India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 102 of 311 · 7,456 total
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1783/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order did not properly assess non-obviousness, failing to apply established legal principles regarding inventive step analysis. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Galaxy Packtech Private Limited v.Ashok Chaturvedi & Anr.
The petition seeks revocation of patent No. 282428 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contends that they are an aggrieved person and that the Patent Office overlooked relevant prior art disclosures regarding the patented invention.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect appealed the Controller of Patents' rejection of its patent application concerning a method for treating insects. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adequately analyze the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art, particularly regarding higher protein content and lower fat content. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of its divisional patent application (No. 201918017795), which was rejected on grounds including conflict with the parent application and non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the Assistant Controller evaluated the application based on claims that had been waived by the appellant, leading to inconsistencies in the refusal order.
Adama India Private Limited v.FMC Corporation & Anr.
This order addresses multiple suits filed in the Delhi High Court concerning patent infringement. Adama India Private Limited has sought a declaration that its CTPR manufacturing process does not infringe FMC Corporation's patent (IN 298645), while FMC Corporation seeks permanent injunction against Adama India for infringement.
Burberry Limited v.M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Burberry Limited filed a claim against M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors., alleging that the defendants' perfumes bearing 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL' marks were deceptively similar to Burberry's registered trademarks and trade dress. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders, including granting exemptions for document filing and directing the defendants to provide a detailed affidavit regarding all goods manufactured under the impugned marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement and passing off.
Manking Pharma Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Manking Pharma Limited seeking the removal of the trademark 'DOLOBENE' from the register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the original petition for default.
Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Elder Projects Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd, restraining Elder Projects Ltd and its representatives from issuing baseless threats of legal action against the plaintiffs concerning the use of the trademark 'ELDER' and 'ELDERVIT'. The court relied heavily on a prior judgment establishing that the registered ownership of the 'ELDER' mark belongs to Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), which is currently in liquidation. This ruling protects the plaintiffs from harassment while maintaining that the interim order does not grant them absolute entitlement to use the trademark.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Zenon Healthcare Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Zenon Healthcare Limited and Krishnam Bio-Tech alleging trademark and copyright infringement related to its product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINOZVIT, as well as relief for passing off and unauthorized reproduction of artistic works. Both parties ultimately resolved their dispute amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise.
Victaulic Company v.Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Mechanical Pipe Coupling having Spacers' on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The appellant argued that its invention, featuring a collapsible spacer, provided an advantage not present in the cited prior art (D1 and D2).
Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
Gopaljee Foods v.Subhash Chand & Ors.
In Gopaljee Foods vs Subhash Chand & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes, noting that an ex-parte ad interim injunction previously granted in favor of the petitioner regarding trademark infringement had been confirmed by a Coordinate Bench. The court also noted attempts by respondents to revive abandoned trademarks and make changes to user dates, requiring them to place supporting documentation on record for further consideration.
Kewal Krishan Bansal Propreitor Of Ms Vee Pee Bansal And Company v.Puneet Chhabra Propreitor Of Rama Wire Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application to vacate an interim injunction granted in a trademark and passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff's prior registration history, spanning from 1979, coupled with their copyright registration, strongly supported the initial finding of infringement. The judge noted the suspicious timing of the defendant's attempts to register identical marks after the plaintiff's mark was temporarily removed from the registry due to non-renewal, buttressing the decision to maintain the injunction.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed a petition challenging a notice issued regarding a pre-grant opposition filed by respondent no. 3 against its Indian Patent Application. Vertex claims that the opposition could not have been filed after the Controller had already decided to proceed with the grant of the patent.
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner filed an Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to reverse a prior order by the Controller General of Patents regarding patent application 201841047838 and grant the patent in their favor. The petition also included a request for condonation of delay. However, the court noted that attempts to serve the Registry notice on the petitioner failed as the petitioner was not present at the given address. Consequently, the Court closed the appeal/petition.
Spencer'S Retail Limited v.Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others
Spencer'S Retail Limited filed a suit against Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others, alleging trademark infringement. The plaintiff argued that the City Civil Court was not the proper forum for seeking relief due to restrictions in the City Civil Courts Act, 1953, and because the matter had already been adjudicated.
Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.
M/s.Haryana Soap Factory (Sh.Krishan Kumar Jain) v.Sh.A.J.Saravanan & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment confirms the dismissal of Transfer Original Petitions filed by M/s.Haryana Soap Factory seeking rectification of specific trademarks (936165 and 1833170). The court noted that both parties had reached a compromise regarding the underlying dispute, which was formalized in a memo recorded by the District Court, Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their claims, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.
Rukmini Devi And Ors. v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of an alleged trademark assignment by the Registrar. The core dispute involved complex succession issues among the heirs of the original assignor, leading to multiple conflicting claims regarding the validity of the deed. Recognizing the ongoing litigation and disputes, the court did not rule on the merits but instead directed the petitioner to file comprehensive objections with the Trademark Registry. This move ensures that the assignment is subject to a fresh de novo review and hearing, effectively pausing the previous decision.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v.Indu Devi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'GOLDY,' held by Indu Devi. The court found that despite minor visual differences, the first respondent's mark was strikingly and deceptively similar to the petitioner's established marks ('GOLDIEE'). This decision reinforces the principle that phonetic similarity can outweigh superficial design elements in trademark disputes.
Dr. Vandana Parvez v.The Controller of Patents Office of Controller General of Patents
The appellants appealed the rejection of their patent application for a method/system related to interactive online digital content. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty based on prior art D1 (the appellants' own withdrawn application). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that citing the appellant's own withdrawn application as prior art was invalid and directing the Patent Office to expunge it from the public domain.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a communication system. The appellant argued that the grounds of rejection were not properly disclosed or overlooked by the Controller. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.