Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 11501–11600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
The Capital Group Companies, Inc v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) v.Mc. GAN's Ooty School of Architecture
NIFT filed an arbitration petition challenging an award that favored Mc. Gan's Ooty School of Architecture (Respondent No.1). The dispute centered on Respondent No.1 allegedly violating the MOU by using NIFT's name and logo to solicit students, leading to termination. The court upheld the arbitrator's award, dismissing NIFT's petition.
Green Cross Holdings Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Green Cross Holdings Corporation appealed the order dated 02.02.2023 by the Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application for a method of preparing Plasma-derived Hepatitis B Human Immunoglobulin Agent. The appellant argued that all objections were addressed, but the rejection was arbitrary. The High Court found that the respondent failed to discuss the prior arts or provide justifiable reasons for rejecting the inventive step.
Jagdamba Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)
Jagdamba Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking intervention regarding its long-pending trademark registration application for 'SUPER POSTMAN' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that the application had been awaiting decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks for over nineteen years. The Rajasthan High Court addressed this delay, issuing an order directing the Respondent to decide the pending application within a strict period of eight weeks.
Shamrock Geoscience Ltd & Anr. v.Timab NL B.V. / Kaba Infratech Pvt Ltd
In a significant settlement, the Delhi High Court accepted assurances from Shamrock Geoscience Ltd. that they would cease using the disputed mark 'GeoCrete,' replacing it with 'Alpave.' The company agreed to withdraw its existing trademark registration (TM No.3392787) and all related pending applications within four weeks. This resolution effectively settled the core trademark dispute between Shamrock Geoscience and Timab NL B.V./Kaba Infratech, allowing both parties to move forward while leaving technical know-how claims open for separate litigation.
JFE Steel Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs and Anr.
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the case in March 2023.
Maruishi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Deputy Controller Of Patents and Designs (Hearing Officer) and Anr
The case was received by the Calcutta High Court upon transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter for March 2023.
Glaxosmithkline Llc v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr.
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General Of Patents and Designs And Anr.
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
The matter (OA/10/2019/Pt/Kol) was received by the Calcutta High Court upon transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report.
JW Pharmaceutical Corporation (Formerly Choongwae Pharma Corporation) v.Controller General of Patent and Designs and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Seagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Uni-Pex Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the Defendants successfully moved an application to expedite the proceedings. The court allowed the request for early hearing on applications concerning interim injunctions and the preliminary issue regarding the invalidity of the Plaintiff's trademark registration. Consequently, the next hearing date was rescheduled.
Western Smart Bins (J.V.) v.Sotkon Sp Slu
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered patent and copyright. The court upheld the injunction against the defendants for continuing their infringing activities.
Prasad v.The Controller Of Patents and Design, Kolkata and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
Thomson Licensing S.A v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to both parties before the returnable date and file a report.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr.
This case involves Sanofi - Aventis challenging decisions related to its patent application (OA/11/2019/Pt/Kol). The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the implementation of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The Calcutta High Court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before proceeding with the hearing.
Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the case in March 2023.
Tata Global Beverages Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The Calcutta High Court received the matter (OA/11/2016/PT/KOL) on transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Department to issue notices and file a report.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court disposed of several interlocutory applications (I.A.) in the patent dispute between Novartis Ag and Natco Pharma Limited. The defendant withdrew its counter claim seeking invalidity of the suit patent, and the court allowed the defendant to file additional documents after imposing conditions.
LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE v.THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter for March 2023.
BASF SE v.Dy. Controller Of Patents and Designs, Kolkata
The matter was received by the High Court at Calcutta upon transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter.
Usg Interiors Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court noted that no counsel appeared and directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices before setting a returnable date.
Asha Nutrition Sciences Inc v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter in March 2023.
United Coffee House v.Raghav Kalra
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by United Coffee House, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical mark registered by Raghav Kalra. The court found that the respondent's registration was ex-facie dishonest because it failed to disclose his partnership interest in the petitioner's firm during the application process. This decision reinforces the principle that prior use and established goodwill outweigh subsequent registrations made in bad faith.
