Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 15201–15261 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Dwarkadas Dhanji Sha v.Chhotalal Ravicarandas And Co.
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a registered textile design and sued for infringement. The defendants argued that the design was previously published and therefore invalid. The court addressed whether the registration certificate is conclusive proof of originality or if prior publication could be raised as a defense.
Hiralal Banjara v.Bashiram Sharma And Ors.
Hiralal Banjara sought rectification of a patent register entry after the execution sale of his rights was set aside by the High Court. The case involved complex issues regarding the scope of the Controller's power and whether Hiralal Banjara qualified as an aggrieved person.
J.C. Eno Limited v.Vishnu Chemical Co.
J.C. Eno Limited filed a passing off action against Vishnu Chemical Co., alleging that the defendants were selling saline under the name "Falaxar," which was a colorable imitation of the plaintiffs' well-known marks, "Eno" and "Fruit Salt." The court found that the plaintiffs had established a wide reputation for their product in India. Consequently, the court granted an injunction against the defendant while awarding profits to the plaintiff.
The Calico Printers Association v.Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros., Limited
The Calico Printers Association sued Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros., Limited for infringing their two registered textile designs through the import and sale of imitation printed goods. Although the defendants admitted to innocent infringement, they offered a settlement including payment of profits (Rs. 199). The court ultimately granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages equal to the admitted profits.
The Calico Printers Association v.Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Limited
The Calico Printers Association sued Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Limited for infringing a registered textile design. The core legal issue was whether the defendants were joint tortfeasors with an intermediary, Mustak & Co., and whether the acts constituting infringement occurred within British India. The court ultimately allowed the appeal and granted an injunction.
Gillette Industries Limited v.Yeshwant Brothers
Gillette Industries Limited sued Yeshwant Brothers for infringing a patent related to safety razor blades. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were importing and selling razor blades bearing names like 'Navy Blade' which infringed their patented design. The court found the patent valid, established infringement, and granted an injunction along with nominal damages.
The Calico Printers Association v.Savani And Co.
The Calico Printers Association sued Savani And Co. for infringing their registered textile design used on saries. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants imported Japanese prints whose borders were identical to or an obvious imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a decree for infringement.
Calico Printers Association Ltd. v.Savani And Co.
The plaintiffs, registered proprietors of a textile design for printing saries, sued the defendants for importing and selling Japanese prints whose borders were identical to their registered design. The court found that the plaintiffs' design was new and original, establishing their exclusive rights in British India.
Calico Printers Association, Ltd. v.D.N. Mukerjea
The plaintiffs, proprietors of three registered cotton designs, sued the defendant for copyright infringement after discovering he was importing and selling similar designs on cotton materials. The dispute centered on whether the defendant knowingly infringed the copyrights or merely sold goods in ignorance of the rights.
The Calico Printers Association v.Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited
The Calico Printers Association sued Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited for importing and selling goods bearing a registered design that was identical to or imitated their protected design without license. The core legal issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs were bound by the statute (Indian Patents and Designs Act, II of 1911) to elect between specific remedies: account of profits, damages, or a fixed sum of Rs. 1,000.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala v.Chimanlal Chunilal And Co.
The plaintiff, holding a patent for an improved process of treating dried fruits, sued the defendants alleging infringement. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendants' process substantially matched the patented combination, particularly concerning the use of pressure.
Dorman Long And Co. Ltd. v.Jagadish Chandra Mahindra And Anr.
The appeal challenged an order by the Controller of Patents refusing subpoenas for expert witnesses. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari or mandatory injunction, arguing they still had the right to present evidence. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Controller's decision was within his discretion and that the petitioners lacked adequate legal remedies.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The case involved an appeal regarding a patent application for a process to whiten almond shells. The court examined whether the combination of bleaching powder and sulphur dioxide under pressure constituted an invention, and if the plaintiff was the true inventor. The court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff.
Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah
The appeal concerned a patent action regarding a novel chemical process for whitening almonds. The High Court examined whether the process constituted an invention, if the plaintiff was the original inventor, and addressed prior use defenses raised by the defendant's associates. The court ultimately allowed the appeal in favor of the plaintiff.
Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mahammad Yasin
The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (Design No. 43516). The defendants claimed that the design lacked novelty and that the plaintiff was not the true proprietor or author of the design, having learned it from others.
Mohammad Abdul Karim v.Mohammad Yasin And Anr.
The plaintiff sued for injunction and damages against the defendants, claiming exclusive rights over a registered brass tray design (No. 43516). The defense argued that the design was common knowledge and the plaintiff was not the true author or proprietor. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove proprietary rights.
National Carbon Co., Incorporated v.Bright Star Battery Company
The National Carbon Company held Patent No. 17148 of 1930 for dry cell batteries. After initial litigation, they sought to amend their patent specification under Section 17 of the Act. The Bright Star Battery Company opposed this application, arguing that a suit for infringement was pending and an appeal had been lodged against the dismissal of the original suit. The Court ultimately dismissed the amendment application.
Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd. v.Juggi Lal, Kamlapat Cotton Spinning And ...
The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd., finding that the plaintiffs had successfully established a reputation for their cotton goods under the trade name 'kamalchap' through continuous use of specific lotus flower designs and impressions. The court granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using colorable imitations of the marks. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to remove all infringing marks from their stock and pay substantial damages to the plaintiffs.
Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. v.E.S. Luard
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 8018, granted to E.S. Luard, arguing that it lacked novelty and invention, and was anticipated by prior art (Hardy's Patent and existing designs). The court found that the respondent's patent was not an improvement on the petitioner's design and disclosed no invention.
A.J. Von Wulfing v.D.H. Jivandas And Co.
The plaintiffs alleged that they had established a high reputation for chemical compounds sold under the names 'Sanatogen' and 'Formamint' in India. They sued the defendants, who were importing and selling similar goods at lower rates, alleging deception through the use of the marks and resemblance in packaging. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to their trade mark rights and ruled that the defendants' sale constituted infringement/passing off.
Jwala Prasad v.Raghubir Prasad
The appeal concerned questions arising from a partnership dispute involving patent rights to locks named "Kartoos" and "Impervis." The court addressed the scope of judicial power concerning patent ownership when it arises within a winding-up of a partnership, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Ernest Otto Gammeter v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Gammeter appealed against the cancellation of his watch band design registration by the Controller. The core legal issues were whether the Controller had the authority to cancel the registration based on a third party's application, and whether Gammeter's design constituted a novel invention.
Kheshtra Pal Sharama v.Pancham Singh Varma
This 1915 Allahabad High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement concerning medicinal products. The applicant, selling 'Sudha Sindhu,' sued the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered trademark through advertisements in Muttra. The court ruled that if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true—specifically, that the advertisement was calculated to induce confusion—then the trademark has been infringed within the jurisdiction of the local court. Consequently, the lower courts' decision to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds was set aside, allowing the case to proceed.
Bhathey Sundara Rajan And Ors. v.A.A. Kuppusami Iyer And Anr.
The appeal concerned an infringement suit regarding the 'Amp hill Patent Loom.' The court addressed whether defendants could raise defenses beyond those specified in the Patents Act, particularly concerning lack of subject matter. Ultimately, the appeals failed because the defendants were unable to discharge the burden of proving prior use before the patent application date.
M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House, Indore v.Sunilkumar A. Jain, Sole Prop. M/S ...
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction favoring M/S Mysore Deep Perfumery House against Sunilkumar A. Jain, despite disputes over additional pleadings and evidence. The court found that the defendant's claim of acquiescence was questionable, particularly because it relied on documents later alleged to be forged by the third party (Astha Sales). This interim relief allows the plaintiff to continue pursuing their trademark rights while the full case proceeds.
