India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 117 of 295 · 7,068 total
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Syedmohideen v.Ms.B.SulochanaBai
The Madras High Court addressed the petition filed by Mr. Syedmohideen seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, IRUTTUKADAI. The petitioner had sought to challenge the registration of this mark held by Ms. B. Sulochana Bai. However, before any substantive hearing took place, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he intended to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed (T)OP(TM).No.118 of 2023 as withdrawn.
Abdulla A Olia (Director of M/s Imex Industries (I) Pvt.Ltd.) v.M/s. Shri Ashapura Hardware & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Abdulla A Olia seeking rectification or removal of the registered trademark 'STAR IMEX DEVICE' (No. 1625661). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear at multiple scheduled hearings despite receiving proper notice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888 before the Madras High Court. The petition was filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888, which claimed a priority date of January 31, 2003. The petitioner sought this action before the Madras High Court. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888. The petition, which sought to challenge the patent's validity, was contingent on its active status. However, upon submission of a document from the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, it was revealed that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. v.Guala Closures Patents B.V.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207928 against Guala Closures Patents B.V. The petition, which was filed under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, aimed to challenge the validity of the patent. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the term of Patent No. 207928 had already expired on June 2, 2018.
Brundaban Sahu v.The Registrar of Trademarks and Suneel Mahanty
The Madras High Court addressed the petition filed by Brundaban Sahu against The Registrar of Trademarks concerning trademark registration no. 1550492. Although the petitioner sought rectification and removal of the entry, counsel informed the court that a settlement had been reached between all parties involved. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
M/s.Aquasub Engineering v.M.Mandal Trading as Aqua Tech Enterprises
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by M/s.Aquasub Engineering seeking to rectify or cancel the registration of the trademark AQUATECH (No. 1925332). The court found that the trade mark had lapsed because its last valid registration expired on February 22, 2020, and was not renewed within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register.
Agfa Nv v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, The Patent Office, Delhi, India
Agfa Nv filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing the withdrawal of the appeal.
Enercon (India) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking to revoke several Indian Patents granted to Aloys Wobben. The court noted that the patents had expired but a counter claim was lodged by the petitioner in proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the refusal of its divisional patent application, which was rejected on grounds including lack of distinct invention (Section 16) and non-patentability as a computer program per se (Section 3(k)). The court set aside the impugned order regarding Section 16 but remanded the matter to the Respondent for fresh examination specifically concerning the objections under Section 3(k).
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (patents) challenging an earlier order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation and removal from the register of various Indian Patents held by Aloys Wobben. The court observed that the term of all the patents in question had expired.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions (TOPs) before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of various Indian Patents granted by the Controller of Patent Chennai. The petitions were filed under Sections 64 and 117D of the Patents Act.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the advertisement of 'KENT' as a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The core dispute centered on jurisdictional issues, with the Respondent arguing that such challenges must be filed in the Bombay High Court. However, the Court also clarified procedural requirements for the Registrar, emphasizing that when an applicant relies on court orders to establish well-known status, the Registrar must scrutinize whether those orders constitute a specific declaration or merely preliminary observations.
Paymate (India) Private Limited v.Paymate Pty Limited; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, The Trade Marks Registry, Chennai
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by Paymate (India) Private Limited seeking to strike off a specific trademark registration. The court found that Trademark No. 1960699 was no longer in force because its last renewal date had expired on May 5, 2020, and the long stop period for restoration had passed. Consequently, the Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd., setting aside an order that had deemed its opposition to a trademark application abandoned. The core issue revolved around whether a communication sent to the Mumbai office, despite being addressed to the Chennai Registry, constituted substantial compliance with the Trade Marks Rules. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was sufficient compliance and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
M/s.Jaya Balaji Tex v.Senniappan Kuppusamy; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitions sought the removal of specific registered trademarks (No. 1607835 and No. 1464323) from the Register of Trademarks in Class 25. However, both parties reached an amicable resolution regarding the disputes, leading the petitioner to withdraw the cases before the court.
Lotte India Corporation Ltd. v.Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation; Ajanthaa K.T.K Products
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Lotte India Corporation against Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation and Ajanthaa K.T.K Products regarding the 'CHOCO PIE' mark. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical use of the mark, the court found that the plaintiff failed to adequately prove the infringement by the defendants. Consequently, the suit was largely dismissed on the core claims of trademark violation and damages.
Home Box Office, Inc. v.Danish Salim; The Registrar of Trademarks
In this matter concerning trademark cancellation, Home Box Office challenged an entry in the Register of Trademarks. However, the court noted that the registered proprietor of the impugned mark had subsequently agreed to cancel the registration. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to complete the necessary steps for cancellation and removal of the entry within a specified timeframe.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.R. Hanumantha Rao
Pfizer Products Inc. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to expunge the registration of the trademark VECOREX (No. 980006) from the register. The court noted that the mark had not been renewed since December 29, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the entry within four weeks, effectively clearing the mark for potential use by the petitioner.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased) & others v.1/183 & others
This case involved complex disputes among the partners and legal heirs of a newspaper publishing firm, Dinamalar. The core issue revolved around the status and ownership of the firm's trademark following its dissolution. The Madras High Court addressed several related civil suits and original applications concerning partnership rights and intellectual property.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Trivigya Bioscience
In a trademark dispute concerning the 'KIND' family of marks, Mankind Pharma Limited successfully secured an undertaking from Trivigya Bioscience. The respondent acknowledged the propriety of Mankind's marks and voluntarily agreed to cease using the contested mark CDKIND in relation to pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of as not pressed, resolving the conflict amicably.