India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 115 of 311 · 7,456 total
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
Vennila Clothing Company filed a suit against M/s.Arrs Silks alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('RAMRAJ'/'RAJARAM') and copyright over its trade dress in the textile industry. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar labels by the defendants, leading to claims for injunction, damages, and account of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement via a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
Optimus Drugs Private Limited v.Union of India
Optimus Drugs Private Limited challenged the hearing notice issued during the post-grant opposition proceedings against Patent No. 281489 for 'An improved process for the preparation of Linezolid'. The petitioner argued that since both parties filed additional evidence after the initial Opposition Board recommendations, a fresh board should be constituted to consider all facts and amended claims. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention, directing the Controller of Patents to reconstitute the Opposition Board and examine the entire record expeditiously.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors
The plaintiffs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, sought an interim injunction regarding their patented anti-cancer molecule 'dasatinib' (SPRYCEL). The court disposed of the application for interim injunction as the patent term had expired. However, the court allowed amendments to the plaint to include new manufacturers and directed further proceedings.
Joseph Taheny v.Tektronix Inc.
Joseph Taheny challenged an arbitral award that directed him to transfer the domain name 'tek.in' to Tektronix Inc., arguing that his registration predated the respondent's trademark filing. The petitioner contended that the domain was registered as a generic Turkish term and not in bad faith. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the arbitral award. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing that the complainant only needed to be a registered proprietor of the mark for the INDRP rules to apply.
R.Nagarajan @ K.R.Nagarajan v.S.Ravichandran
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by R.Nagarajan against S.Ravichandran concerning Trade Mark No. 3102490 (RAVIRAM'S). The decision was based on a joint memorandum of compromise where the defendant agreed to withdraw and cancel the registered trademark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v.Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions filed by KSRTC seeking rectification of trade mark entries held by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The court found that despite KSRTC's claim of prior use dating back to 1965, the respondent was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act due to 'other special circumstances.' Given both entities operate in the transportation sector and utilize distinct regional scripts (Malayalam vs. Telugu), the court ruled that peaceful coexistence is possible, thus upholding the existing registrations.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Batra Brewries And Disttilleries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark infringement suit between Allied Blenders and Batra Brewries. The court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction against the defendants, noting their adoption of the mark 'PRINCIPAL PREMIUM.' However, permission for the defendants to exhaust existing stock was recalled due to non-compliance with providing a stock statement. Furthermore, the court condoned the delay in filing the written statement and dismissed an application seeking the deletion of one defendant.
Te Bios Co. Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Te Bios Co. Ltd filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Ashok Oswal v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Ashok Oswal appealed the rejection of his patent application (No. 201811029748), which covered a system and method for determining textile raw material quality attributes. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claims under Section 3(k) and Section 2(1)(ja).
Institute Of Directors v.Worlddevcorp Technology And Business Solutions Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction, ruling against the use of 'Directors' Institute' by the defendants. The court held that because the plaintiff previously represented to the Trademark Registry that its device mark contained common English words and was descriptive, it could not claim exclusivity over those words. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff failed in its duty of fair disclosure by suppressing this prior representation, thereby disentitling it from equitable relief.
Harbans Lal Wadhwa Trading As Uttam Chemicals v.Subhash Chand Trading As Subhash Chand And Sons & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark ('UTTAM') held by the Respondent. The Petitioner, claiming prior use since 1999 for various cleaning products, sought cancellation based on their earlier market presence. Recognizing that the dispute required detailed proof of goodwill and sales figures beyond mere pleadings, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file lists of witnesses and lead evidence.
Paul Components Private Limited v.Hi Tech Arai Private Limited
This matter before the Delhi High Court concerned an application by Paul Components Private Limited seeking permission to inspect the original, unredacted versions of technical drawings filed by Hi Tech Arai Private Limited. The defendant had initially placed redacted copies on record, citing that the removed portions contained commercially sensitive trade secrets related to manufacturing specifications. Despite the plaintiff's initial 'no objection' to the redactions, the court rejected the application, holding that once a party agrees to documents being placed on record in a redacted format due to confidentiality concerns, they are not entitled to inspect the unredacted originals.
Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Emerson Process Management filed appeals challenging the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) relating to computer software. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the lack of novelty and inventiveness in associated hardware—no longer aligns with current Patent Office guidelines.
Emerson Process Management Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emerson Process Management appealed the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) for computer software patents. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the novelty and inventiveness of associated hardware—no longer applied under current Patent Office guidelines.
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.