Maharashtra Safe Chemists And Distributors Alliance Limited v.Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit after noting that the disputed mark had already been removed from the register by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court accepted the defendant's affidavit stating that the trademark was never put into commercial operation, rendering all remaining claims for injunction and damages moot. This decision highlights how prior administrative actions (like rectification) can fundamentally alter the trajectory of a civil IP suit.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two original petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking the rectification and cancellation of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan. The court noted that the first respondent had subsequently initiated applications for the cancellation of the disputed registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Since the underlying issue was being addressed through administrative channels, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr
The Bombay High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Integrace Private Limited, restraining Mas Pharmachem from using the trademark 'BON K2 FORTE', which was found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BON - K2'. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff. The defendant's failure to defend the suit and their dishonest conduct were key factors in the court's decision. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
Lighthouse Learning Private Limited v.Sandeep Bansal
Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, the owner of the 'Eurokids' trademark, filed a suit against Sandeep Bansal for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an ad-interim relief in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using the 'Eurokids' trademark. The Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, showing that the Defendant had been using the 'Eurokids' trademark without authorization. The court also noted that the Plaintiff had been vigilant about its trademark, having filed several proceedings for infringement and passing off in the past.
Ms Origin Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms Origins Coffee
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ms Origin Nutrition Private Limited, restraining Ms Origins Coffee from using the trademark ORIGINS COFFEE, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ORIGIN NUTRITION. The court found that the defendant's use of the trademark ORIGINS COFFEE was an infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark. The injunction was granted pending disposal of the suit.
M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R
M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. filed a petition to cancel the trademark registration of Pradeep Kumar K.R. The court has initiated proceedings and framed issues for consideration, including prior user, proprietorship, and violation of the Trade Marks Act. The case has been listed after three weeks for further proceedings.
Eternal Limited v.Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Eternal Limited against an order granting an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction in favor of Eternl Resilienttech Private Limited, restraining Eternal Limited from using the mark 'Eternal' or any other mark deceptively similar to Eternl Resilinttech Private Limited's registered trademark. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable and that the remedy available to the appellant/defendant was to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. The court also directed the Trial Court to consider any such application within four weeks and pass appropriate orders on its merits.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc appealed against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their opposition to the registration of the mark GHOST BUSTER. The appellant argued that the mark is similar to their well-known trademark GHOSTBUSTERS and that the respondent had applied for registration in bad faith. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Registrar will now consider the appellant's contentions relating to alleged bad faith and the claim that the mark GHOSTBUSTERS is entitled to protection as a well-known trademark.
Symed Labs Limited v.Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited
Symed Labs Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Mr.Alla Venkata Reddy and Lee Pharma Limited for manufacturing and selling Linezolid, allegedly infringing their patents IN 213062 and IN 213063. However, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, and the court dismissed it as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The case highlights the importance of patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiff's decision to withdraw the suit may indicate a settlement or a strategic decision to focus on other legal battles.
Deepak Nitrite Limited v.The Assistant Controller General of Patents and Designs
The Bombay High Court set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing a patent application for a free-flowing food-grade sodium nitrite and its production method. The court held that the impugned order lacked adequate reasoning and analysis of the rival submissions. The patent application is to be decided afresh within 12 weeks. The court emphasized the importance of passing well-reasoned and speaking orders in patent cases.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents to reject the patent application of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. The application was rejected on the grounds of lack of novelty and non-patentability. The court held that the applicant failed to establish the novelty of the invention and that the invention did not meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The court also observed that the applicant had not provided sufficient data to support its claims of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Anr.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to the pharmaceutical industry and involves a dispute over the validity of a trademark. The court's decision is an interim order and does not provide a final judgment on the matter.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Bombay High Court framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' bearing registration No.2473300 in class 5, in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court ordered the tagging of Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2022 with the Suit and listed it for directions. The case is related to a pharmaceutical product and involves a dispute over trademark validity.
