Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11201–11300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd v.Mukesh Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Fybros Electric Pvt Ltd's petition seeking rectification of the trademark register. The court found that the respondent's registered mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to the petitioner's earlier mark, despite both being registered for identical goods in Class 11. Crucially, the judgment established that a challenge under Section 57 does not require the petitioner to prove actual damage, only that the mark is improperly maintained on the register.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Angle Bio Pharma & Ors.
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug 'Apixaban' (Patent IN 247381). The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement with all defendants. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit subject to the agreed-upon conditions.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Cipla Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Cipla Limited regarding the commercialization of Apixaban was amicably settled. The defendant confirmed that it did not commercialize the drug under the brand name APIGY until after the expiry of the suit patent.
Amit Jain v.Vikas Gupta
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's application seeking dismissal of the trademark infringement suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The court held that since the plaintiff explicitly pleaded in the plaint that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to his own, a clear cause of action existed. The judgment affirmed the principle that an application for rejection must be decided solely on the averments made in the plaint, treating them as correct.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an earlier decision by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks before the Delhi High Court. The appellant raised objections concerning the drafting and procedural lapses in the impugned order, specifically noting abrupt conclusions regarding non-compliance with Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act. The court issued this order to clarify these points, treating it as a corrigendum to the original judgment.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v.Abhinav Mehta And Anr.
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed procedural matters concerning an undertaking filed by the respondent. Since the crucial undertaking was not placed on record and the petitioner had not received a copy, the judge directed the parties to coordinate documentation. Consequently, the hearing was re-notified for June 1, 2023, allowing both sides time to ensure all necessary documents are properly presented.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed the defendant's application to reject the plaintiff's patent infringement suit. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, clarifying that specific allegations of ongoing sales negate the 'mere apprehension' standard used in previous cases. Furthermore, the court dismissed the contention based on the Aloys Wobben controversy, holding that pending post-grant opposition proceedings do not automatically preclude the institution of an infringement suit.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft challenged the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for a network authentication system under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, arguing that the invention provided a genuine technical solution to security problems. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection based on the flawed interpretation of 'computer program per se,' emphasizing that an algorithm should not be automatically excluded if it offers a tangible technical contribution. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for re-examination regarding novelty and inventive step.
Voiceage Evs Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobie Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff, Voiceage Evs Llc, filed a suit alleging that the defendants infringed upon four specific Indian patents related to EVS Standards in their mobile handsets. The court registered the plaint and issued summons, while also addressing several interlocutory applications concerning document filing and seeking temporary injunctions.
Hamdard National Foundation India v.Government Of Nct Delhi
Hamdard National Foundation India challenged the unrestricted use of 'Rogan Badam Shirin' by Ayurvedic manufacturers for almond oil, arguing it was reserved for Unani medicine. The petition sought directions to prevent unauthorized usage of this terminology. The court noted that the Ministry of Ayush had communicated to State licensing authorities that Raughan-E-Badam Shireen requires a Unani Drug License, thereby satisfying the petitioner's primary relief.
Ten Events And Entertainment v.Novex Communications Private Limited & Ors.
Ten Events And Entertainment filed a declaratory suit challenging the requirement to obtain licenses or NOCs from Defendants, who claimed copyright over songs played during wedding events. The plaintiff argued that such usage falls under 'fair dealing' as per Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. However, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts—such as the nature and bona fides of the ceremony—required by law to establish a cause of action for this specific declaration. Consequently, the court dismissed the interim application and directed the plaintiff to show cause why the entire suit should not be dismissed.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Synthes Gmbh challenged an impugned order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, arguing that the rejection lacked due process. The court found that the original order was a 'total mockery' as it merely cut and pasted objections without providing any reasoned analysis or considering the appellant's replies. Recognizing the severe procedural lapses, the Delhi High Court quashed the decision and remanded the application for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the initial proceedings of a suit filed by Bundl Technologies against Pankaj Garg & Ors. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's registered trademark infringes upon and attempts to unfairly capitalize on the goodwill of the 'SWIGGY' mark, which is declared a well-known mark. While procedural steps were taken to register the suit and manage filings, the court specifically queried the counsel regarding the validity of using the 2022 'well-known' status as grounds for challenging the defendant's earlier registered trademark.
