that the case warranted consideration despite procedural objections.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs concerning Patent No. 224855. However, both parties submitted that the term of Patent No. 224855 had already ceased on October 14, 2019.
Fisher And Paykel Healthcare Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Fisher And Paykel Healthcare Limited challenged a First Examination Report that deemed its Divisional Application No. 202118034146 defective. The Controller of Patents had issued an order based on Section 59 of the Patents Act, 2000. During the hearing, the respondent acknowledged the error and agreed to set aside the impugned order.
Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co Kg v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co Kg filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appeal sought to allow Application No. 2420/CHENP/2009 for patent grant. However, the appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has the authority to investigate a patent holder's conduct under the Competition Act, 2002. The court held that while both statutes deal with anti-competitive behavior, the specific legislative intent and subject matter dictate that the Patents Act, particularly Chapter XVI, governs patent rights, limiting CCI's power.
Indian Institute of Technology Madras v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The Indian Institute of Technology Madras filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs regarding the renewal application for its Patent No. 2007637. However, the appellant subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Oracle International Corporation v.Controller Of Patents
Oracle International Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order regarding the patentability of its application (3566/CHENP/2006). The appeal argued that the subject matter was eligible for patent protection and not excluded as a business method or computer program per se. However, the appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.
Sucampo AG v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sucampo AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the revocation of Patent No. 223147 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently submitted a memo requesting the withdrawal of the appeal.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to set aside an impugned order and grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 5162/CHENP/2010. The appellant subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Universidad De Nvarra v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universidad De Nvarra filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to overturn previous orders and allow its patent application No.4387/CHENP/2006 to proceed to grant. However, the appellant subsequently submitted a memo requesting the withdrawal of the appeal.
Oracle International Corporation v.The Controller of Patents
Oracle International Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the refusal of its patent application (No. 3740/CHENP/2006) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant.
Novartis AG v.Cipla Limited
Novartis AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent Application No. 593/CHE/2005. The appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Terms on the date of judgment, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jeetu Shivlani
The Commercial IPR Suit between Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Jeetu Shivlani was settled on July 12, 2023. The parties executed Consent Terms, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
United Foods Public Company Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'YOYO' in Class 30. The appeal sought to set aside the refusal and allow the trademark application to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the appellant voluntarily moved for withdrawal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Amgen Inc v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Amgen Inc filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'SILIQ' in Class 5. The appeal sought to set aside the previous order and allow the trademark registration to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, Amgen Inc submitted a memo requesting the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Walgreen Co. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Walgreen Co. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'Finest Nutrition' in Class 5. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant voluntarily submitted a memo requesting its withdrawal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
M/s.United Spirits Limited v.Wipro Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s.United Spirits Limited against Wipro Limited. The petition sought to rectify the trademark register by cancelling the registration of 'ARAMUSK-BOLD' held by Wipro. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the case following a compromise reached in a connected suit, leading to the dismissal of this rectification petition without any order as to costs.
Multiplex Farming Rep By Mr. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by Multiplex Farming challenging an earlier rejection order regarding its trademark application for 'MULTIPLEX FARMING' in Class 44. However, the appellant chose to withdraw the appeal before the court could rule on the merits of the case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn without making any substantive orders.
Japan Tobacco Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
Japan Tobacco Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. 6844/CHENP/2010) to proceed for grant. The appellant subsequently moved for withdrawal of the appeal.
Aasife Biriyani Pvt Ltd v.Greens Lands Restaurant
Aasife Biriyani Pvt Ltd filed a lawsuit against Greens Lands Restaurant, alleging infringement of its registered trademark (No. 3768877) and associated copyrights in relation to providing food services. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off and unauthorized use of the brand. However, during the proceedings, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement.
Japan Tobacco Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
Japan Tobacco Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision made by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application. The appellant subsequently submitted a memo requesting the withdrawal of the appeal.
M/s.Kpr Fertilizers Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
M/s.Kpr Fertilizers Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN 202028, which covered a process for manufacturing Food Grade Dicalcium Phosphate. The court dismissed the petition after noting that the patent's term had expired in February 2023.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The Chinese University of Hong Kong filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently moved for withdrawal of the appeal.
Opibra - Operacoes Internacionais Do Brasil LTDA v.Rp Telebuy Skyshop Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Opibra seeking the removal of Trademark No. 2231835 from the Register. The court noted that the relevant registration had already expired on November 11, 2021. Since the trademark was no longer valid, the legal action became infructuous.
new era cap co inc v.ms galaxy caps
New Era Cap Co. Inc. sued M/S Galaxy Caps for trademark infringement, alleging that Galaxy Caps manufactured and sold counterfeit caps bearing New Era's 'NEW ERA' mark and associated logos without authorization. The Plaintiff claimed significant global sales and brand recognition, including endorsements from Virat Kohli. Local Commissioners seized over 200 infringing products from Galaxy Cap’s premises.
