Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11301–11400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a contempt case involving M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. against the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning two specific trademark registrations. The court noted that one mark (No. 1800087) had been removed by the registry, while another (No. 1800086) was stated to have been abandoned. The court granted time for the respondents to file their replies and rejoinders, setting a future date for consideration.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Arvind Kumar Trading And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Limited's petition seeking the removal of the trademark 'NIKIND'. The court found that 'NIKIND' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established family of marks, including 'NIMEKIND', and that its registration should be cancelled under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. Furthermore, the judgment noted a lack of bonafide use and continuous non-use of the impugned mark for five years, leading to its removal under Section 47.
Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag Enterprises v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag Enterprises, which sought to restore a lapsed trademark registration. The petitioner had failed to renew their 'TIGER' mark after 2006 and only attempted renewal in 2022, sixteen years later. The court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of such undue delay, especially since the RTI response confirmed an O3 notice was generated in 2006 but remained untraceable.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted by the Controller of Patents to S.A.Safiullah. The first respondent submitted that the term of the patent had expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
Matrix Labs. Limited v.Astellas Pharma Europe Bv
Matrix Labs. Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 234753. However, the court noted that the term of the subject patent had already expired on June 25, 2017.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah by The Controller of Patents. However, the respondent submitted that the term of the patent had already expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
N.Solomon v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents Patent Office
N.Solomon filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
M/S Map Systems v.M/S Informatic Publishing Limited
M/S Map Systems appealed against an interim order passed by the Commercial Court that confirmed an ex-parte temporary injunction against them. The plaintiff, M/S Informatic Publishing Limited, claimed that the defendants had misappropriated its proprietary remote access solution, 'RemotLog,' to create a competing product called 'MapMyAccess.' The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court's order was vague and lacked proper reasoning regarding the grant of injunction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the temporary injunction and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
G.Daniel v.S.A.Safiullah and Company
G.Daniel filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079 under Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970, alleging it lacked novelty and/or inventive subject. The respondent submitted that the term of the said patent had already expired.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application. The appellant argued that certain grounds for rejection were not addressed during the hearing notice and pointed out inconsistencies within the rejection order.
B.Kailasam Sole Proprietor of M/s.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts v.S.A.Safiullah an Indian National, trading as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of S.A.SAFIULLAH & CO
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to the first respondent. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. v.Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to a trademark dispute involving the 'SONA' mark. While one application seeking to introduce public record documents was allowed, another crucial application filed by Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. (the appellants) was dismissed. The court found no merit in the appeal against the interim injunction granted to the respondents, citing factors such as the non-perishability of goods and potential grave prejudice to the successful respondent if the injunction were lifted.
M/S Sureka International v.Government E Marketplace & Anr.
M/S Sureka International challenged the lack of verification mechanisms on the Government E Marketplace (GeM) portal, arguing that false complaints regarding its trademark usage were damaging its reputation. The court acknowledged the reputational harm but noted that the dispute was fundamentally about trademark registration scope (Class 35 vs goods). Instead of mandating a specific mechanism, the Delhi High Court directed GeM to consider and respond to the petitioner's representation within two weeks.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several counter claims filed by counterclaimants seeking the revocation of four specific Indian patents (IN 259932, IN 269929, IN 321300, and IN 300066). The order directed that the counter claims be numbered, notice issued, and written statements filed.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.Kcm Appliances Private Limited
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design for a pressure cooker. The core dispute centered on whether the unique, anti-spillage lid design was protectable and if Kcm Appliances Private Limited had copied this feature. The court found that the challenge to the registration's validity lacked substance and concluded that the defendant's product prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered design.
M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Amrit Lal Jain & Ors.
The plaintiff, M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and infringing its registered trademark 'Goldmedal' and associated copyright. The court found that the defendants were dishonestly using the deceptively similar mark 'Gokul Medal' in respect of allied goods.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Verizon Trade Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order on April 12, 2023, in the matter of Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. versus Verizon Trade Services & Ors. The court directed that the case be re-notified for a hearing on April 13, 2023. This procedural step indicates ongoing litigation concerning trademark matters between the two related entities.
Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Production Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple connected suits involving Jagran Prakashan Ltd against various related entities concerning the use of the 'JAGRAN' trademark. The court noted significant changes, including a company name change and another entity being under liquidation. Given the lack of compliance with previous orders regarding business operations, the court granted an extended deadline for defendants to file affidavits detailing their current business activities. Furthermore, the parties were directed to explore mediation as a potential resolution pathway.