Rachna Sagar Pvt Ltd v.Sovereign Mercantile Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction in favor of Rachna Sagar Pvt Ltd against Sovereign Mercantile Pvt Ltd and others. The court found that the Defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark, 'RACHNA SAGAR,' amounted to prima facie passing off. Given the Plaintiff's extensive market presence, prior usage since 1996, and substantial revenue in the publishing sector, the court ruled that allowing the defendants to continue using the mark would inevitably cause consumer confusion and loss to the Plaintiff.
Opentv Inc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Opentv Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which refused grant for its patent application titled 'System and method to provide gift media'. The refusal was based on non-patentability under Section 3(k) (computer program/business method) and issues related to novelty and inventive step. Opentv argued that the invention provided a technical solution for selecting and distributing interactive media content.
Prof Manju Pathak v.M/S Shree Agro Foods
Prof Manju Pathak appealed a previous judgment where she had succeeded in an infringement suit under the Patents Act, 1970. Her grievance was that the original court did not award damages, costs, delivery-up, or rendition of accounts for the infringing products.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed a matter before the Delhi High Court concerning an objection related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court heard arguments and directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to ensure the presence of a Controller for assistance on the next date.
Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the Defendant's fuel tank cap infringes their patent (IN427110) and registered design (275676). The court passed several orders, including allowing an exemption from pre-litigation mediation and granting interim relief regarding the production of impugned products.
Goutam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Goutam Lal Tak filed a writ petition seeking intervention from the High Court regarding the prolonged pendency of his trademark registration application for 'MAHALAXMI OIL'. The court acknowledged the delay and issued a specific direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks. This order mandates that the pending application must be decided within six months, providing a clear timeline for the resolution of the matter.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application for a filtering user interface. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) as being a 'computer program per se'. The High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that software can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical contribution and applying the updated CRI 2017 Guidelines.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors.
In this case concerning online trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court delivered a mixed judgment based on joint compromises and ex-parte proceedings. The court decreed the suit in favor of Sirona Hygiene Private Limited against Defendant No. 1 (Flipkart) based on agreed compromise terms. Furthermore, it mandated specific takedown procedures for Defendant No. 2 (Amazon) to address unauthorized use of Sirona's trademarks. Finally, an injunction was passed against other sellers (Defendants Nos. 3-13) who were found to be passing off counterfeit goods.
Wrangler Apparel Corporation v.H.S. Kishori Lal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a request to stay a trademark infringement suit while separate rectification petitions questioning the validity of the trademarks were pending. Citing recent legal precedents, particularly following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the court ruled that there is no need to stay the civil suit. Instead, it ordered the consolidation of the main suit and all related rectification petitions to be tried together before the High Court.
Datt Mediproducts Pvt Ltd v.Siddharth Mandal And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Datt Mediproducts Pvt Ltd regarding a petition seeking cancellation of a trademark registration. The court observed that the subject mark's registration had expired on March 5, 2022, and the mandatory renewal period, including the grace period, had lapsed without action by the respondent. Consequently, the court directed the concerned party to remove the non-renewed mark from the Register of Trade Marks.
Oneempower Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Oneempower Pte Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Transaction Reward System' (TRS), arguing that it possessed a technical effect and was not merely a business method. The Controller rejected the application, holding that TRS was fundamentally an administrative or organizational business solution implemented using standard technology.
Sony Group Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sony Group Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (4334/DELNP/2013) on the grounds that subsequent amendments were beyond the scope of as filed claims. The Controller rejected the application because the amended claims corresponded to an EP divisional application rather than the main European Patent application. The High Court set aside this rejection, finding that the amendments merely limited the scope and were supported by the specification.
Ajay Panwar v.Kishore Chhabra
The appeal involved a request by Ajay Panwar (appellant/defendant No. 2) to stay the execution of an earlier judgment restraining him from using specific machinery. The respondent claimed patent rights over the machinery and copyright protection for drawings related thereto.
