India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 116 of 299 · 7,167 total
Sanjeev Juneja v.Imaamuddin Khan And Anr
Sanjeev Juneja filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Dr. Ortho' registered by Imaamuddin Khan. The petitioner argued that his established use of the identical mark in orthopaedic goods (Class 10) would be violated by the respondent's registration for textiles and mattresses (Class 24). Despite the class difference, the court found the petitioner prima facie aggrieved and issued notice to the respondents, setting the matter for detailed arguments.
Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for the infringement of Patent No. 427110 and registered Design No. 275676, along with passing off and rendition of accounts.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v.La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd. and Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement of their Patent No. 224100, seeking an injunction, accounts, seizure, and Rs. 1 crore in damages. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited v.Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office
The Madras High Court overturned the Senior Examiner's objections against Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited's trade mark applications. The court found that the device mark was inherently distinctive and disregarded the examiner's narrow focus on the words alone. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the acceptance of the mark for advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over its constituent words when used individually.
M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K K Academy (P) Ltd) v.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi and others
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'ALOHA' and copyrighted educational materials by using the similar mark 'ALAMA'. The suit also claimed damages for passing off related to mental arithmetic and abacus education programs. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear before the court despite repeated notices and previous dismissals for non-prosecution, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for default.
Jupiter Drugs Partnership Concern v.Mrs.M.Sarojini Proprietrix; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Jupiter Drugs filed an Original Petition seeking to expunge or limit the registered trademark 'ZIPROVIT' (No. 1306475) held by Mrs. M. Sarojini Proprietrix, citing issues related to geographical scope and use. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution because the petitioner could not be served notice due to an outdated address. This procedural dismissal effectively halted Jupiter Drugs' attempt to challenge the trademark registration.
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. challenged the Controller of Patents regarding systemic issues in the e-filing system, which prevented the submission of a divisional patent application following a remand by the IPAB. The petitioner's original parent application had been refused but was subsequently remanded for re-consideration. Since the online portal reflected the 'refused' status, the divisional application could not be filed digitally. The Madras High Court acknowledged this systemic glitch and issued several directions to facilitate the filing process.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products v.Deepak Kumar, Deepak Manocha, Sara Sales and Anr.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products filed a petition seeking rectification of a conflicting copyright registration held by Deepak Kumar. The petitioner claimed ownership over their artistic packaging design for 'Gulchhare' since 2009, asserting that the respondent's subsequent registration was based on an identical and slavish imitation. After examining the works, the Delhi High Court found that the respondent's work lacked originality compared to the petitioner's earlier creation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Promoshirt Sm Sa. v.Armasuisse And Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by Promoshirt SM SA. challenging decisions related to its trademark registration applications, specifically against an opposition raised by Armasuisse. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the LPAs under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that no further appeal should lie from a Single Judge's appellate order. The High Court ultimately negated this preliminary objection, holding that since the Trade Marks Act did not mandate adherence to the restrictive provisions of the CPC, the LPA remedy remained applicable.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing Indian Patent No. 426553, which covers a combination therapy (Netupitant and Palonosetron) used as an antiemetic for CINV. The court registered the plaint as a suit and directed both parties to file their respective written statements and pleadings.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its divisional application (No. 201918017795) concerning a bifunctional co-polymer composition. The refusal was based on outstanding objections regarding lack of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970.
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited v.Mr Jitendra Ravjani
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Ravjani, alleging infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'JAYPORE'. The Delhi High Court proceeded to frame seven key issues in the matter, including whether the defendant's use constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment. This order sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation by both parties.
Robin Sebastian (CJ Buildware) v.Shyjumon Joseph
The Kerala High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of CJ Buildware against Shyjumon Joseph. The court found that despite a prior contractual agreement, the respondent began using a trademark ('SJ BUILDWARE') that was phonetically and visually deceptive to the plaintiff's registered mark ('CJ BUILDWARE'). Given the established reputation of the plaintiff and the balance of convenience, the court deemed it appropriate to restrain the defendant from continued use pending further proceedings.
Sundaram Industries Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Sundaram Industries Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration for the word mark TRISTAR. The court found that despite arguments regarding differences in goods, the appellant's proposed mark was near identical to an earlier registered mark (TM No. 308929). Given that both marks were applied to similar goods—solid industrial tyres and tyres/tubes for motor land vehicles—the court concluded there would be a likelihood of confusion or association among the public, thereby upholding the refusal under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Manoj Kumar Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Manoj Kumar Jain and others. Although the matter was resolved amicably through a settlement, leading to the decreeing of specific terms, the court also independently declared the Plaintiffs' mark 'BETNESOL' as a well-known mark due to its long history and extensive market presence in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes: resolution via negotiation alongside judicial recognition of brand status.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies filed a suit against Eexpedise Technologies alleging infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of confidential information by former employees who formed competing entities. The Plaintiffs sought interim injunctions restraining the Defendants from copying, publishing, or providing services related to their proprietary software. While the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants were infringing copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court recognized the highly technical nature of the dispute.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action where the Plaintiff is enforcing rights in Indian patent no. IN240893 titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The patent relates to a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Helion Biotech ApS v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helion Biotech ApS appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which denied grant of a patent for antibodies to MASP-2. The appeal was filed seeking consideration of further amended claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back for examination of the amended claims.
W R Grace And Co Conn v.The Controller Of Patents
W R Grace & Co Conn appealed the Patent Office's refusal of its patent application (201717030699), which related to a crystalline form of Nicotinamide Riboside. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and failure to meet requirements under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The Appellant subsequently filed amended claims restricting the scope to the method aspect, leading the Court to remand the matter for fresh examination by the Patent Office.