Zydus Healthcare Ltd v.Shahid Ahmad Mir
In a significant resolution for the pharmaceutical sector, Zydus Healthcare Ltd successfully concluded its dispute with Shahid Ahmad Mir through a comprehensive settlement decree. The parties agreed that Defendant would cease all use of marks or packaging deceptively similar to 'PROTIMED.' Crucially, the defendant formally transferred all rights and goodwill associated with the registered trademark 'PROTIMED' (No. 2159273) to Zydus for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000, effectively resolving the infringement claim.
M/s Izuk Impex v.Kidar Kutubuddin Momin & Anr.
M/s Izuk Impex filed a suit for passing off and trademark infringement against Kidar Kutubuddin Momin and M/s Star Mehandi Cone regarding the use of similar trademarks. The plaintiff, owner of 'MOON & STAR' and related copyrights, successfully argued that the defendants were gaining unfair advantage by using deceptively similar marks in the mehandi business.
Vaibhav Chaurasia v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Vaibhav Chaurasia seeking directions against the Union of India regarding the status of Trade Mark No. 2650542. The petitioner had applied for the substitution of his name as the proprietor following an assignment from M/s Delicious Food Products Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the limited nature of the grievance, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process and decide the application within a period of six weeks.
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies Ltd. appealed a rejection order dated December 4, 2018, concerning its patent application for 'TH1 VACCINATION PRIMING FOR ACTIVE IMMUNOTHERAPY'. The appellant argued that the rejection based on Section 3(d) and (i) was incorrect, as the invention relates to therapeutic vaccine methods using allogeneic CD3/CD28 cross-linked Thl memory cells.
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Esteve Pharmaceuticals S.A. appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its Indian Patent Application No. 1435/DELNP/2012. The application, which relates to a co-crystal formulation of Tramadol and Celecoxib, was rejected for lacking novelty and inventive step under Section 3(d) and (e).
A Dot Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by A Dot Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'WHAT DO YOU SEE?'. The court held that a combination of dictionary words forming a tagline can function as a source identifier, provided it does not describe the features or quality of the goods/services. Recognizing the mark's use as an expressive prompt rather than a descriptive feature, the High Court set aside the refusal and directed the Registry to process the application, while ensuring the rights are limited strictly to the phrase 'WHAT DO YOU SEE?'
Beiersdorf Ag v.Rsh Global Private Limited & Anr.
This order addressed an application by Beiersdorf Ag alleging that Rsh Global Private Limited was disobeying previous court injunctions regarding the use of deceptively similar cosmetic packaging. The plaintiff pointed out that the defendant's product remained available on various e-commerce websites despite the existing restraint orders. The defendants countered, stating they were actively contacting these third-party sites to have the products removed. Given the complexity of enforcement across multiple online platforms, the court granted a short adjournment to allow further submissions on this critical issue.
Red Bull Ag v.Vandana Chetankumar Maraviya Trading As Vandana Beverages & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Red Bull Ag sought an interim injunction against Vandana Beverages for allegedly using similar marks and trade dresses. The Delhi High Court granted a temporary restraint order, compelling Defendants No. 1 and 3 to immediately cease the use of the disputed marks and remove online advertisements. Crucially, the court allowed them to continue selling existing stock already manufactured and distributed, balancing protection of IP rights with commercial realities.
Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V. v.Ambience Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark dispute concerning the identical mark 'AMBIANCE'. After considering arguments regarding co-existence under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court ruled in favor of Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V. The judgment directs the Registry not to consider Ambience Limited's existing application for 'AMBIANCE' in Class 02 when evaluating the petitioner's applications, thereby allowing both parties to use the mark concurrently on the register.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Indoco Remedies Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Indoco Remedies Limited regarding the validity and infringement of patent IN 247381 for Apixaban was amicably resolved through mediation. The defendant acknowledged the patent's validity until its expiry date (September 17, 2022) and confirmed discontinuing all related activities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The dispute between Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and Metrochem Api Private Limited regarding patent infringement of Apixaban was amicably resolved through court-mediated conciliation. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that agreement.
Sanjay Mehra v.Sharad Mehra & Ors.
