India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 1 of 299 · 7,167 total
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
AstraZeneca AB and another plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The defendant agreed to withdraw its counter-claim of invalidity and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour. The court disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement and granted refund of court fees to the plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca AB sued USV Private Limited for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. Under the settlement, USV agreed to withdraw its invalidity counterclaim and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 157/2020. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, making the Settlement Agreement part of the decree.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
V-Guard Industries, proprietor of the well-known 'V-GUARD' mark with a Kangaroo device, applied for registration of the label mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16 (Application No. 3254001). Kangaro Industries opposed the application but failed to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed time under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, instead seeking an extension under Section 131 read with Rule 109. The Assistant Registrar rejected the extension and held the opposition deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2). The single judge reversed this order, but the Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, holding that Rule 45 prescribes a specific time limit with express consequences for default, and Section 131/Rule 109 discretionary extension cannot override the mandatory provisions of Rule 45.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian patents IN'056 and IN'246, while Nokia had filed a separate infringement suit (CS(COMM) 643/2025) against Asustek alleging infringement of patents IN'507 and IN'105. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Delhi High Court allowed Asustek to withdraw the revocation petitions and disposed of them with liberty to reinstitute proceedings in accordance with law if so required.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG sued Torrent Pharmaceuticals for infringement of Indian Patent No. 275655 covering the anti-cancer drug Dabrafenib. Torrent accepted summons and voluntarily undertook not to manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any Dabrafenib-containing API or formulation during the patent's validity. The Delhi High Court accepted the undertaking as part of the decree, effectively granting Novartis the relief of a permanent injunction without contest, while preserving Torrent's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act to use the compound for research purposes.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' registered in Class 03 in favour of Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, which the court found lawful. Pursuant to the settlement, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the Register to maintain its purity.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenged the dismissal of its opposition (No. 1075195) against respondent no.2's trademark application (No. 1606126) for the mark '20-20' in Class 30. The Registrar dismissed the opposition, the Single Judge upheld that order, and the Division Bench also dismissed Parle's Letters Patent Appeal. The court held that Parle, having claimed before the Registry that its mark was dissimilar to the cited mark to obtain registration, could not later claim deceptive similarity to seek equitable relief against the registered proprietor. The respondent no.2's diligent pursuit of registration was upheld, and Parle's intervening use of the same mark was given no special benefit.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
MRF Limited, a well-known manufacturer of tyres and automotive products, filed suit against Mr. Aas Mohammed, who was operating under the trade name 'MRF Batteries' in New Delhi. MRF sought interim injunctions on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement of original artworks, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The Madras High Court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of MRF's registered trademarks across multiple classes (1, 9, 12, and 35), granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and ordered notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), sought an ad interim injunction against Orange Biotech and others who were using the mark 'ORG 9' for a similar pharmaceutical product. The Madras High Court found prima facie trademark infringement, noting that the alpha-numeric mark ORG-9 was deceptively similar to the registered mark ARG-9, and relied on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740-742 of 2025 where a similar mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. The court granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)
Cipla Limited filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972 in Class 5), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court allowed restoration, and the Registrar subsequently updated the status to 'Registered'. A third-party applicant then sought impleadment and recall of the restoration order, arguing that the Registrar had not followed Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and that the applicant had not been heard. The court dismissed the third-party applications, holding that renewal/restoration is strictly between the Trademark Registry and the registered proprietor, and any aggrieved third party must pursue rectification proceedings rather than intervening in restoration proceedings.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Incyte Holdings sued Macleods Pharmaceuticals for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering the novel compound Ruxolitinib, used in treating myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. Macleods had listed Ruxolitinib products as 'Under Development' in its US CTD Product List and was offering the API for sale on Pharmacompass. The defendant gave an undertaking not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity (expiring 12.12.2026), and the suit was disposed of with the undertaking binding the defendant while preserving its Section 107A research rights.
Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
Nature Coatings Inc has filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent for Application No. 202227024750. The court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, who accepted notice through counsel, with timelines set for filing reply and rejoinder.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed against the refusal of its patent application No. 450/DELNP/2015 directed to a pharmaceutical combination of a B-Raf inhibitor (encorafenib), an EGFR inhibitor (cetuximab/erlotinib), and optionally a PI3K-alpha inhibitor. The Controller had refused the application citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning deficient on multiple grounds, including failure to properly assess synergistic technical advancement, mechanical application of Section 3(d) without analyzing enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and incorrect interpretation of Section 3(i) as barring the claimed product combination. The court remanded the matter for de novo reconsideration with directions to decide within six months.
Alka Industrial Corporation v.Satyapaul And Co & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a trademark rectification/variation order in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022, where the Single Judge had directed variation of the registered mark 'AiC ARUN' (Reg. No. 1524226 in Class 7) under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act by deleting the word 'ARUN'. The Division Bench did not disturb the substantive direction but permitted the appellant to dispose of its existing stock of AIC Arun branded goods and packing material valued at approximately Rs. 8.50 lakhs within six months. The order balances the rights of the registered proprietor with the practical need to exhaust pre-existing inventory following a trademark variation order.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Opella Healthcare Group, part of the Sanofi Group and registered proprietor of the well-known pharmaceutical trademark PHENSEDYL (used in India since 1995), sued Pureca Laboratories for adopting the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a copycat trade dress for identical cough syrup products. The Defendant's trademark registration (No. 3791026) and copyright registration (No. A-130319/2019) had already been cancelled by the Court in prior rectification proceedings. With the Defendant failing to appear and being set ex parte, the Court granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that the Defendant had no real prospect of defending the claims and that the Plaintiff had established both trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off.
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed a patent infringement suit against Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing in the allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at a project site in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The court extended the previously granted interim injunction until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks for further hearing.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed a patent revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent IN'206. Nokia had separately filed CS(COMM) 643/2025 alleging infringement of patent nos. 424507 and 338105. During pendency, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. Consequently, the Delhi High Court permitted withdrawal of the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Jagdish Dahyalal Patel challenging an ex-parte ad-interim injunction that restrained him from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, which was found deceptively similar to Anchor Consumer Products' registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The appellant argued that the respondent suppressed material facts regarding his prior use since June 2021, but the court held that the 45 GST invoices could not overcome the Registrar's finding of no bona fide user and the established deceptive similarity. The court upheld the Single Judge's detailed reasoning and found no suppression warranting interference with the injunction.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
Hamilton Housewares, makers of the Milton Pickle Container, sued Yogi Products, makers of the Apex Pickle Container, alleging trade dress infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement in their artistic works, industrial drawings, and product packaging. The parties settled the dispute through Consent Terms executed in court, with the defendant submitting to a decree on admission encompassing all the injunction reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. The court accepted the Consent Terms as undertakings to the court and disposed of the suit accordingly.
SAPAT International Private Limited v.Niravi Consumer LLP and Ors.
SAPAT International Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the trademark 'SAPAT' in Class 30 for tea (with roots tracing back to 1944/1957), sued Niravi Consumer LLP and related entities for trademark infringement and passing off after the defendants began using 'SAPAT' alongside their brand 'NIRAVI' on tea outlets and signages following termination of supply arrangements. The court had earlier recorded the defendants' statement on 28 January 2025 that they would not use 'SAPAT' on packaged tea. In IA(L) 18951/2025, the plaintiff alleged violation of that order, but the court held the statement was confined to packaged tea and the defendants were selling loose tea under the trading name Sapat & Co. Nashik, dismissing the violation application. However, the court found that the use of signages and invoices bearing 'SAPAT' did constitute infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd., part of the ADS Group of liquor companies, appealed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages. The Registrar had refused registration under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark was a common/personal/geographical name and non-distinctive. The Delhi High Court held that the Registrar applied the wrong test, since Section 9(1)(a) bars marks devoid of distinctive character but does not require uniqueness, novelty, or inventiveness as a precondition for registration. The court found the impugned order to be non-speaking and perverse, showing complete non-application of mind, and quashed it while directing reconsideration.
SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.
SRF Limited has filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 296159 held by Arkema Inc & Anr. under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The court disposed of several procedural interlocutory applications—granting exemption from filing certain certificates, permitting additional documents, and issuing notice to the respondents. The matter has been listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on 27 October 2026.
Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.