Holyland Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Pal Vineet Kumar And Co. And Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, striking down a competitor's registration. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent's mark and trade dress were deceptively similar to its own, despite minor differences in the names ('Golden Crown' vs 'Golden Queen'). Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent's application was ineligible for registration under Section 11(1)(b) due to the petitioner's prior priority of user and registration. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to established trade dress and marks against confusingly similar imitations.
M/S S. S. Hospitality v.M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd
This revision petition challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Commercial Court regarding a trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd against M/S S. S. Hospitality. The petitioner argued that since the cause of action arose in Chandigarh, and the respondent had subordinate offices there, the suit should have been filed in Chandigarh. However, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent-plaintiff did not possess a subordinate office in Chandigarh, thus validating the original court's decision to allow the suit to proceed in Delhi.
Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv v.Metalex Cryogenics Limited
The dispute between Gea Refrigeration Netherlands Nv and Metalex Cryogenics Limited regarding the GEA Patent was settled. Both parties executed a settlement agreement on April 13, 2023, acknowledging the patent's validity and agreeing to specific undertakings.
Alpa Laboratories Limited v.Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Anr.
The court heard arguments regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition filed by Alpa Laboratories Limited, which was based on the apprehension that Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd would institute an infringement suit. The court directed parties to seek instructions and re-notify the matter.
Fmc Corporation v.Adama India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit alleging that the defendants infringed their process patent (IN'645) related to the manufacture of Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and pleadings.
M/S Thind Motion Films Private Limited v.Ishdeep Randhawa and others
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction passed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, restraining defendants from releasing the film 'Jodi Teri Meri.' The High Court observed that the suit was fundamentally flawed due to jurisdictional error, as claims based on the Copyright Act should have been filed in the District Court. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries seeking permission to cancel the trademarks 'ZEST' and 'FERIZEST' registered by Dwd Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court dismissed the request concerning 'ZEST', citing principles of acquiescence, noting that the plaintiff had previously relied on similar marks containing 'ZEST'. However, the court issued notice for the cancellation petition regarding 'FERIZEST', allowing the litigation to proceed on that mark.
Bennett Coleman And Companylimited v.E Entertainment Television Llc And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing rejoinders in trademark cancellation proceedings. The court allowed the delays, allowing the petitioner to file their responses. Furthermore, the court framed specific issues regarding the potential cancellation of two distinct trademarks (No. 2340887 and No. 1252812) and set a clear schedule for the parties to proceed with evidence and trial.
M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Arvind Medicare Pvt. Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of their word mark 'MIRACLES' for medical services (Class 44). The court recognized that due to continuous use since 2012, the mark had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the market. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to the advertisement stage, allowing further scrutiny against existing marks.
Knitpro International v.Examiner Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Knitpro International against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of a trademark application for a pattern on a knitting needle. The court found that the subject mark was inherently distinctive, capable of distinguishing goods, and that the objections raised under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act were untenable. Consequently, the court set aside the previous refusal and directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration process.
Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Arvind Medicare Pvt Ltd. against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its device mark registration for medical services (Class 44). The court found that despite objections based on similarity to an earlier mark, the appellant had established significant goodwill and continuous use since 2012. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement, allowing the matter to be decided on its merits against any potential opposition.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Amul Electromech Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued interim orders in favor of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) against several defendants regarding trademark infringement. The court directed specific defendants to immediately suspend access to infringing domain names (like www.amulfans.com), block social media accounts, and remove product listings on e-commerce platforms like Amazon. For other intermediaries, the court mandated a 'notice and takedown' mechanism, requiring them to promptly remove any content bearing Amul's trademarks upon receiving notification from the plaintiff.
Rspl Limited v.Agarwal Home Products & Anr.
Rspl Limited challenged the registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' by Agarwal Home Products, arguing it was deceptively similar to their well-known brand 'GHADI'. The Delhi High Court examined the phonetic and visual similarities between the two marks. Ultimately, the court found that despite both words being related to time/clocks in Hindi, there was no sufficient similarity or likelihood of confusion for cancellation under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the petition seeking revocation was dismissed.
Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pankaj Kumar Patel
The plaintiff, Rc Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, Pankaj Kumar Patel, who used the similar label 'Shri Plosto' on allied goods like water tanks and pipes. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages due to lack of evidence regarding the quantum of loss, while granting an injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.