This suit was filed by Sanjay Mehra seeking permanent injunction against Sharad Mehra & Ors. for alleged infringement and passing off related to the 'SUPERON' trademark and associated intellectual property rights. The core dispute revolved around the division of business assets, including IP, between two groups (SM Group and SDM Group) as per a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS). Although the Plaintiff argued jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ultimately found that arbitration was the intended forum for resolving disputes arising from the MOFS and Sale Deed.
Ace Technologies Corp & Ors. v.Communication Components Antenna Inc.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Ace Technologies Corp from manufacturing and selling antennae due to alleged infringement of Patent IN240893. The respondent claimed its patent covered a novel asymmetrical beam pattern for fixed antennas used in cellular networks. While the court found no grounds to interfere with the core interim relief, it modified the financial compliance terms, allowing the respondents to deposit a bank guarantee instead of cash.
Trex India Pvt. Ltd. v.Cde Asia Limited
The dispute originated from a suit for permanent injunction filed by Cde Asia Limited against Trex India Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged infringement of its Patent No. 3072491 and Design No. 2626292 concerning the product 'FM 120 CONEXUS'. The present appeal challenged the Single Judge's order, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability under the Commercial Courts Act.
S. N. Biri Factory Private Limited v.Mukesh Chand Khandelwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning artistic works used in matchstick branding, where the Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1's new copyright was deceptively similar to their existing registered designs and trademarks. Despite the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights initially rejecting the objection, the Court found prima facie evidence suggesting imitation of unique features and misappropriation of phrases like 'शहे नशाह मािचस NO. 99'. Consequently, the High Court granted a stay on the effect of the impugned copyright registration while the matter proceeds.
Leeford Healthcare Limited v.Vobb Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Leeford Healthcare Limited against Vobb Healthcare & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, specifically concerning the medicinal cream brand 'DERMIFORD.' Given that the goods are pharmaceutical and the defendants had recently entered the market, the court held that Leeford would suffer grave injury without immediate protection. This order temporarily halts the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEO DERMIFORD' until further orders.
L'Oreal S.A. v.Tarun Sankhla trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS
L'Oreal S.A. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Sankhla (trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS) for infringing its trademarks, passing off, and diluting its brand reputation in the cosmetics market. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks and tradenames, leading to the decreeing of the plaintiff's suit.
Puma Se v.Naveen Sikka And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Puma Se's petition to cancel a specific trademark registered by Naveen Sikka and Anr. The judgment followed a settlement agreement reached between the parties, which was found to be lawful. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the impugned mark from the Register of Trade Marks in Class 9.
M/S.Mahavir Pvc Cables Factory v.M/S.Indo Mahaveer Kable
The Orissa High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of M/S. Mahavir PVC Cables Factory against M/S. Indo Mahaveer Kable. The court found that the Respondent's use of 'INDO MAHAVEER KABLE' was phonetically and visually deceptive to the Plaintiff’s reputed trade mark, 'MAHAVIR'. Crucially, the court also considered the public interest, noting that the Defendant was using sub-standard materials in their products, thereby protecting consumers from potential harm. This ruling reinforces the importance of preventing market confusion and ensuring consumer safety when dealing with trademark disputes.
Cellresearch Corporation Pte Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges an order rejecting Cellresearch Corporation's divisional patent application (No. 10875/DELNP/2013) based on lack of distinct invention from its parent application (No. 1492/DELNP/2007). The appellant argues that the rejection is invalid because the objections raised in the parent application had already been complied with.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc And Others v.Clevus Lifesciences and others
The plaintiffs, exclusive licensees of the patent holder for Indian Patent No. 232231, filed a suit alleging infringement by defendant No. 1 and others who were manufacturing and offering Canagliflozin tablets under brand names like Adkana. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
M/s.Fair Beat Herbals Cosmetics Private Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging trademark registration proceedings involving 'Fair Beat'. The court noted that objections had been raised against the application, and an inquiry was pending before the Trademark Registry. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to conduct a thorough enquiry, ensuring all parties are given an opportunity to participate, and to pass final orders on the merits as quickly as possible.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, seeking permanent injunctions against infringing Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the prima facie case and found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin as the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. v.Vee Excel Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against generic drug manufacturers, including Vee Excel Drugs, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of all interim injunction applications.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Pub)
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed cross-appeals concerning the validity and infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecom technology. The court affirmed that Ericsson's patents were prima facie essential and infringed, finding Intex to be an unwilling licensee. Despite arguments regarding SEPs being unknown in Indian law, the court upheld the necessity of FRAND compliance to ensure parity with global implementers.
