India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 113 of 311 · 7,456 total
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.
ATC IP LLC & Anr. v.Owner Of <Https://Atcindiatower. In/> & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of ATC IP LLC, granting a permanent injunction against the operators of infringing domain names. The court found that the defendants' websites copied the plaintiffs' registered trademarks ('ATC', 'ATC India') and logos, causing potential misuse. Furthermore, the court ordered NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the infringing domain name www.atctower.in to ATC IP LLC, effectively resolving the dispute through summary judgment.
Tvs Electronics Limited v.Jitender Kumar
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tvs Electronics Limited against a lower court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. The plaintiff, owner of the 'TVS Electronics' mark, sought restraint against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to CCTV cameras. However, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised regarding the balance of convenience, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark subject to maintaining accounts.
Vega Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Sagar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Vega Industries challenging the registration of the trademark 'VIGA' by Vinod Sagar Jain. While noting that the correct remedy for the appellant might be rectification, the court preliminarily found no cause for grievance if certain listed products were excluded from the scope of goods. The stay application filed by Vega was ultimately rejected, and the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. v.Wefrew Educations P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. against Wefrew Educations P. Ltd., finding that Vidya Mandir had a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of its trademarks and proprietary course materials. The court observed that Wefrew was allegedly using these assets while simultaneously claiming disassociation, causing potential irreparable harm to the petitioner. Consequently, Wefrew was immediately restrained from using any material or marks associated with Vidya Mandir Classes.
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited v.M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited filed a review petition challenging an earlier dismissal by the Copyright Board on grounds of being time-barred. The core dispute involved objections raised by the petitioner against M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited's attempt to register copyright for the artistic work 'INDOBRINE DANDI SALT/DANDI NAMAK'. Although the initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays, the High Court considered the parties' claims and subsequent settlement. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Copyright Office for fresh consideration.
Atos India Pvt. Ltd v.The State of Maharashtra
Atos India Pvt. Ltd challenged an order from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, arguing that its work providing bug fixing and maintenance services on QAD Inc.'s ERP software was a service contract, not a sale of goods or developed software. The core dispute revolved around whether modifying existing proprietary code constituted 'development' leading to a taxable supply under the MVAT Act. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Atos India, holding that the transaction was fundamentally an indivisible contract for services.
Toyo Aluminium Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application ('MULTILAYER BODY AND CONTAINER') due to non-compliance with requirements for inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The court allowed a procedural exemption and directed the respondent counsel to file written submissions before listing the matter further.
Grasim Industries Limited v.Lenzing Ag & Anr.
Grasim Industries Limited filed a revocation petition against Patent no. IN 367685, granted to Lenzing AG for 'Fire-retardant cellulose fiber'. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications and initiated proceedings by issuing notice and setting timelines for filing the counter affidavit.
The Supreme Industries Ltd. v.Tandhan Polyplast Private Ltd.
This interim application concerns whether certain moulds/dyes are infringing material, despite the original patent having expired. The court considered the need for expert determination on this factual question.
Martinswerk GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748011754) by The Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the application qualified as a divisional application containing separate inventive concepts, while the respondent maintained it did not meet Section 16 requirements. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.