Titan Umreifungstechnik Gmbh And Co. Kg v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of their patent application for a plastic strapping band. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step and vagueness in claims (Section 10(4)). The High Court found the rejection unreasoned, particularly regarding Section 10(4), and allowed the appeal.
Dr.Reddy S Laboratories Ltd v.Ancalima Lifesciences Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to frame additional issues and consolidate a related trademark rectification petition into the ongoing passing off suit. The court noted that since the challenge to the defendant's trademark validity was already pending in a separate rectification case, there was no need to frame new issues in the current suit. Consequently, the court ordered the consolidation of the rectification petition with the present suit to ensure unified trial proceedings before the Joint Registrar.
R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd v.Sweety Jain, Proprietor Of Mahajan Foods & Ors
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by R.H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd against Sweety Jain and others regarding alleged breach of an earlier court undertaking. The respondent parties provided a fresh, binding undertaking to the court, promising not to misuse the petitioner's registered trademark 'NAFIS' or its associated copyright in any manner. With both parties agreeing to this resolution, the court formally disposed of the pending litigation.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.J.B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs filed suits seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the drug FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE. The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions launched by the defendants under names 'JBCARB' and 'CipFCM'.
Adama Makhteshim Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Adama Makhteshim Ltd appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 201617025525) by the Controller of Patents, which was based on lack of inventive step and clarity/sufficiency of disclosure. The Court found that procedural irregularities vitiated the impugned order because it failed to address all grounds of objection raised in the Hearing Notice.
Vifor (International) Ltd & Anr. v.Cipla Limited
Vifor filed suits seeking permanent injunction against Cipla and J.B. Chemicals for allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers the water-soluble iron carbohydrate complex (FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE). The dispute arose after plaintiffs discovered marketing material for generic versions of their patented drug. The court considered arguments regarding the patent's nature and previous injunction orders before deciding on the continuation of status quo.
3M Deutschland Gmbh v.The Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed 3M Deutschland Gmbh's appeal against the Senior Examiner's refusal to register its mark 'PENTA'. Although the court noted that several cited marks were phonetically similar, it ultimately favored the appellant due to evidence of the mark's long-standing use and established reputation in India since 2004. The registration application was directed to be processed, though any subsequent opposition would be decided on its own merits.
Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Mahendra Singh And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of J. B. Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd against Mahendra Singh and Anr regarding trademark infringement. The Plaintiff, owner of the 'BIZFER' marks for pharmaceutical products, successfully argued that the Defendants' use of the similar mark 'VIZFER' constituted deceptive similarity. Given the potential negative ramifications for public health and safety due to the alleged unauthorized use in the pharma sector, the court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing or marketing the impugned mark until further hearing.
Under Armour Inc. v.Ashwani & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders to advance the case. The court directed that notice be served on all parties and set a returnable date for July 2023. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking access to the official records of Trademark Registration No. 5372621 in Class 25, ensuring these documents would be placed before the court for consideration.
Pepsico Inc. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc., granting an absolute ad interim injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited. The court found that the unauthorized use of 'MIRINDA' and its Hindi transliteration by the defendant, particularly in connection with country-made liquor, constituted trademark infringement and dilution. This decision underscores the strong protection afforded to well-known marks under Indian IP law, even when goods or trade channels differ.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Mohd Rafique Alam
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mohd Rafique Alam and others for illegal use, passing off, and infringement of its trademarks (LEVI'S) and associated designs. The plaintiff asserted that LEVI'S is a globally recognized and well-known trademark in the apparel industry. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The dispute was settled with the acknowledgment of the plaintiff's rights to use the patent related to Sitagliptin. The defendant confirmed they did not engage in any activities constituting infringement during the patent's validity.
Rosemount Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Rosemount Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement.' The Controller had rejected the patent citing lack of inventive steps based on prior art. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Controller's impugned order was cryptic and failed to provide adequate reasoning or analyze the three essential elements required to determine inventive step. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration with a mandate for a reasoned decision.