Ifp Energies Nouvelles v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Ifp Energies Nouvelles appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1373/CHE/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai. The appellant argued that the rejection order was non-speaking and failed to consider their submissions or prior acceptance in the USA. The High Court agreed, finding that the material contentions were ignored.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma against various Indian pharmaceutical companies seeking permanent injunctions for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief. Furthermore, the court expressed concern regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at 'evergreening.' Consequently, all applications for injunction were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma sought permanent injunctions against various Indian pharmaceutical companies, alleging infringement of Patent No. IN 243301 related to Linagliptin tablets. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across multiple connected suits. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, noting concerns about potential patent vulnerability due to prior claiming and attempts at evergreening. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing defendants to continue manufacturing and selling the products.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Mankind Pharma Limited
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma filed multiple suits seeking permanent injunction against Indian pharmaceutical companies for allegedly infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The Delhi High Court examined the applications for interim injunction across all connected matters. The court found that the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation due to prior claiming and noted attempts by the plaintiffs towards 'evergreening.' Consequently, the court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, allowing defendants to manufacture and sell products containing Linagliptin.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Ericsson and Intex. The court examined whether the patents were essential, if Intex was infringing them, and if Intex had acted as an unwilling licensee despite Ericsson's FRAND commitments. Ultimately, the court found that the patents were prima facie valid and infringed, compelling Intex to pay the full royalty amount.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co. Kg & Anr. v.Vee Excel Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. & Ors., Alkem Laboratories Ltd & Anr., Micro Labs Limited, Natco Pharma Limited & Anr., Mankind Pharma Limited
This judgment addresses multiple suits filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma seeking permanent injunction against various Indian pharmaceutical companies for infringing Patent No. IN 243301, which covers Linagliptin compounds. The court examined the applications for interim injunction and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the judge expressed concerns regarding the patent's vulnerability due to prior claiming and alleged attempts at evergreening by the patentees. Consequently, all interim injunction applications were dismissed, allowing the defendants to continue manufacturing and selling products containing Linagliptin.
Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant sought a patent for 'Hygiene Wash,' a skin care preparation using wood vinegar derived from the Rhizophora apiculata tree. The Controller rejected the application, but the High Court found that the invention possessed an inventive step by identifying guaiacol-free wood vinegar and determining the optimal concentration (18-22%) to selectively target harmful bacteria while preserving beneficial lactic acid bacteria.
M/S Bharath Chemical Industries v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Karnataka High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Bharath Chemical Industries seeking the rectification of a trademark register. The petitioner had sought to expunge the name of another party from the registration of the mark 'BCI-BHARATHA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES' (TM No. 2835990). However, during the preliminary hearing, the petitioner voluntarily submitted that the petition was withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the case as withdrawn, while reserving all rights for the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
M/s. Symphony Recording Co. v.Dr.K.Shobana
The appellant (M/s. Symphony Recording Co.) appealed an order that granted interim injunctions to the respondent (Dr. K. Shobana), alleging infringement of her copyright in sound recordings ('Kanda Sashti Kavacham' and 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star'). The core dispute revolved around whether agreements signed by Dr. Shobana while she was a minor were valid, and the rights of the performer under the Copyright Act.
Yang, Liping v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Yang, Liping appealed an order dated November 18, 2013, which refused his Indian Patent Application (No. 2769/DELNEP/2004). The refusal was based on the patent not meeting Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. The court issued directions for service and filing of replies to proceed with the appeal.
M/s Rockmed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Nukind Healthcare & Anr.
The suit was filed under Section 27 of the Trade Mark Act against M/s Nukind Healthcare and others, alleging that they were passing off pharmaceutical products under the identical trademark 'KETOGOLD'. The plaintiff established extensive use, goodwill, and reputation of the mark. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Ht Media Limited v.Entertainment Network (India) Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement suit between Ht Media Limited and Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. The original dispute centered on the use of trademarks identical or deceptively similar to 'PEHLA NASHA.' Crucially, both parties successfully reached a settlement through the court's mediation center. Consequently, the High Court decreed the underlying suit based on the terms of the executed Settlement Agreement, effectively concluding the litigation.
Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an infringement suit filed by Rspl Health Private Limited against Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of 'XPERT' in its registered word mark, 'HARPIC DRAIN XPERT,' infringed upon the plaintiff's device mark registration. While the court acknowledged the merits of the dispute, it primarily issued procedural directions, allowing the suit to proceed and setting timelines for filing written statements and interim replies.
