India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 100 of 299 · 7,167 total
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Https://Www.Cyberxg.Top/ And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Inter Ikea Systems Bv's application to implead the registrars of the infringing domain names in the ongoing trademark suit. This crucial procedural step allows the plaintiff to directly target the parties responsible for operating the websites, strengthening their case against trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court extended the existing injunction order to these newly added defendants, maintaining the status quo until the final judgment.
Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Union Of India
This judgment addresses a batch of suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (IMBRUVICA). The writ petition filed by Laurus Labs challenged the earlier decision of the IPAB. The Delhi High Court decided applications for interim relief in these cases. While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits, allowing them only to exhaust existing stock under strict conditions.
Pharmacyclics, Llc & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of patent infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Natco Pharma Limited. The core dispute revolves around the unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug covered by Indian Patent 262968. The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug while the suits are pending. However, it allowed them to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
M/s. Ramcides CropScience Pvt. Ltd. v.Kingdao Agrochem (India) Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (No. 299036) concerning 'ZINC HEDP -17%' by the defendant's product, 'Legion Zinc: Zn HEDP 17.0%'. The dispute was settled when the defendant submitted an Undertaking Affidavit agreeing to cease all infringing activities and pay compensation.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals Internationals Private Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation and Novartis AG seeking protection of their patent (IN 269841) covering the anti-cancer drug RUXOLITINIB. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had obtained manufacturing approval for this compound, leading to a quia timet action. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from commercially manufacturing or launching RUXOLITINIB without court permission.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications and noted that the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had filed a counterclaim under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of the Plaintiff's patent IN 363203.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited
This judgment addresses a batch of suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC concerning the alleged infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (marketed as IMBRUVICA). The court heard applications for interim relief in these patent infringement cases. While dismissing one writ petition, the Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits. However, it allowed defendants to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr.
This judgment addresses a batch of six infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Shilpa Medicare Limited. The core dispute revolves around the alleged unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug protected by Indian Patent 262968 (IN'968). The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug pending the final disposal of the suits.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. / Natco Pharma Limited / Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd / Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr. / Alkem Laboratories Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of six suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants who were launching or had launched the generic version of the patented drug. While the court dismissed one related writ petition, it granted interim relief restraining all defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending the final disposal of the suits. Furthermore, the court allowed defendants to exhaust their existing stock, provided they file an affidavit detailing the batch numbers and expiry dates.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
Walter Bushnell Private Limited & Anr. v.Ramesh Juneja & Ors.
Walter Bushnell Private Limited filed a petition seeking contempt action against Ramesh Juneja and others for violating an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order. The IPAB had previously directed the removal of the trademark 'DROTIKIND' (Registration No. 1309918). Despite this directive, the respondent renewed the impugned trademark. Consequently, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their appearance and initiating proceedings related to the alleged violation.
Phoola Rani v.Anita Kharbanda & Anr.
Phoola Rani filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Respondent No. 1's registered trademark 'PREM DI HATTI' (No. 2543229) in Class 43, arguing that she has been using the mark extensively since 1969 for similar food and restaurant services. The court found that the Petitioner prima facie is an aggrieved party due to the similarity of the marks and business purposes. Consequently, notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was scheduled for further proceedings.
M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited v.Selvam Hardwares
In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
Inventprise, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Inventprise, Inc. challenged the requirement of prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) concerning its patent application for a 'Heat Stable Liquid Rotavirus Vaccine.' The NBA had previously insisted on compliance with Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, citing the use of human rotavirus strain isolated in India. However, Inventprise argued that the subject matter did not constitute a 'biological resource' under the Act. Recognizing this core dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the NBA Expert Committee to conduct a personal hearing and issue a reasoned order on whether the invention falls within the scope of the Biological Diversity Act.
ABBVIE Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
ABBVIE Inc. appealed the refusal by the Deputy Controller of Patents to grant a patent for two polymorphic forms (Forms A and B) of the compound RTA-408. The appellant argued that these forms exhibited superior stability and properties, and that Section 3(d) did not apply because RTA-408 was not considered a known substance in this context. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the patent to proceed for grant on claims 1-6.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Oplus Mobitech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Koninklijke Philips N.V., filed suit alleging infringement of five Indian patents covering SEPs essential to 3G/4G telecommunication standards by the Defendants, who manufacture and sell OnePlus smartphones. The court addressed an application for a pro-tem arrangement, recognizing the importance of these SEPs in industry standards.
M/s Levi Strauss & Company v.Vishal Kashyap
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Vishal Kashyap alleging that he was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the defendant had illegally adopted the plaintiff's distinctive features and infringed upon its rights.
Priya Randolph v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision rejecting their patent application (201641026786) on the grounds that the invention was a 'business method' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The court examined the claims, which related to concealing physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software and hardware. The High Court held that the monopoly claim was on a technical solution for data privacy, not merely a business method.
M/s Meenu Electric Co. v.M/s Dynamic Electricals; M/s Golden Cab Industries; M/s Vijay Cable Co.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside a trial court's order that had stayed an infringement suit. The core issue was whether the defendants could invoke Section 124 of the Trademarks Act to halt proceedings pending rectification before the IPAB. The Court ruled that merely having rectification applications filed during the pendency of the suit is insufficient; the plea of invalidity must be raised specifically and before the commencement of trial, otherwise, it is deemed abandoned.
Balanced Body Inc. v.Yasmins Body Image Private Limited & Anr.
Balanced Body Inc., a U.S.-based company, filed suit against Yasmins Body Image Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents related to 'REFORMER EXERCISE APPARATUS' and 'ARM CORD SUPPORT RISERS'. The court examined evidence showing that the Defendant No.1 was operating gyms with machines clearly mapping on the Plaintiff's granted patents. Consequently, the Court issued directions for the Defendant No.1 to disclose the source and quantity of the alleged infringing equipment.
NEC Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
NEC Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its Patent Application No.7830/CHENP/2014, which was based on the alleged violation of Section 7(2) of the Patents Act due to the date of declaration by an inventor. The court held that there is a distinction between the date of assignment and the date of declaration, finding the impugned order unsustainable.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application sought to determine the method of inquiry regarding whether certain moulds/dyes were infringing material, considering the original patent had expired. The court considered the request for an independent scientific adviser under Section 115 but proceeded by allowing the parties to file their respective expert affidavits.