Vexim v.The Controller Of Patents
Vexim appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent application, 'Methods and Apparatuses for Bone Restoration,' which was initially denied due to lack of inventive step. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Patent Office had provided adequate reasoning for this refusal. The court found that the impugned order was cryptic, failing to analyze existing knowledge against the subject invention as required by law. Consequently, the rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
Grupo Petrotemex S.A. De C.V. v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 965/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step, even though the initial objection raised by the Patent Office related only to novelty. The High Court found that the impugned order went beyond the scope of the original objection and allowed the appeal.
Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'KHANSI NIVAARAN' (Registration No. 1740206). The court found that the cancellation was mandated by a prior compromise order reached between the parties in C.S.No.644/2011. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to take all necessary steps to expunge the mark from the register.
A.D.Padmasingh Issac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.Hariharan (Trading as Sruthi's Masala) & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by A.D. Padmasingh Issac seeking the removal or rectification of Trademark No. 1759431 from the Register of Trademarks. The court noted that, subsequent to filing the suit, the trademark in question had already been removed from the register. Since the relief sought was no longer necessary due to this prior action, the petition was declared infructuous.
M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. v.Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. challenging the rejection of its trademark renewal applications (No. 1502218 and 1502220). Instead of ruling on the merits of the initial rejection, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for renewal. The respondent authority agreed that if the petitioner submits a new request with all prescribed fees, it will be considered within four weeks.
Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited v.Dr.Isaac Mathai; Soukya Indian Holistic Centre Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trademarks
In a matter concerning the removal and rectification of trademarks, Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited filed two petitions against Dr. Isaac Mathai and others. However, citing a prior memorandum of compromise between the parties, the petitioner subsequently withdrew both petitions. The Madras High Court accepted the withdrawal, dismissing the cases without making any ruling on the merits or costs.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 9677/DELNP/2011), which had been rejected under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to reconsider only the objection raised under Section 3(e).
Rallifan Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
Rallifan Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 1213190) from the register. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Rajesh Kumar Naredi Trading as Visesh Appliances v.Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Naredi against Rallifan Limited concerning the rectification of Trademark No. 306508 in Class 11. The dismissal occurred because both parties had reached a settlement agreement, which was formally recorded by the court. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex intellectual property disputes efficiently.
Russell E. Freebury v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Russell E. Freebury against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of their trademark 'ZINKA'. The court noted that the goods covered by the appellant were distinct from those cited in opposition, and considering the long-standing use of the mark, it set aside the refusal order. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed with a modified device mark, directing the Registry to process its registration.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Aurobindo Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 216665 against Aurobindo Pharma Limited and the Controller of Patents. The court noted that the patent's term had expired on June 24, 2014, rendering the matter infructuous.
Google Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for capturing panoramic images. The core contention was that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims under Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, leading to an unsustainable rejection order.
Mrs X v.Union Of India And Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a writ petition filed by 'Mrs. X' seeking the removal of her non-consensual intimate images (NCII) from various online platforms. The case details how Mrs. X was victimized after being coerced into paying money, leading to the leakage of explicit photos and videos on pornographic websites. Despite complaints to social media giants like Google and Microsoft, the content remained online. The Court emphasized the need for robust mechanisms to protect victims' privacy and dignity in a patriarchal society. While acknowledging existing legal frameworks under the IT Act, the judgment highlighted the reluctance of intermediaries in implementing these laws effectively. The court issued directions urging all concerned entities to comply with the stipulated provisions.
M/s Vets Farma Ltd. v.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the review application filed by M/s Vets Farma Ltd. The court clarified that while statutory provisions may restrict registration until a competent court determines rights, this does not bar the Civil Court from admitting assignment deeds into evidence to examine their validity and enforceability during litigation. The judgment underscores the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts in resolving complex trademark disputes involving assignments.
Agensys Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Asnd Designs
Agensys Inc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its application under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that their monoclonal antibody invention demonstrated a technical effect (improved affinity/cross-reactivity) not considered by the Controller, thus warranting the setting aside of the impugned order.
Sugen, Inc. v.Mr. K Vijaya Prakash
Sugen, Inc. filed applications alleging that Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and associated defendants willfully violated an injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2016. The original suit concerned the infringement of three patents covering the drug Crizotinib (marketed as Xalkori®). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including photographs and investigator reports, suggesting the manufacturing and sale of the generic product 'CRIZO SPL™' after the injunction was issued. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had control over the infringing entities, leading to a finding of wilful contempt against him.
Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited
This commercial appeal challenged an interim order that restrained Tri-Parulex (appellant) from infringing the Plaintiff's Patent No. 202302, which relates to a fire protection system for electrical transformers. The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, finding no prima facie case of infringement and noting that the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the appellant.
Sunshine Velvet Private Limited v.Ramesh Kumar Jeevraj Luniya & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders while addressing an interim application. The court noted that Defendant No. 3 was yet to be served and directed fresh service. Crucially, regarding the core dispute, the court confirmed the existing interim order concerning Defendants 1 and 2, despite their claim of changing the firm's name from 'SAANCHI VELVET FABRICS' to 'SAMIKSHA VELVET FABRICS'. The matter is set for further pleading completion.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged the position taken by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court found the affidavit filed by the Respondent to be inadequate in reasoning regarding Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the court directed the Controller General to ensure specialized Controllers assist the court on the next hearing date.
Ankit Aggarwal Proprietor Of M/S Vepson Engineers v.Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed petitions filed by Ankit Aggarwal to cancel two trademark registrations held by Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the respondent's marks were confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'JAI KISAN,' used since 1985 in agricultural implements. Furthermore, the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of their registered marks for a continuous period of five years, leading the court to remove them from the Register under Section 47 of the Trade Mark Act.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the term of the patent had already expired on June 4, 2021.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706 held by Mylan Laboratories Limited and the Controller of Patents. However, the court noted that the term of Patent No. 205706 had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Novartis AG
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212815 titled “N-substituted 2-cyanopyrrolidines” under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after noting that the patent term had already expired and the petitioner had previously requested withdrawal.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 252762. The court noted that the term of this patent had already expired on February 3, 2014.
Abs Global, Inc. v.Cytonome/ST, LLC
Abs Global, Inc. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 240790 granted to Cytonome/ST, LLC. However, the court noted that leave had been granted in another proceeding for the petitioner (and defendants) to withdraw the revocation proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the current petition as withdrawn.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 224634, which was granted to Matrix Laboratories Limited. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 224634 had expired on the date of the judgment.
Lupin Limited v.Dong-A ST Co., Ltd.
Lupin Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236862 granted to Dong-A ST Co., Ltd. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they would not prosecute the matter further due to the patent's term expiring shortly.
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v.Union Of India
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited challenged the constitutional validity of Section 37A of FEMA, arguing it violated fundamental rights. The dispute centered on royalty payments made by Xiaomi to foreign entities like Qualcomm for Standard Essential Patents used in its mobile phones.
M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius (substituted by MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius, seeking substitution of its name with MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd. The change was necessitated by a Deed of Assignment executed for certain trademarks, including 'TIVOLI HOTELS & RESORTS'. The court permitted the substituted appellant to carry out proposed amendments in the appeal memo and set a deadline for filing the revised appeal.
RSPL LIMITED v.AGARWAL HOME PRODUCTS & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute where RSPL LIMITED alleges that Respondent No. 1's registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' is deceptively similar to its well-known trademarks, 'GHARI' and 'GHADI'. The petitioner has filed an opposition against related marks and sought injunctive relief. The court acknowledged the core issue—the similarity between the marks—and granted the petitioner time to present relevant case law before scheduling a re-notification.
Virendra Kumar Gupta v.Burger King Corporation
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Virendra Kumar Gupta against Burger King Corporation. The petitioner sought to cancel or impose a disclaimer on the 'Burger' and 'King' marks registered under No. 927122. The court relied on prior judgments, including one from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court ruling in Patel Field Marshal Agencies vs P.M. Diesels Ltd., concluding that the petition was not maintainable.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr. v.Bollywood Time & Ors.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan filed a civil suit alleging that various parties were circulating misleading videos on YouTube claiming she was critically ill or deceased, often using morphed pictures. The plaintiffs argued this violated her right to privacy and infringed upon the family's intellectual property rights, specifically copyright in their images. The court examined the role of social media intermediaries like Google LLC (YouTube) under the IT Rules, 2021, while setting procedural timelines for the parties to proceed with the infringement claim.