M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf v.Paras Agarwal T/A M/S Purushottam Agarwal and Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, M/S Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf, against the Defendants. The suit alleged infringement and passing off concerning registered trademarks and copyright related to jewellery products. Given the strong goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's 'MD' marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the Defendants' use of similar marks like 'MD PAYAL', the court found a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff. The injunction restrains the Defendants from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned marks until further hearing.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.M/S.Himachal Milk Food Products
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/S.Himachal Milk Food Products alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights, specifically concerning the use of similar containers and labels on dairy products like Ghee. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for passing off. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit, which was subsequently granted by the Madras High Court.
Microsoft Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 487/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on vague grounds, including failure to adhere to a non-defined 'method step format' and falling under Section 3(k) as an algorithm-based invention. The High Court found the Controller's reasoning lacking focus and unsustainable.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co Kg v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma challenged the rejection of its application seeking to quash a pre-grant opposition filed against its patent application. The petitioner argued that the opposition lacked reasonable justification, while the court addressed the issue of abuse of process under Section 25(1).
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix Llc appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 4380/DELNP/2013) concerning pharmaceutical products for treating ischemia. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on prior art D-5/D-6 and Section 3(d), was flawed because these documents were not cited during the initial hearing. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for de novo consideration.
Krbl Limited v.Manoj Sah
Krbl Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Manoj Sah and others for infringement, disparagement, and dilution of its flagship trademark 'INDIA GATE', used for Basmati Rice. The court found that the defendants' actions amounted to infringement under Section 29(8) and 29(9) of the Trademark Act, 1999.
Jagdish Prasad v.Jay Prakash Rai And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking the cancellation of an infringing trademark registration for sanitary fittings. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and established that the subsequent, registered mark was deceptively similar to their own long-standing mark. Crucially, the court noted that the Respondent's use lacked credibility as it appeared primarily associated with trading services rather than the goods for which the mark was registered, thus failing to accrue genuine goodwill.
Dinesh Kumar Mittal M/S Paras Enterprises v.Pragya Trading Company, Kaserate
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court issued an order directing the removal of the impugned mark from the Trademark Register. The court noted that despite the petitioner's claims, the registration had expired on February 21, 2022, and the statutory one-year period for restoration under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had lapsed without any renewal application being filed. While this order addresses the validity status of the mark, it explicitly leaves all merits of the dispute open for future consideration.
Mirza Ahmed Baig Alias Asad v.Mirza Afser Baig & Anr.
The Delhi High Court heard petitions challenging the registration of several marks held by the respondent, focusing on issues of user claim and proprietorship. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of continuous use and ownership, particularly regarding the mark 'MIDLAND'. The court noted these submissions but reserved judgment, scheduling a further hearing to allow the respondents to respond to the detailed challenges raised by the petitioner.
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd v.Pushpendra Yadav
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging design and trademark infringement against Pushpendra Yadav and others, specifically targeting water purifiers sold on Flipkart. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants' products infringed their registered Design No. 219309 for a water purifier and used deceptively similar marks like AQUA GRAND+ infringing KENT GRAND+. The Delhi High Court allowed the interim application, finding prima facie evidence of both design piracy and trademark infringement.
Emitech Gesellschaft Fur Emissionstechnologie MBH v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks And Anr
Emitech Gesellschaft Fur Emissionstechnologie MBH filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 9107/DELNP/2011 by the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks. The patent application relates to a heatable honeycomb body designed for motor vehicles, allowing exhaust gas flow through electrically conductive layers. Emitech contended that the rejection was erroneous as the invention introduced novel features not found in existing prior art.
Alternative Gene Expression S L v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application, which held that the method of producing recombinant proteins by destruction of pupa was non-patentable under Section 3(b). The High Court found the rejection order to be cryptic and lacking reasoned justification despite detailed submissions from the appellant.
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd.
The petitioner filed a writ appeal claiming that the respondent, APDCL, was infringing its patent rights related to a Prepaid/Postpaid Electricity Supply Machine. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the remedy for patent infringement is compensation or injunction under the Patents Act, 1970, the matter must be heard by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a global pharmaceutical company, filed suit against Aishwarya Health Care Private Limited alleging infringement of its patented drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants intended to launch a generic version, 'Ferocose FCM', which would infringe upon their patent (No. 221536). After considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction.