Kalpesh Manubhai Ramoliya v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application seeking direction for the expeditious disposal of proceedings for cancellation of a registered design (No. 324986-017). The petitioner contended that despite filing the cancellation application in November 2021, the Controller had failed to proceed with the hearing, causing undue prejudice and loss.
Novartis Ag v.Synokem Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis filed a suit alleging that Synokem infringed Indian Patent IN 229051, which covered a pharmaceutical composition of Valsartan and Sacubitril. The court noted that the patent had expired on January 16, 2023, rendering the dispute infructuous.
Kalpesh Manubhai Ramoliya v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application seeking a direction from the Calcutta High Court for the expeditious disposal of proceedings related to the cancellation of registered design no. 324986-016. The petitioner contended that despite filing the cancellation request in November 2021, the Controller had failed to proceed with the hearing, causing undue prejudice and loss.
Global Car Group Ltd. v.Vienna It Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Global Car Group Ltd. successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Vienna It Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant registered the domain name 'www.cars24.in' and used a deceptively similar mark, infringing upon their well-known trademark 'Cars24'. Given the prima facie case made out, the court granted immediate relief, restraining the defendant from using the mark and ordering the takedown of the associated dummy website.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal challenging a single judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the respondent copied not only the registered trademark but also the stylization, color combination, get-up, and trade dress from the appellant. Despite arguments regarding descriptiveness and genericness, the High Court concluded that the appellant's mark had acquired secondary significance due to substantial sales and promotional investment, leading it to issue notice and stay the lower court's adverse findings.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Anr. v.M/S. R.J Enterprises & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against M/S. R.J Enterprises, the Delhi High Court facilitated a potential settlement pathway. The court noted that Defendant No. 1 offered an undertaking to cease using the disputed marks if the Plaintiff waived their claim for damages. The Plaintiff agreed to this condition provided the Defendant paid INR 75,000/- towards local commission charges. This order sets the stage for further negotiation and resolution of the dispute.
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited v.M.P.Beer Products Private Limited
Mohan Breweries And Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against M.P.Beer Products Private Limited, seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for infringement of its registered trademarks, designs, and copyright related to beer bottles. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was passing off their products as those of Mohan Breweries. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case effectively before the court, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of G4S Limited against Groupon 3 Security Services India Private Limited. The court found that the defendants were adopting marks ('G3S', etc.) that were structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to G4S's registered trademarks. Given the identical nature of the security services offered, the court held that a prima facie case was made out for infringement, granting immediate relief to prevent irreparable harm.
Consitex S.A. v.Sharad Rampal Jain And Sudeep Gautamchand Dhing Trading As Siesta Pharmaceuticals & 1 other(s)
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the Rectification Application (C/RA/50/2022) filed by Consitex S.A. The application sought action regarding a trademark, but the petitioner subsequently informed the court that the trademark in question had already been removed by the Registry. Consequently, the court allowed the withdrawal of the application.
Mr. Peter Fanning, Chief Executive, The Chartered Institute Of Taxation v.M/s Institute Of Charted Tax Advisers Of India Limited
The Rajasthan High Court addressed two interconnected writ petitions concerning a trademark dispute over 'Chartered Tax Adviser (CTA)'. The core issue was whether the plaintiff's attempt to invalidate the registered trademark, via an application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, should be decided on its merits. The court set aside previous technical orders that dismissed the application and directed the Commercial Court to frame a specific issue regarding the pending cancellation proceedings (Section 57) before the High Court of Gujarat, ensuring the Section 124 application is now heard afresh on its substantive grounds.
M/S Luxottica Group S.P.A & Anr v.M/S Deals Cracker & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex-parte injunction granted against the defendants in a trademark infringement suit brought by Luxottica Group S.P.A regarding its 'RAY-BAN' brand. The court proceeded to frame several key issues, including whether the defendant website (Shopclues) has infringed or committed passing off, and specifically addressed the defense of being merely an intermediary under the IT Act. This marks a significant step toward the trial phase of the dispute.
