India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 103 of 299 · 7,167 total
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble challenged the Controller's order refusing its 'Detergent Compositions' patent application due to lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, citing a four-year delay in processing and the Patent Office failing to grant adequate time for responding to objections raised under Section 8(2) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court agreed with the appellant, finding the process contrary to natural justice and statutory timelines.
University Of Guelph v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The University of Guelph filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated July 26, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 642/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and statutory exclusions under the Patents Act, 1970.
Ask Automotive Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar (Manoj Mudgal)
The plaintiff company, ASK Automotive Pvt Ltd, filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant, Manoj Mudgal, was manufacturing and selling goods (brake shoes) bearing the identical or deceptively similar trademark/trade dress 'ASK', thereby infringing on the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrights. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Sintex Industries Ltd. v.Acme Tale Power Ltd And Anr (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited)
Sintex Industries Ltd filed a rectification petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 2137154, titled "Phase Change Material," which was granted to Acme Tele Power Limited (now Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited). The court considered an affidavit from the respondent confirming that while they were previously in the telecom industry, their current focus is renewable energy and solar power projects. Crucially, the respondent stated they had no objection to the patent being revoked prospectively.
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
E. I. Dupont De Nemours And Company filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated December 16, 2019, which refused to grant Indian patent application no. 1845/DELNP/2011. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and objections under Sections 3(e) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
M/s.Indian Immunologicals Ltd. v.Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order, allowing M/s. Indian Immunologicals Ltd. (the appellant) to register the trade mark 'INIMOX'. The dispute centered on whether 'INIMOX' was deceptively similar to the prior registered mark 'IMOX' held by Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Court found that despite the similarity, there was no likelihood of confusion because the marks were used in distinct channels—one for veterinary injections and the other for human capsules—and mandated that registration be conditional on its use only for animal health products.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s. PGR E-Commerce Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited against M/s. PGR E-Commerce Private Limited. The petitioner had sought the rectification and cancellation of Trade Mark No. 3848331 from the Register of Trade Marks. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on scheduled dates despite proper notice, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
M/S Ralson (India) Limited v.Shri. Surinder Singla
The Delhi High Court dismissed M/s Ralson's appeal challenging the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss their opposition against the 'RANCHO' trademark. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email constituted valid notice, especially when no explicit email ID was provided in the initial opposition filing. The court held that while general rules allow for electronic service, specific statutory requirements must be met, distinguishing this case from prior precedents. However, recognizing Ralson's substantive claims, the Court granted them liberty to file a cancellation petition against the registered mark.
The Himalaya Durg Company & Ors v.Himalya International Ltd
In this ongoing trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application by the defendant seeking permission to file fresh evidence. Despite objections from the plaintiffs that the new defense went beyond pleadings, the court permitted the filing of the affidavit in evidence (DW-1). The court also reminded both parties about the long pendency of the case and directed a day-to-day trial to expedite proceedings.
Ralson India Limited v.Sham Lal M/S Ramesh Lal And Sons And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ralson India Limited against the Trade Marks Registry's decision that had allowed the registration of 'R RALSON'. The core issue revolved around whether service of documents via email, facilitated through an agent's filing (Form TM-M), constituted valid service under the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that while general court practice allows for email service, in this specific trade mark opposition context, the validity of service depended on clear provisions within the application or notice itself; however, it granted Ralson liberty to pursue a cancellation petition based on the mark's registered status.
Dsm Ip Assets B.V. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Dsm Ip Assets B.V. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to overturn an order refusing to grant a patent on Application No. 3957/CHENP/2011. The appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court because the appellant failed to appear in court at the hearing, despite being served notice.
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.M/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and an Appeal before the Madras High Court challenging orders related to patent matters. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and relief regarding the impugned order dated December 12, 2019. The court dismissed the TCMP(PT)/3/2023, consequently dismissing the appeal at the SR stage.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Jai Farm Chemicals Pvt Ltd
The dispute between Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) and Jai Farm Chemicals Pvt Ltd (Defendant) regarding infringement of Indian Patent 394568 was settled. The Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the patented formulation and undertook not to infringe the patent during its lifetime.
Helix Biomedix Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helix Biomedix Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Short Bio-Active Peptides for Cellular and Immunological Modulation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(c) because the claimed peptides were derived from Hyalophora cecropia (Cecropia moth). The High Court set aside the order, finding that the respondent failed to address the appellant's submissions regarding the chemical synthesis of the peptides.
Laser Shaving (India) Private Limited v.Carborundum Universal Ltd.
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Laser Shaving (India) Private Limited against Carborundum Universal Ltd. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration for the mark 'LASER' in Class 3, citing the first respondent's admission that they were not using the impugned trade mark. This decision reinforces the principle that non-use can lead to the removal of a registered trademark.
M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between M/S F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and M/S Modern Machinery Stores G.T. Road. The court noted that the matter was pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Consequently, the judge requested the mediator to expedite the proceedings and listed the case for further hearing on December 7, 2023.
M/S Loreal S.A. v.Ravi Gandhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Loreal S.A., setting aside a lower court order that had permitted respondents to use the trademark 'MABELLE' as part of their corporate name and business communications. The Court clarified that while Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, addresses trade names, the unauthorized use of a registered mark in this manner still constitutes infringement under other sections, specifically Section 29(6)(d). This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to registered trademarks against deceptive similarity and commercial exploitation.
Havells India Limited v.Polycab India Limited
Havells India Limited filed a suit alleging design piracy against Polycab India Limited concerning three registered designs for ceiling fans. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's ELANZA and ELEGANZ PLUS ranges infringed the plaintiff's 2016, 2021, and 2022 designs. The court examined the specific features of each design, particularly focusing on surface patterns and overall configuration. The judgment found that while the injunction against Polycab's ELANZA range regarding the 2016 design was maintained, the claims concerning the 2021 and 2022 designs were dismissed. The court concluded that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of piracy for these latter two designs due to marked differences in their surface patterns.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its divisional patent application (8584/DELNP/2007). The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. However, the court disposed of the appeal because the term of the parent patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Sudpita Dey Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Ors.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated January 11, 2022, which refused to grant a patent for 'Insecticidal Composition'. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for final hearing.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble Company appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents and Designs which refused its patent application for 'A DETERGENT COMPOSITION COMPRISING LIPASE VARIANT'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art. P&G argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles due to procedural delays.
International Foodstuffs Co. Llc v.Vijay Kumar Mittal And Pawan Kumar And ...
The dispute between International Foodstuffs Co. Llc and Vijay Kumar Mittal was resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, acknowledging each other's proprietary rights in the trademark 'ALLEGRO' across different product categories and jurisdictions. This resolution required both parties to withdraw existing legal actions and abide by specific usage restrictions for the mark.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahmud Trading as VKD Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries seeking the removal of the trade mark 'PPL Light' from the register. The case was resolved because the respondent, Mahmud Trading as VKD Industries, provided an affidavit undertaking not to use the impugned mark and committed to filing an application for its cancellation with the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the petition on its merits.
Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd. v.Manish Sharma And Anr
The Delhi High Court formally accepted a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Yuvi Aspiring Pvt. Ltd., Manish Sharma, and Unifique Hospitality International Pvt. Ltd. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, which involved the transfer of the registered trademark 'The Drunken Botanist' from Manish Sharma to the third party for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Crucially, the settlement also included a waiver by the first party of all future claims related to the trademark.