Rajam Industries Private Limited v.Lakshmi Industries
In this trademark rectification case, Rajam Industries sought the Madras High Court to cancel a registration held by Lakshmi Industries. The petitioner argued that the request for cancellation should follow prescribed legal procedures rather than informal communication with the Trademark Registry. After noting that the respondent had initiated steps toward cancellation and agreed to undertake the necessary formal actions, the court closed the original petition.
M/s.S.Ponnusamy Gounder & Co. v.Sri Balaji and Co., Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s.S.Ponnusamy Gounder & Co. against Sri Balaji and Co. and the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petition, which sought to cancel a registered trademark (No. 1232741 in Class 30), was withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel due to a compromise reached in an earlier case (C.S.No.797 of 2009). This outcome highlights how pre-existing settlements can impact ongoing IP litigation.
Nurnbergmesse Gmbh v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Nurnbergmesse Gmbh filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'India wooed' in Class 35. The appeal sought to set aside the impugned order and allow the trademark application to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. v.Svn Prestige Garden
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd. against a lower court's decision to return its trademark infringement suit. The appellant argued that the requirement for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply because they had simultaneously sought urgent ad-interim injunction relief. The High Court agreed, holding that suits seeking urgent interim relief are exempt from this mandate, thereby setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the main suit to proceed.
Rajah Company v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Rajah Company filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks regarding the registration of the mark RAJAH MALGO. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant chose to withdraw the case. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn without making any substantive order.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-07-10) under reference UPC-001734, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care India Private Limited v.M/S Excel Tech A Partnership Firm
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care filed a Writ Petition to challenge an ex parte temporary injunction order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The trial court had restrained the petitioners from manufacturing/marketing products using the respondents' intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trademarks). The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications expeditiously while allowing the interim order to continue until disposal.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union Of India
Umaid Mohonot appealed against an order dismissing their writ petitions, which challenged a show cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellants argued that the notice was invalid because related disputes concerning the 'Arrow' trademark were pending before the Delhi High Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The court ultimately held that the administrative action taken by the Registrar was distinct from the private inter se dispute, thus upholding the validity of the show cause notice.
Pfizer Inc v.West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against West-Coast Pharmaceutical Works Limited for infringing four patents covering Palbociclib and Crizotinib. The dispute centered on the Defendant's listing of these products for manufacture and sale, despite the existence of valid patents held by the Plaintiffs.
M/s. Medopharm / Medopharm Private Limited v.Leeford Healthcare Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Medopharm against Leeford Healthcare Limited regarding the use of 'EMICOF' versus the registered mark 'EMCOF'. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for alleged passing off and dilution. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable resolution, which was formalized in a Memorandum of Compromise dated June 21, 2023. The court subsequently decreed the civil suit based on the terms of this compromise.
K.P.D.Rajendran v.Mr.G.Sundarapandian
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by K.P.D.Rajendran seeking the removal of trademarks 'SOLO' and 'BOVONTO.' The court noted that the impugned trademark registrations (Nos. 929435, 929437, and 929438) had not been renewed by the mark owner. Consequently, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
M/s Lacoste S.A. v.Rakesh Goyal
M/s Lacoste S.A. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks (LACOSTE and CROCODILE), leading to counterfeiting, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found the plaintiff's trademark well-known and decreed the suit for permanent injunction and awarded damages.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s. Indianpasand Inc., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (SANGU) and copyright in its artistic label design. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and surrender of infringing goods. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit based on a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd. v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/S.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Ltd filed a civil suit against several defendants, including M/s.Indianpasand Inc., alleging trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off concerning its 'SANGU' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SHIPPY.' Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in terms of a Memorandum of Settlement reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application for 'Non-Oriented Electrical Steel Excellent in Magnetic Properties'. The Appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adequately discuss the novelty and inventive step objections. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order summarily rejected the application without due consideration of prior art, leading to its remand.
ITC Limited v.VST Industries Limited
The Madras High Court allowed ITC Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court directed the removal of Trademark No. 509304 from Class 34 on the Register of Trademarks. This decision was made after VST Industries Limited filed a memo indicating no objection to the petitioner's request, effectively clearing the path for the cancellation.