Gopal Krishan S/O. Sh. Mangat Rai v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)
This writ petition was filed by Gopal Krishan seeking a direction from the High Court to expedite the registration of his trademark 'PANTHER' in Class 5. The petitioner highlighted that the application had been pending for an extended period since 2015. The court issued notices to the respondents, setting a timeline of six weeks for the matter to be returned, thereby moving the case forward.
P.Ponnuchamy v.M/s.UTV Motion Pictures
This appeal challenged an order that disallowed the plaintiff from amending his plaint to include claims for royalty and account of profits related to the movie 'Thandavam'. The court dismissed the appeal, finding merit in the respondent's argument regarding the significant delay (nine years) in seeking these amendments. The judgment emphasized that courts must consider all facts and circumstances when exercising discretion on amendment applications.
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an order by the Controller of Patents that rejected its claims for 'INTRACAMERAL SUSTAINED RELEASE THERAPEUTIC AGENT IMPLANTS' based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since the amendment was sought at a pre-grant stage and merely related to the same implants, the Controller ought to have allowed the amendments and examined them on merits.
Corona Remedies Private Limited v.Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Bombay High Court quashed an interim injunction that prevented Corona Remedies from using its trademark 'STIMULET' in pharmaceutical products. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals had alleged trade mark infringement and passing off based on their registered mark 'STIMULIV'. The court found that despite the similarity, Corona was a registered proprietor of its own mark, and crucially, the two marks were used for distinct product types (allopathic vs. ayurvedic) and different medical conditions, thus failing to establish likelihood of confusion or passing off.
ITC Limited v.Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed two separate applications in the dispute between ITC Limited and Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. Regarding a request to use a new label, the court found that the proposed packaging did not appear deceptively similar to ITC's marks, thereby lifting the existing ad-interim injunction for this specific design. Separately, the Court initiated proceedings against Mr. Prem Chand Mittal for alleged assault and deliberate disobedience of previous orders.
Surya Food & Agro Ltd v.Om Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Surya Food & Agro Ltd against a single judge's dismissal of its infringement suit. The court overturned the previous ruling, finding that the lower court had erred in basing its decision on recollections of facts not present in the record. This sets the case back for trial, allowing the appellant to prove claims related to copyright and passing off concerning their 'Butter Delite' packaging versus the respondent's 'Butter Crunch'.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis Ag appealed against an order that set aside a patent grant (IN'414518) on the ground of procedural lapses. Novartis argued that the Single Judge misinterpreted Rule 55, which pertains only to pre-grant opposition procedures, not application examination under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found issues regarding the merging of proceedings and directed notice to be issued.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design's order dated February 27, 2020, which refused to register Indian Patent Application No. 9486/DELNP/2007 for a system and method related to wearable electronic devices.
Groz-Beckert Kg v.Union Of India & Ors.
Groz-Beckert Kg appealed an order from the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a method and apparatus related to processing tape-shaped material. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art (D4).
Allergan Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Allergan Inc appealed an impugned order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the order was unreasoned and challenged the decision regarding voluntary amendments made to the patent application. The court reserved the matter for further submissions.
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT. LTD AND GIRISH MANOHARRAO BACHATE v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. A
The petitioners filed a writ petition alleging that the respondent (APDCL) was procuring smart electricity meters through tender, which might infringe on their patent rights for prepaid/postpaid Electricity Supply Machine. The court noted that while infringement was apprehended, alternative and efficacious remedies were available under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
M/S.Avon Emery Industries v.Sabko Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S. Avon Emery Industries against an earlier ruling that rejected its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court affirmed the trial court's decision after considering arguments from both sides regarding whether the original suit included claims for trademark infringement or only passing off. Given the respondent's clarification that the suit was solely for passing off, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order.