M/S Malabar Gold Private Limited v.Mr. M. Manuvel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed interim applications in the trademark dispute between Malabar Gold Private Limited and Mr. M. Manuvel. The defendant argued that the existing injunction should be vacated because the plaintiff failed to disclose specific conditions imposed by the Trade Marks Registry regarding their trademarks, particularly concerning the exclusive right over 'M' or 'MALABAR'. The court accepted submissions from both parties and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Under Armour, Inc v.Shri Jagmeet Singh
Under Armour filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Shri Jagmeet Singh and others for infringement and passing off related to its trademarks 'UA' and 'UNDER ARMOUR'. The plaintiff argued that these marks are well-known globally and in India, leading to violation by the defendants. The court found in favor of Under Armour, granting a permanent injunction.
Cambridge Enterprises Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs that refused Patent No. 2216/KOLNP/2009, claiming it was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The court examined the filing records and found that the application was correctly filed on June 5, 2009, within the stipulated deadline.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a method for text selection on touch screens. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was not the technical merits of the invention itself, but rather the procedural flaw in the Assistant Controller's rejection order. The court found that the impugned order lacked discernible reasoning and appeared to be a mechanical replication of claims, rendering the decision arbitrary. Consequently, the High Court quashed the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
M/S K.W Enterprises v.M/S Karam Industrial Works
M/S K.W Enterprises filed a petition seeking the cancellation of an artistic work registered in favor of M/S Karam Industrial Works under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner argued that the respondent had previously undertaken not to use 'K.I.W.' in relation to cycle parts, which is deceptively similar to K.W. The court observed that this matter was already being disputed in a separate civil suit (CS(COMM) 1035/2016).
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Nuberg Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Sun Pharma and Nuberg Pharmaceuticals reached a full settlement in their commercial IP dispute before the Delhi High Court. The court formally decreed the suit based on the agreed-upon terms, which included significant concessions from both parties. Furthermore, the judgment mandated that Respondent No. 2 remove a specific trademark entry (No. 3797651) from the Register of Trademarks within six weeks.
Applicant/Plaintiff (Name not specified) v.M/S.Knoll Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to initiate fresh trademark rectification proceedings against a registered mark held by the respondent. The court noted that multiple rectification actions were already pending before the Registrar and other forums initiated by both parties. Consequently, the court rejected the plaintiff's request for leave, emphasizing that existing legal processes must be allowed to run their course to prevent conflicting judgments.
Rspl Limited v.Grindwell Norton Limited
Rspl Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Grindwell Norton Limited before the Delhi High Court. The parties reached a compromise where Grindwell Norton agreed not to manufacture or market products under deceptively similar marks (like 'COMPASS GHADI CHAP') in specific classes, while Rspl Limited withdrew its opposition and agreed not to seek damages. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without protracted litigation.
Ecomax Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Energeo Building Solutions Llp & Ors.
The dispute concerned alleged patent infringement regarding Ecomax Solutions' Automatic Tube Cleaning System (ATCS) against Energeo Building Solutions' AFCS. The court examined whether the defendants' system infringed the claims of IN 382118. The court found that the AFCS was prima facie dissimilar to the suit patent, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's injunction application.
Aska Equipments Private Limited v.Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari & Ors.
The appellant, Aska Equipments Private Limited, sought to withdraw its appeal and related applications. The counsel requested liberty to file an application seeking revocation of a patent in the Trial Court, which could then be transferred to the High Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ust Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Ust Global appealed the rejection of its application for registering a design titled "Touch Screen," which was a Graphical User Interface (GUI). The Controller rejected it, arguing that GUI is incapable of design registration because it is software-based and only visible when the product is operating. The High Court set aside this order, finding that GUI qualifies as an industrial process applied to an article and is registrable.
M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr v.The Supreme Industries Ltd
This Delhi High Court order addresses a revision petition filed by M/S Goodwill Polypast & Anr against The Supreme Industries Ltd. The underlying suit concerns permanent injunctions related to trademark infringement and passing off. While an exemption application was allowed, the main stay application concerning the striking off of the defendant's defence has been listed for further consideration on March 24, 2023.
Fdc India (Franchise Development Consulting India) v.FDC Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed the amendment of a plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff was correcting a mere factual error—mistakenly stating pending trademarks as registered—or making a substantive change. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court upheld the legality of allowing the amendment but simultaneously balanced the equities by directing that the specific details provided in the amended plaint regarding the nature and status of the marks must be considered when deciding related applications like perjury pleas or stay vacation.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited v.Pankaj Garg & Anr.