Delight Chemicals Private Limited v.Ganga Yallappa trading as Sarpa Paint
The Madras High Court dismissed several petitions filed by Delight Chemicals Private Limited seeking the removal or rectification of trademarks registered under Ganga Yallappa. The court noted that the petitioner had previously won a suit for infringement and passing off against the respondent in 2019. Crucially, the respondents submitted that the subject trademark had not been renewed since 2017. Based on this development, the High Court found that there was nothing left to adjudicate in the pending petitions, leading to their dismissal as infructuous.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Devashish Rattan And Ors
Inter Ikea Systems Bv successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Devashish Rattan and others in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were slavishly copying over 2300 product listings, including proprietary names, images, and descriptions from the IKEA website, falsely claiming association with the brand. The court found a prima facie case was made out, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm to the internationally renowned 'IKEA' trademark and trade dress.
Joseph Vogele AG v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Joseph Vogele AG's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal of their 'AutoSet Plus' trademark. The court recognized the mark's international presence, including EU CTM registrations, and noted that the appellant had obtained no objection letters from relevant foreign proprietors. Consequently, the impugned refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for registration, provided specific disclaimers were included regarding the word 'Plus'.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs Patent Office
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that its method claims were not patentable because they consisted of executable software instructions. The High Court set aside this refusal, citing judicial precedents, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Honeywell International Inc. appealed a rejection of its patent application for a low-cost programmable HVAC controller, which was denied under Section 3(k) (computer implementational invention exclusion). The Delhi High Court found that the original order lacked adequate reasoning and deliberation from the Joint Controller, merely concurring with the Examiner's finding without providing sufficient justification. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Respondent to take into account relevant judicial precedents.
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Schering Corporation
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207233 held by Schering Corporation. The court noted that the term of the patent had already expired on March 24, 2019.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. v.Anand Aggarwal And Ors.
In a significant step toward addressing alleged infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., to appoint local commissioners against the defendants. The court directed two advocates to visit the defendant's premises in Delhi and Siliguri to conduct an inventory of goods bearing the trademark 'HUALI' or possessing a similar trade dress. This order provides the plaintiff with crucial evidence gathering power, allowing them to proceed with their claim regarding trademark and trade dress infringement.
Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited / Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. v.Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. / Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited
The Delhi High Court framed a comprehensive set of issues in the ongoing commercial suits between Westcourt Real Estate Private Limited and Shri Man Mohan Singh & Anr. The disputes cover various aspects including rent suspension during lockdown, claims for equipment costs, return of property, trademark infringement (specifically regarding 'Noci-In-Q' and 'Asaya'), and validity of lease termination. By framing these issues, the court set the stage for detailed evidence recording on July 21, 2023.
Mr.K.Mangudithangaraj (Trading as Poonam Enterprises) v.Mrs. Thirumalsamy Shanthi & Mr. Karnan
This civil suit was filed by Mr. K. Mangudithangaraj, trading as Poonam Enterprises, against Mrs. Thirumalsamy Shanthi and Mr. Karnan for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the registered mark 'POONAM'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendants' use of the similar mark 'PUNITHAM'. However, despite multiple opportunities, the plaintiff failed to appear before the court on the date of judgment.
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its patent application (No. 6168/DELNP/2013) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Controller for fresh consideration.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appeal concerns the patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). The court heard arguments regarding the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit on whether the subject patent makes a technical contribution or effect.
Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd v.Shree Ram Plastic Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application filed by Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd and Respondent No. 1, leading to the cancellation of the impugned trademark registration (No. 2262092) in Class 17. This decision was reached following a compromise between the parties involved in the dispute. The court disposed of the appeal based on these mutual settlement terms.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Pradeep Kumar Singh and Others
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Pradeep Kumar Singh and others. The Plaintiff, proprietor of the well-known 'KHADI' trademark, successfully argued that the Defendants were deceptively using the mark 'ISOBEL KHADI GLOBAL' to ride on its goodwill. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, restraining the Defendants from using the impugned mark and maintaining the status quo on their website until further hearing.