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi Public School Society filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a specific copyright registration held by its subsidiary, Delhi Public School Pvt Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether the impugned copyright was an exact replica of the Petitioner's original copyrights and if the Respondent had the right to hold such a registration. The Court found that the rival copyrights were nearly identical and that the Petitioner's rights predated the challenged registration. Furthermore, the court noted a prior decree restraining the Respondent from using similar marks.
Grunenthal Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
This case involves Grunenthal Gmbh appealing before the Calcutta High Court following the transfer of its matter from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) due to the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report. Consequently, the case was scheduled for further hearing on March 6, 2023.
Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
This matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding further. This procedural order sets the stage for the continuation of the patent dispute.
Tata Chemicals Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was received by the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.
Viacyte Inc v.Controller Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark and Anr.
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Mologen Ag v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The case was received by the Calcutta High Court Commercial Division upon transfer from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.
The Regents of the University of California and Anr v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This Original Application (OA) was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for hearing.
Indena S.P.A. v.Controller General Pf Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Indena S.P.A. appealing a matter previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Division. The court directed that notices be issued to both parties and a report filed before the returnable date, setting the next hearing for March 6, 2023.
Wyeth Holdings Corporation v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before proceeding further. This procedural step sets the stage for the continuation of the patent dispute.
Wyeth v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter on March 6, 2023.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patent Design and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealing against a decision that was previously handled by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited approached the Calcutta High Court regarding a matter transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court noted that no parties appeared on the date and directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both sides prior to the returnable date. This procedural order sets the stage for further hearing in the High Court.
Viacyte Inc. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
This case involves Viacyte Inc. challenging a decision or proceeding before the Controller General of Patents. The matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court issued directions for the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report, setting the next hearing date.
Pharma Mar S A v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
This opposition matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for further hearing.
Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
This case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Binyarco Llc v.The Controller Patents And Designs And Ors.
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The High Court at Calcutta received the matter (OA/9/2017/PT/KOL) concerning Glaxosmithkline Biologicals Sa vs Controller General of Patents and Designs from the IPAB following the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before listing the matter for further hearing.
Sasol Technology (Pty.) Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
This judgment records the transfer of a patent appeal matter (OA/8/2018/PT/KOL) from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court, following the implementation of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices to both parties and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Impact Selector International Llc v.Controller Of Patents
Impact Selector International Llc appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Field Adjustable Impact JAR' by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that the Patent Office must pass a reasoned or 'speaking' order when rejecting an application based on lack of inventive step. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer.
Nripendra Kashyap (Constituted Attorney of Huawei Device Co. Ltd.) v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Base Sf v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next appearance date.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
This case involves Array Biopharma Inc challenging a patent matter before the Calcutta High Court. The proceedings were transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
Chemocentryx, Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
This case involves Chemocentryx, Inc challenging proceedings before the Controller General of Patents. The matter was transferred to the Calcutta High Court's Commercial Appellate Division following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed that notices be issued to both parties and a report filed prior to the returnable date, setting the next hearing for March 6, 2023.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs and Anr
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed its Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the next hearing date.
FLOW INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The case was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices and file a report before setting the matter for hearing.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Anil Pendela
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sporta Technologies against Anil Pendela regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, owners of the 'Dream11' brand, successfully argued that the defendant's use of 'Dreamz11 Sports' and the tagline 'Khelo Dil Se' was deceptively similar to their registered marks. Consequently, the court restrained the defendant from using these infringing marks and ordered the suspension of the associated domain name and takedown of social media pages.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, which had declined its patent application under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the decline order was non-reasoned and inconsistent with previous judicial decisions. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties to file detailed submissions, brief notes, and relevant documentation before proceeding with the appeal.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings & Ors. v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The petitioner (Bristol Myers Squibb) filed an application seeking correction of clerical and typographical errors in a previous order concerning its US patent infringement suit against Apotex Inc. Separately, the court allowed the respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals) to file its written statement after condoning the delay.