Gautam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gautam Lal Tak filed a writ petition against The Registrar of Trade Marks, seeking expediting of his long-pending trademark registration for 'MAHALAXMI BRAND' in Class 29. After seven years of delay, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition by issuing a directive to the Respondent. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the pending application within six months from receiving the certified copy of the order.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited) v.Linkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-07-06) under reference UPC-001735, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with NanoString Technologies Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Jb Enterprises
Pradeep Stainless Indian Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Jb Enterprises alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'PRADEEP' and copyright violation concerning its packaging logo. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, damages, and mandatory disclosure. However, the court noted that both parties had submitted a Deed of Settlement dated 31.01.2023, under which the suit was withdrawn. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the case.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.S.G.E.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-07-05) under reference UPC-001738, Koninklijke Philips N.V. appeared in dispute with S.G.E. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patent) challenging an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs concerning its patent application No. 3330/CHE/2011. The appellant subsequently informed the court that it intended to withdraw the appeal.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against the defendants regarding patent IN240893, which relates to asymmetrical beams for spectrum efficiency. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the remaining term of the patent was less than five years, the court directed summary adjudication.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Natco Pharma Limited
Bayer Healthcare LLC sought an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited regarding the patented anti-cancer drug, REGORAFENIB. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting that while the patent was validly granted, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. Crucially, the court considered the public interest, highlighting the significant price disparity between Bayer's imported product and Natco's domestically manufactured, affordable version.
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. v.Kavitha Kuruganti
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ld. appealed a decision by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority (Authority) that revoked its registration for the potato variety FL 2027. The appellant challenged the revocation order, arguing it was based on incorrect information regarding the variety's category and assignment chain, and that the Authority exceeded its jurisdiction. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the respondent's locus standi or the Authority's decision.
Tyron International Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Tyron International Limited appealed an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant later submitted a memo stating its intention to withdraw the appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.R.Neelakanteswara Rao
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought the rectification of registered trademark No. 943699 in Class 1. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the case on instructions from their counsel, leading to the dismissal of the petition without any order as to costs.
Merck KGa-A v.Tablets (India) Limited
Merck KGa-A filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the registration of a trademark application by Tablets (India) Limited. The appeal sought to set aside an earlier order and prevent the issuance of a Registration Certificate for Application No.887909 in Class 5. However, before any substantive arguments were heard, Merck KGa-A chose to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
Trademark Address v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging procedural delays in a trademark opposition case. While the petitioner initially sought to overturn an order rejecting an extension for evidence, the court noted that subsequent events had rendered the original petitions infructuous. Since the petitioner subsequently filed a rectification petition against the registered mark, the court disposed of the initial writs but directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and decide the pending rectification application.
Pfizer Health AB v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
Pfizer Health AB filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the relevant Patent No. 229260 had expired in November 2019, rendering the matter infructuous.
Bayer Schering Pharma AG v.M/s.Cipla Ltd.
Bayer Schering Pharma AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier patent office order. The appellant argued that the relevant patent term had expired in August 2020, rendering the matter infructuous.
Tv 18 Broadcast Limited v.Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction concerning trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the similarity between the marks "Bhaiyaji Kahin" and "Bhaiya Ji Superhit," used by two major media houses. The court found that, prima facie, there was no likelihood of confusion due to differences in show format (news debate vs. scripted infotainment) and the distinct channels on which they aired. Furthermore, the court held that the acquired distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark could not be determined at this interlocutory stage.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit related to Nokia's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Nokia argued that infringement was prima facie established, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd v.Symed Labs Limited
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN213062 held by Symed Labs Limited before the Madras High Court. However, the petitioner subsequently moved a memo to withdraw the petition.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2023-07-03) under reference UPC-001739, myStromer AG appeared in dispute with Revolt Zycling AG concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit. Nokia claimed infringement based on its extensive portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used by Oppo in smartphones. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, finding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and directing Oppo to deposit the last paid amount attributable to India.
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd v.Symed Labs Limited
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd filed an Original Petition seeking the records and proceedings related to Patent No. IN213063 held by Symed Labs Limited, with the intent to revoke and set aside the patent. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo requesting permission to withdraw the petition.
M/S Crest Educations (P) Ltd v.M/S Career Launcher (I) Ltd
This case involves a dispute arising from a licensing contract between M/S Crest Educations (P) Ltd and M/S Career Launcher (I) Ltd. The respondent alleged that the petitioner violated the non-compete clause by operating a competing business under the brand name 'Team Satyam' at the licensed premises. The matter was adjudicated through arbitration, leading to an award of damages in favor of the respondent. The Delhi High Court upheld this arbitral award, finding no ground to interfere with the arbitrator's findings regarding the breach and the calculation of loss.
Jayson Industries And Anr. v.Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Jayson Industries filed a suit alleging that Crown Craft was pirating their registered designs for household items like buckets, mugs, and tubs. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's products were fraudulent imitations of the plaintiffs' unique shapes and surface patterns. However, the court found credible prior art, including various published designs from 2019, which challenged the novelty and originality of the suit designs. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an interlocutory injunction, vacating the earlier restraining order.
Microsoft Corporation v.Zoai Founder
Microsoft Corporation challenged an arbitral award rendered under the INDRP concerning the domain name zoai.in, which had denied Microsoft's claim for transfer. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator was biased and that the decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness due to independent research conducted without providing materials to Microsoft. The Delhi High Court agreed with the petitioner on both grounds of bias and natural justice violation.