India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 112 of 311 · 7,456 total
Abhinav Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'VISA EXPERTS - PARTNERING LIFE CHANGING DECISIONS' for visa and immigration consultancy services. The court ruled that the composite nature of the mark prevents it from being deemed merely descriptive under Section 9(1)(b). Furthermore, addressing the likelihood of confusion (Section 11(1)), the Court noted an agreement with the conflicting trademark owner to proceed provided a disclaimer of the word 'VISA' is included. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised for registration.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.
University Health Network v.Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
University Health Network filed a Writ Petition challenging the grant of Patent No.439474 to Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step. The appeal before the Madras High Court focused on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the patent application originated in Delhi.
Biofarma v.Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Biofarma seeking the removal of a registered trademark (No. 3599190) held by Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default.
Tirupati Foam Limited v.Shri Vignesware Fibres Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by Tirupati Foam Limited against the entry 'SLEEP LIKE A DREAM' (No.2064365) in Class 20. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default. This highlights the importance of diligent representation in trademark litigation.
Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. v.M/S Vans Inc Usa
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. challenging an interim order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the word mark 'IVANS'. The court noted that the petitioners had previously withdrawn their challenge to the same interim order, and therefore, any substantive arguments should be reserved for the final hearing of the underlying cancellation petition. This decision reinforces the principle that challenges to IP decisions must be pursued through appropriate procedural channels.
Dhama Innovations Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Dhama Innovations Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No. 628/CHE/2012, which related to a heat dissipation device. The appellant argued that the Controller erred by dissecting the combination into individual components for obviousness testing and failing to address their submissions on inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the dissection impermissible in law.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
The suit alleged infringement of several patents held by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories was manufacturing and exporting Olaparib API, violating their patent rights. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the Defendant from commercially launching the product before the patent expiry date, subject to Section 107A provisions.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
GSP Crop Science Private Limited filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian patent no. 298645 (IN645) granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. The petitioner argued that IN645 is invalid because its main patent has expired and it suffers from anticipation by prior claims.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents Designs
Syngenta Participations Ag filed an appeal challenging the Controller's decision to reject its Indian patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds of lacking inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that sufficient data existed to prove significant enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d). The court allowed applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents before directing notice and setting the matter for further hearing.
Enercon India Ltd. v.M/S. Wobben Properties GmbH
Enercon India Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220033 granted by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. Both parties submitted that the term of the said patent had expired on November 7, 2023.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian Patent No. 314523, granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & FMC Corporation. Natco argues that since the main related patent (IN 204978) expired in March 2021 and has identical claims, IN523 is invalid and liable for revocation.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd
The dispute between Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd and Synergy Insecticides Pvt Ltd was settled out of court. The Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in products protected by Indian Patent 394568, which covers specific formulations.
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.