India IP Litigation
7,302 annotated decisions
Page 12 of 305 · 7,302 total
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.Controller of Patent and Designs
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke challenged the refusal of his patent application (No. 879/MUM/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, which was upheld in a prior appeal. The present Commercial Appeal sought to challenge this order further under Section 13 of the CCA, but the Court found that the statutory provisions did not permit such an appeal.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUIs constitute an 'article' or possess permanence were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding all matters for fresh consideration.
Sinopsee Therapeutics v.The Controller Of Patents
Sinopsee Therapeutics filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its Indian Patent application no. 202117059910. The court first allowed the application for condonation of a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, and subsequently issued notice to the respondent.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed a rejection of its interlocutory injunction application regarding the import and sale of Semaglutide, claiming infringement of its patent. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the suit patent was set to expire shortly, but also found prima facie evidence suggesting the suit patent could be challenged for obviousness based on prior art (Genus Patent IN'964).
Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v.Tata Play Limited and Others
The plaintiff, Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, sought an interim injunction restraining Tata Play Limited and others from using the mark 'ASTRO DUNIYA', alleging trademark infringement and passing-off. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the coined mark used for astrological services since 2005. However, the court found that no prima facie case was made out for either infringement or passing off, dismissing the interim application.
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited v.M/S. Rohm Gmbh
The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.
J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)
The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order concerning the patentability/inventive step. The respondent filed an application to place additional public domain documents on record. The court allowed the admission of these documents but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the original Impugned Order regarding lack of inventive step was well-reasoned.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
AIC246 AG & Co. KG v.The Patent Office of India and Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The refusal was based on a lack of novelty in view of prior art D1: US3840070A. The court allowed an auxiliary request to amend claim 1, finding that the amendment did not broaden the scope and was disclosed in the specification.
T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v.The Controller Genereal Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
T-Mobile appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application related to optimizing mobile terminal performance. The original rejection was based on the grounds that the invention constituted a mere scheme or mental act under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court noted the lack of sufficient guidelines and ordered the matter to be remanded for de novo consideration.
Kas Zainulabdin And Co v.Gokul Chand Manoj Kumar And Sons Gm And Sons Private Limited And Anr.
This case involves a suit for infringement and passing off. The defendants argued that the plaintiff suppressed facts regarding their knowledge of the impugned product. However, the court dismissed the application seeking dispensation under Section 12A, finding that the grounds provided by the plaintiff were sufficiently explained and the cause of action was continuing and recurring in nature.
Shaafi Naturcure Llp v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an objection raised by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court noted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with the National Biodiversity Authority, which could address the Section 3(p) objection. To clarify the matter, the Court directed the respondent to provide a detailed response regarding both the biodiversity agreement and a specific chart demonstrating inventive step.
Landmark Crafts Limited v.Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The appellant sought rectification to cancel a registered device mark (No. 3986970) held by the respondent, alleging irregularities in its grant. The Deputy Registrar had previously cancelled the registration. The appeal before the High Court questioned whether the substitution of marks constituted a substantial alteration under the Trade Marks Act.
Plivo India Pvt Ltd v.Mr Arvind Eshwarlal
Plivo India Pvt Ltd appealed an order that set aside its attempt to challenge an arbitral award. The dispute arose from alleged violation of a Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement (NDA) by Mr Arvind Eshwarlal. The High Court overturned the lower court's findings, specifically regarding limitation and the scope of claims in arbitration.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The petitioner, Uflex Limited, filed an application seeking permission to amend its revocation petition concerning Patent No. IN 396443, which relates to the recycling of multilayer plastics used in packaging. The court allowed the amendment and also granted permission for the petitioner to file confidential customer details in a sealed cover.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed against a single judge's decision regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition (CO (COMM. IPD-PAT) 38/2022). The core issues were whether a revocation petition could survive after the patentee pleaded invalidity in an infringement suit, or if it could continue after the patent expired by efflux of time.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for a method of controlling insects in stored food using synthetic amorphous silica. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents on November 7, 2025. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file replies and complete pleadings before listing the matter for final hearing.
Faiveley Transport Tours v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Faiveley Transport Tours filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated November 07, 2025. The appellant seeks to quash that order and obtain a patent grant for application no. 202117042875.
Asian Paints Limited v.Smt. Manju Rani Jindal And Ors.
Asian Paints Limited filed a suit against Smt. Manju Rani Jindal and others alleging infringement and passing off concerning its trade marks (ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN). The dispute centered on the Defendants' use of the mark 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' on paint-related goods like wall putty and cement paints. Given the Defendants' failure to contest the suit, the court decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.