Zippo Manufacturing Company v.Raja Bhai Traders & Anr
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Zippo Manufacturing Company, restraining Defendant No. 3 from manufacturing or selling counterfeit ZIPPO lighters and related goods bearing deceptively similar trademarks. Crucially, the court clarified that this order does not impede the defendant's sale of genuine products. Separately, the court initiated contempt proceedings against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for alleged violation of previous orders, keeping the litigation active.
Apar Industries Limited v.Sh Rummy Chhabra
The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark infringement dispute involving the mark "VELLO." Although initially facing an ex-parte injunction against using the mark, Apar Industries Limited voluntarily acknowledged that 'VELO' belonged exclusively to Sh Rummy Chhabra. The court accepted detailed undertakings from Apar, which included ceasing all use of the mark, withdrawing its pending trademark application, and selling off existing stock within a year. Consequently, the underlying suit was decreed based on these mutual commitments.
Sabyasachi Couture v.Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited
In a significant resolution for the fashion industry, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit involving Sabyasachi Couture against Technicolour Dream Pants Private Limited. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the pendency of the litigation. Under the terms, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's trademark rights and undertook not to use or deal in garments bearing the 'SABYASACHI' mark or designs without authorization. This judgment provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved through negotiated settlements.
Amrit Corp. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Amrit Corp. Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the composite label mark 'JUST MILK'. The court found that the combination of the arbitrary word 'JUST' with 'MILK' was suggestive and capable of distinguishing goods, overcoming the objection based on lack of distinctiveness. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to proceed with the registration process for 'JUST MILK', while clarifying that this registration would not grant exclusive rights in the generic term 'MILK'.
M/S Eureka Forbes Limited v.Vaibhav Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Eureka Forbes Limited, granting a permanent and mandatory injunction against Vaibhav Agro Industries for trademark infringement. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'AquaSure' on packaged drinking water was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. While the claim for copyright infringement failed due to lack of similarity in artistic works, the core trademark infringement suit was successfully decreed.
Chasvinder Singh v.The Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addressed a writ petition filed by Chasvinder Singh against The Registrar of Copyrights. During arguments, respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the appropriate legal remedy for challenging the copyright grant was through a rectification petition under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court granted time to the petitioner to take further instructions before listing the matter for hearing.
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd v.M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods
Sweeton Foods Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the cancellation of a copyright held by M/S Grv Conferectionery And Foods for the label 'KARTIER GOLD 24 CARAT SWISS MILK CHOCO'. This action stemmed from an earlier civil suit regarding trademark infringement. The court found that since the respondent had undertaken in a settlement decree to withdraw and cancel the registration, the petition was allowed.
Alfred Von Schukmann v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Alfred Von Schukmann appealed the rejection of his patent application, titled 'Step-Action Indexing Mechanism,' which was denied by the Patent Office on grounds of lacking inventive step. The appellant argued that the Patent Office's order was cryptic and failed to address detailed submissions distinguishing the invention from prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, emphasizing that a reasoned decision is mandatory when rejecting an application under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs Anr.
Natco Pharma challenged the Assistant Controller's order granting a patent to Novartis for pharmaceutical compositions, arguing that the order was passed with procedural irregularities and violated principles of natural justice. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and quashed the impugned order, remanding the application back to the Controller for fresh consideration based on due process.
Corza International And Ors v.Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd And Anr
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning the marks 'CORZA' and 'CORSA'. Despite arguments from the appellants regarding geographical limitations and product differences, the court found prima facie phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the two marks. The judgment reinforces that registered proprietors can sue other registered proprietors for deceptive similarity, even if they are both registered owners.
Shiv Nadar Foundation v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Shiv Nadar Foundation's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its device mark. The court held that because the mark is composite—combining a graphic representation with the institution's name and the word 'SHIKSHA'—it cannot be deemed descriptive in isolation. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement, provided the Appellant agrees not to claim exclusive rights over the common term 'SHIKSHA'.
Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP v.TVC Life Sciences Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network LLP, granting a permanent injunction against TVC Life Sciences Ltd and others. The dispute centered on trademark infringement concerning Ayurvedic joint pain relief oils. The court found that the defendants' mark, 'SANDHEE SUDDHAM,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'SANDHI SUDHA.' This decision reinforces the importance of prior use and goodwill in protecting brand identity within the pharmaceutical sector.