Bundl Technologies Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY', initiated proceedings against Pankaj Garg & Anr. alleging dishonest adoption of the mark. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties regarding the procedural aspects of the case, including filing replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. The court also set dates for the completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar and subsequent hearing before the Court.
Alpha Corp Development Private Limited v.Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Alpha Corp Development Private Limited against a deceptively similar trademark registered by its former employees' company, Alpha Integrated Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was identical and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ALPHA' brand in real estate services. Given the respondent's dishonest adoption of the mark to ride on the petitioner's goodwill, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
Medtronic Xomed, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an opposition matter (OA/4/2018/PT/KOL) involving Medtronic Xomed, Inc. The court noted that no counsel appeared for the appellant on the hearing date. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to March 30, 2023, with specific directions issued to the respondent authorities to serve a copy of the application on the appellant and file an Affidavit of Service.
Sun Hydraulics Llc v.Sun Hydraulics Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff to introduce a rectified Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) late in the proceedings. Although the Defendant argued that the document was already in the Plaintiff's possession and control, the Court found that the newly issued LPC was not available at the time of filing the suit. However, due to the significant delay, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the Plaintiff.
Smt. Veena Kumaravel v.Acit, Central Circle - 2 (1)
Smt. Veena Kumaravel appealed an order confirming the levy of capital gains tax on Rs. 6.5 crores received from M/s Groom India Saloon & Spa Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated this amount as capital receipt upon transfer of trademark 'Naturals'. The assessee argued it was only a license deposit, not a sale or transfer.
Satbir Singh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Satbir Singh appealed the rejection of his patent application for a 'Pellet Feed Manufacturing Plant'. The Assistant Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive steps and that it was merely an arrangement or re-arrangement. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the objection under Section 3(f) was not afforded to the Appellant during the examination process.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents that refused its Indian Patent Application (No. 5429/DELNP/2007) under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the cited prior art did not disclose the claimed invention.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of his process patent related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The dispute centered on whether the Defendants' product was made using the patented process, and how to balance the need for evidence with the protection of Defendants' trade secrets.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks, The Trademarks Registry; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash the registration of the trademark 'OMBC' under application no.5054052, which was held by Respondent No. 2. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks; M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises
The Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Old Madras Baking Company Pvt. Ltd against The Registrar of Trademarks and M/s.Suryachandra Enterprises. The petitioner had sought to quash a registered trademark 'OMBC' held by Respondent No. 2, arguing infringement or improper registration. However, the court noted that the prayer in the petition had become infructuous, leading to its dismissal.
Mr.C.S.Padam Chand v.K.Shibu Proprietor Thameem Films and M/s H.R.Pictures
The appeal concerned the appellant's attempt to restrain the release of the movie 'Thugs' due to alleged non-fulfillment of obligations under prior copyright agreements with K.Shibu. The court found that although H.R.Pictures was not a party to the original agreement, an interim injunction could be maintained against its further exploitation (OTT rights) provided K.Shibu furnished adequate security.
Dolby International Ab v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dolby International Ab appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 6570/DELNP/2009) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was arbitrary, incomprehensible, and lacked any proper reasoning or due application of mind. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union of India & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a review application challenging the order of a Single Judge regarding the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the review application, holding that the petitioner had not adequately argued or pleaded the issue of constitutional validity in the original writ petition.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design, 'PEE BUDDY', by Defendant 7, which was manufacturing an identical device under the name 'NAMYAA'. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's product constituted piracy of the plaintiff's certified design. While the court found the designs to be identical, subsequent proceedings led to a settlement with one key defendant (Defendant 2), resulting in a decree sheet being drawn up for that party.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter And Gamble Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5444/DELNP/2007). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, citing prior art that showed individual ingredients. P&G argued that the cited art did not disclose the invention as a composition thereof.
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs And Anr
Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its 'Air Decontamination Assembly.' The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of inventive step and non-patentable subject matter. Biomoneta argued that their device offered unique features not present in the prior art, supported by significant government funding and international recognition. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Mr. Surender Talwar
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Mr. Surender Talwar for infringement of its trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and copyrights, alleging that the defendant was selling counterfeit goods bearing deceptively similar marks. The court found the defendant guilty of passing off and trademark infringement.