India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 103 of 311 · 7,456 total
Mitsui Chemicals Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemicals Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3877/DELNP/2009), which was rejected on grounds that the claims were unpatentable as a 'method of agriculture' (Section 3(h)) and that amendments violated Section 59. The Appellant argued that the original PCT filing supported the amended composition claims, making the refusal invalid.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
F- Hoffmann -La Roche filed a suit for infringement against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning two patents related to Pertuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in cancer treatment. The court issued several procedural orders and directed both parties to provide exhaustive legal and scientific assistance, including disclosing experts and considering an independent Scientific Advisor, while the core issue of formulation identity remains pending.
Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others
The petitioner filed an application seeking the revocation of a suit patent granted to the respondents. The dispute involved whether a previous undertaking given by the respondents, restricting them from hindering the petitioner's business through distributors, should continue. The court ultimately held that the undertaking was no longer sustained.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.Life Style International Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'SPICE IT UP (Label)' registered in favor of Life Style International Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on the scheduled date. Consequently, the entire original petition was dismissed for default.
Tempting Brands Ag v.Mr.Parasmal Purohit
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Tempting Brands Ag, ordering the cancellation of Mr. Parasmal Purohit's registered trademark (No. 1690863). The court found that the respondent had literally copied the petitioner's mark, making only a minor cosmetic change ('66' to '69'). The judgment strongly condemned this act as theft and dishonest adoption, reinforcing the principle of protecting prior rights against subsequent imitation.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Pushpendra Yadav v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd
Pushpendra Yadav challenged an interim court order that restrained him from selling water purifiers or using specific marks, citing alleged infringement of Kent Ro Systems' registered design and trademarks. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction primarily because the relevant Design No.219309 had expired. However, the court clarified that it did not rule on the merits of the passing off claim, which remains under consideration.
BMI Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Another
The appeal challenges the refusal of a patent application (No. 202017020602) by the Assistant Controller, which was based on non-compliance with Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Controller's reasoning regarding prior art was cursory and lacked sufficient justification. The Court found the existing reasoning insufficient and issued notice to the Respondents for reconsideration.
Ht Media Limited v.Coolboots Media Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Ht Media Limited against Coolboots Media Private Limited. The court addressed several procedural applications, granting exemptions and setting timelines for filing documents. Crucially, the court also initiated interim injunction proceedings regarding the alleged misuse of similar marks ('SHINE' vs 'OUTSHINE') and directed both parties to explore mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
S.Sudhakar v.K.Priya
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed for the rectification of the Trademarks Register, directing the cancellation of K. Priya's 'UDAYA MASALA' mark. The court relied on a prior final judgment in an infringement suit which had already established that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered marks ('UDHAIYAM'). This decision reinforces the principle that successful infringement litigation can serve as a basis for seeking cancellation of confusingly similar trademarks.
Sequenom, Inc And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellants challenged the rejection of their Indian Patent Application No. 2476/DELNP/2011 by The Controller of Patents on multiple grounds, including Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the challenge under Section 3(i) is being deliberated in a batch of appeals before another Bench, the Court decided to tag this appeal for hearing before that same Bench to ensure uniformity.
Addala Sitamahalakshmi v.State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, a publishing house, challenged G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010, which restricted book printing rights to one entity (Respondent No.4), leading to an inspection and seizure of the petitioner's books. The petitioner argued that their business was being unfairly targeted and that non-literary scientific books are not protected by copyright.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application for 'Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventiveness and indefinite claims violating Section 10(4). The High Court found procedural flaws in the rejection order, particularly regarding the sudden introduction of certain objections, and allowed the appeal.
Mehboob Ahmad v.Muneer Ahmad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the rejection of a device mark application for painting brushes. While the court upheld the finding that the mark was registrable (i.e., it had distinctive character), it noted that the initial Examiner's order failed to address objections under Section 11(1) regarding similarity with earlier marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Examiner, directing them to proceed only on the grounds of Section 11(1) and allowing the registration process to continue.
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v.Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products challenging the 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' trademark held by Capital Foods. While acknowledging that the core issue—whether the mark is descriptive or generic—is pending before a Division Bench, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the registration. Instead, the Court prioritized determining its own territorial jurisdiction over the matter, setting up further hearings to resolve this critical legal question.
Mustafa Raza Dhorajiwala Sole Proprietor of M/s Kemei India v.Dinesh Kumar Proprietor of M/S Jai Laxmi Marketing and Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Kemei India against a copyright registration held by Jai Laxmi Marketing. The petitioner argues that the 'KEMEI' mark was improperly registered as a copyright despite its prior existence and registration as a trademark in 2013. The court has initiated proceedings, issuing notice to all parties and setting a timeline for filing replies, moving the case toward substantive dispute resolution.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Saraswati Devi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Ms. Saraswati Devi and others. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case that the Defendants' use of 'KHADI BHANDAR' is deceptively similar to its registered KHADI Trademarks and Charkha Logos, leading to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from using the infringing marks in relation to identical goods.
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Aratana Therapeutics appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201747026233), which related to a weight-gaining compound for animals with chronic maladies. The appellant argued that their claims were limited to oral administration methods and did not claim a permanent cure, contrary to the Controller's interpretation under Section 3(i).
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed an order dated June 21, 2022, passed by the Patent Officer rejecting their patent application. The application, filed in 2017 as a national phase PCT filing, relates to video coding and decoding technology.
Shri Dhiraj Kumar v.R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Shri Dhiraj Kumar against R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd. The petitioner had challenged an injunction granted by the District Judge, arguing procedural flaws related to pre-litigation mediation and statutory bars under the Trade Marks Act. The High Court ruled that since the parties had already engaged in and failed mediation, re-arguing the necessity of pre-institution mediation was untenable. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's plea regarding appeal restrictions under the TM Act, allowing the original suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off to continue.
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks; K.Suma Trading as Suma Oil Agencies
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark registration, arguing it was deceptively similar to its own mark. The petitioner also noted that the rival trademark had expired and not been renewed. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as having become infructuous, effectively upholding the status quo regarding the challenged registration.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Orchid Healthcare (A Division Of)
The Madras High Court allowed Alkem Laboratories Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's decision to register 'TAXTAM'. The court found that despite the registry listing several differences (such as product type or price), the marks 'TAXIM' and 'TAXTAM' were phonetically and visually deceptively similar. Citing established legal precedent, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the rectification of the Trademark Register to protect Alkem's prior rights.
Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a previous rejection by the Trade Marks Registry. The core issue was the similarity between the appellant's registered word mark 'ORKID' and the respondent's applied-for word mark 'ORZID' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products). The Court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were visually similar and capable of causing confusion, thereby directing the rectification of the trademark register.
Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Chirec Public School's petition seeking to expunge a registered trademark (CHIREC) belonging to Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited. The court held that since the petitioner had not obtained prior leave from the trial court, and was reserving its right to file a fresh rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the current filing was legally unsustainable. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for challenging trademark registrations.