Organo Gold Holdings, Limited v.Origano Gold Private Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit filed by Organo Gold Holdings against Origano Gold Private Limited. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's rights in the 'ORIGANO GOLD' mark and committed to immediately cease using similar marks or logos. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2 agreed to withdraw specific registered trademarks and pending trademark applications.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Hemant Khanna Trading as M/s V2 Fashion Store
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to its registered marks, LEVI'S, including the Two Horse Logo. The court found infringement of the registered trademarks and passing off by the defendants.
Virendra Kumar Gupta Trading As M/S Burger King v.Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a Writ Petition filed by Burger King, challenging the registration of a trademark. The petitioner argued that the Registry ignored their prior Notices of Opposition when granting registration to Respondent No. 4. However, the court noted that since the registration occurred before a key precedent was set, counsel for the respondent suggested that rectification might be the appropriate remedy instead of continuing with the current writ petition. The matter has been listed for further arguments.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v.Asstt. Controller Of Patents And Designs
Toshiba appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its process patent application (No. 5817/DELNP/2013). The High Court found the original rejection order completely unreasoned and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the application for a fresh decision.
Wockhardt Limited v.Zymes Bioscience Private Limited & Anr.
Wockhardt Limited filed a suit alleging that Zymes Bioscience Private Limited infringed its Indian Patent No. IN 318858, which covers the formulation of a new generation antibiotic combination (2 grams cefepime and 2 grams tazobactam). The court registered the plaint and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products containing this specific combination.
M/S Liberty Footwear Company v.M/S Liberty International
This case involved a suit filed by M/S Liberty Footwear Company against M/S Liberty International, alleging unauthorized use and infringement of the registered trademark 'LIBERTY' in the footwear sector. The core dispute centered on whether the claims of trademark infringement could be subjected to arbitration as stipulated in an underlying Partnership Deed. The court ultimately allowed the defendant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, referring the parties to arbitration.
Siddharth Suri v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Siddharth Suri against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'ANDAMEN'. The initial refusal was based on similarity to an earlier trade mark under Section 11(1)(b). However, the court found that since 'ANDAMEN' is a name of a sea and does not have a reputation associated with Class-18 goods (leather goods), the absolute ground for refusal under Section 9(1)(a) was not attracted. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, directing the Trademark Registry to process the registration application.
AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v.VICKY AGGARWAL & ORS.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute regarding the scope of an undertaking provided by defendants concerning the use of the trademark 'TOWER'. The court ruled that the undertaking could not be extended to specific goods (Monosodium Glutamate, Citric Acid, Tartaric Acid, Camphor, Hexamine tablets in Class 1, and green raisins in Class 29) because the plaintiff had explicitly acknowledged the defendants' right to use the mark for those categories in their plaint. Consequently, the court modified the undertaking, limiting its restriction only to other goods.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis, the patent holder of IN 276026 covering novel pyrimidine compounds including Ceritinib, alleged that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing the patent by manufacturing and selling Ceritinib under its brand NOXALK. The court found that Natco had infringed the valid suit patent.
Anita Agarwal v.Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.
Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v.Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.
In this commercial suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by both parties. The court allowed Defendant No. 1 to place legal proceeding certificates related to its registered trademarks on record, despite initial objections regarding relevance. Furthermore, upon agreement from the Plaintiff, the court permitted the deletion of Defendant No. 2 (IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd.) from the array of parties, allowing the litigation to proceed with a refined set of defendants.
Aurorax Private Limited v.Bharatx Accelerator & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Aurorax Private Limited against Bharatx Accelerator & Ors. The plaintiff, a leading fintech start-up, sought protection for its registered trademark 'BHARATX' which it has used since 2019. The court found that the defendants were using similar marks and domain names, causing market confusion, and consequently restrained them from further use of the infringing trademarks until the final hearing.