Procter and Gamble Health Limited v.Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court disposed of a commercial appeal and interim application related to trademark infringement and passing off. The court accepted the defendant's statement that they are not using the offending mark and have no intention to do so. The court clarified that the observations made in the earlier order shall not act as a precedent. The case involved the trademarks LIVOGEN and LIVOGEN-Z, and the defendant's mark LIVOGEM. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing misrepresentation and damage to goodwill in passing off cases.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited, allowing the appointment of an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trade mark/label. The court also directed the concerned police authorities to assist the Additional Special Receiver in the execution of the order. The plaintiff had filed a suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement, alleging that the defendant was using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'LAVIE' without permission.
Astral Ltd v.M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors
Astral Ltd filed a suit against M/S. Sri Sai Electricals & Ors for trademark infringement, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The defendants agreed to give up the use of the impugned marks and not to use any marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark ASTRAL. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with the defendants permitted to sell existing stock within five months.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors
The Delhi High Court awarded costs in favor of the defendant, M/S Bata India Ltd, in a design infringement suit filed by Crocs Inc Usa. The court directed the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 24,63,400/- to the defendant within three months. The suit was initially filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Design Registration no. 197685, but the court had earlier dismissed the interim injunction applications and allowed the defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of John Cockerill Hamon SA, restraining Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited from using the HAMON mark. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark was likely to cause confusion and deceive the public. The plaintiff had registered the HAMON mark in India and had been using it since 1963. The defendant's use of the mark was held to be an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights.
Geetanjali Salon Private Limited v.Ms. Amita Dubey & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Geetanjali Salon Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's trademarks 'GEETANJALI' and 'GEETANJALI STUDIO'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants were also restrained from passing off their services as those of the plaintiff.
Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld an order allowing an extension of time for filing an evidence affidavit in a trademark rectification proceeding, despite a delay of over three years. The court held that the deadline under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is directory, not mandatory. The case involved a dispute between two factions of the same family over the use of the 'Black Diamond' name in their respective businesses.
M/S. Psychotropic India Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Psychotropic India Limited, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to correct the class of goods in respect of Trademark Application No. 2038075 from Class 11 to Class 05. The petitioner had filed the application for the mark 'THIOPIL' in 2010, but due to an error, the application was processed under the wrong class. The court ordered the correction to be made within three weeks and the application to be processed expeditiously thereafter.
SML Limited v.M/s Happy Agro Chemicals
SML Limited filed a patent infringement suit against M/s Happy Agro Chemicals, alleging that the defendant's product 'SELZIC' infringes their patent rights under Indian Patent No.282092. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their patent rights. However, the court dismissed the application due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the alleged wrong was not committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to grant the interim injunction.
Havells India Limited v.Vijay
Havells India Limited sued Vijay for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction, restraining Vijay from using the HAVELLS trademark. The court also awarded damages and punitive damages to Havells India Limited. The case highlights the importance of protecting well-known trademarks in India.
Modern Snacks Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Ace Foods Private Limited
The Madras High Court condoned the delay of 118 days in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.4015735. The appeal was filed by Modern Snacks Private Limited against the order dated 04.07.2025. The court allowed the petition on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Chief Justice Relief Fund. This decision highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals in trademark opposition cases. The court's discretion in condoning delays can be crucial in determining the outcome of such cases.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal against a single judge's order denying an absolute interim injunction in a trademark dispute between More Than Water Private Limited and Nesco Limited. The court imposed a territorial restraint, allowing both parties to continue manufacturing and selling their products within their respective states. The court also directed the Registrar of Trademarks to take note of the restraint and make an appropriate noting in its register.
Ashiana Ispat Limited v.Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Ashiana Ispat Limited against a single judge's order granting an interim injunction in favor of Kamdhenu Limited. The court held that Ashiana Ispat Limited cannot use the mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' as it is deceptively similar to Kamdhenu Limited's registered marks. The court also issued directions to preserve the rights of both parties pending final determination of the suit.
Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Exotic Mile
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd against Exotic Mile, seeking to restrain the defendant from using the trademark BOULT, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks BOAT/boAt. The court found that the defendant had discontinued the use of the impugned marks and had transitioned to a new trademark, rendering the application without merit. The case highlights the importance of establishing undue hardship in seeking interim relief. The court's decision is significant as it demonstrates the application of trademark law principles in determining the similarity between marks and the potential for consumer confusion.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd filed an appeal against the refusal of interim injunction by the Single Judge in a trademark infringement case against Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent's mark 'PANTOPACID' is deceptively similar to their registered mark 'PANTOCID'. The Court allowed the appeal with directions, granting the Respondents liberty to dispose of their existing stock within a limited period.
M. Manuel v.Malabar Gold Private Ltd.
The Kerala High Court modified an injunction granted by the Trial Court, restraining the appellant from using any mark, label, logo, artistic work, trade dress or commercial presentation deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark and business identity. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired exclusive rights over the registered trade mark and trade name 'Malabar Gold' with the logo, and the defendant's mark 'Malabar Fashion Jewellery' and logo were deceptively similar. The court also found that the term 'Malabar' is a geographical expression and no exclusive proprietary right can be claimed over the said word in isolation.
Dr. G. Srinivasan v.M/s. Voltamp Transformers Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for infringing his patent related to Midget Transformers with built-in State node Circuit Breakers. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the infringement and revoked the patent.
Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Baghyaa Home Appliances, M/s.Maya Appliances Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its registered design for a tripod shaped base unit for mixer grinders by the defendants. The case involves a dispute over the originality and imitation of the design.
M/S. M.V.J Foods (India) Pvt.Ltd v.Devanand Shenoy
This Kerala High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging a trial court's order allowing the reopening of evidence in a trademark infringement suit. The original suit alleged that the defendants were passing off goods using the 'MELAM' brand, which was registered by the plaintiffs. The core dispute centered on whether a licensing agreement from 1994 could be introduced as evidence. The High Court found no prejudice to the defendant and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the case to proceed with the newly admitted evidence.
M.Manuvel v.Malabar Gold Pvt. Ltd
The Kerala High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M.Manuvel, which challenged a lower court's order regarding jurisdiction in a trademark and passing off suit. The core issue revolved around the defendant's late application to amend their written statement to raise objections concerning territorial jurisdiction. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held that without demonstrating due diligence before the trial commenced, such an amendment could not be allowed after the proceedings had started.
Sri.R.S.Praveen Raj v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
The Kerala High Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the trademark registration of religious symbols, specifically the picture of the Attukal deity. The petitioner argued that registering such an icon commercializes faith and violates fundamental rights. However, the court upheld the registrations, noting that while certain deities are prohibited from registration under specific government directions, the services registered (temple/social welfare) did not violate Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court cautioned against bypassing statutory remedies in favor of invoking Article 226.
M/S. Bipha Drug Laboratories v.Controller General Of Patent
M/S. Bipha Drug Laboratories filed a writ petition seeking the immediate issuance of its trademark registration certificate for 'SOMNA' in Class 5. Despite an order dismissing opposition in 2008, the petitioner had not received the official certificate. The Kerala High Court intervened and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to issue the certificate within two weeks. This judgment underscores the importance of statutory authorities adhering to their timelines even after favorable decisions are rendered.
Prof.D.Aravindakshan v.Union Of India
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Prof. D. Aravindakshan challenging the refusal of the Registrar of Companies to approve the name 'Agastya Bio-Tech Limited'. The court found that despite the petitioner's claims, the attempt to register a company with an identical name while disputes regarding the original entity ('Agastya Bio-pharm India Limited') were pending made the proposed name undesirable. This ruling underscores the strict application of corporate naming rules designed to prevent public confusion and deception.