India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 120 of 311 · 7,456 total
Arcturus Therapeutics Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arcturus Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent (IN'205) for 'Ionizable Cationic Lipid for RNA Delivery'. The refusal was based on non-submission of required data and pending claims.
M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Limited v.Khoday India Limited
The Madras High Court set aside a previous rejection order, allowing M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Limited to successfully challenge the registration of 'Khoday's Red & White'. The court found that the appellant possessed a well-known trademark used since 1940 for cigarettes, and crucially noted the prolonged non-use of the mark by Khoday India Limited from its application date in 1995. This decision reinforces the importance of continuous use and reputation when challenging subsequent registrations.
Almac Discovery Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Almac Discovery Limited filed an appeal challenging the Impugned Order dated July 19, 2017, passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Indian Patent Application No.82/CHENP/2009. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed counsel to withdraw the appeal.
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellants challenged the rejection of their patent application (No. 9445/CHENP/2013) by the Controller, which cited objections regarding insufficient disclosure and lack of clarity in the claims. The High Court held that the impugned order lacked the necessary specificity to enable the applicant to address the objections effectively.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
The Madras High Court upheld the interim injunction granted against the defendant for infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress related to 'Good Day' biscuits. The court found that the adoption of an identical blue color scheme by the competitor, Sunfeast, amounted to passing off and confusing the public. However, in a concession to the defense, the court permitted the existing stock of the offending product (23.7 tonnes) to be sold.
Rakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods v.Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby Enterprises
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BOOM BOOM'. The court noted prima facie merit in the appellant's claim regarding the long-standing use of the trademark since 2000. Given discrepancies in the starting date of use found by the lower court, the High Court granted a stay on the District Judge's previous order while reserving further consideration of the matter.
The Chocolate Spoon Company Private Limited v.Oceanleaf Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted leave for a plaintiff to combine claims of passing off with an existing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that they lacked territorial jurisdiction as their outlets were located outside Mumbai, but the court prioritized the principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation. This decision allows the combined action to proceed while keeping the jurisdictional issue open for later determination.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu Trading As : Spot Light; Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Financiere Batteur Sas seeking the cancellation and removal of Trade Mark No. 2897583, which was registered in Class 5 for the mark 'physiolac' under Kalai Arasu Trading As : Spot Light. The court noted that the subject matter of this petition was identical to another pending case, (T)OP(TM)/481/2023, and consequently closed the current petition without passing any order on costs.
M/s. Honda Motor Co., Ltd v.M/s. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
M/s. Honda Motor Co., Ltd filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the refusal order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on March 27, 2019. However, the appellant subsequently instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 6745/CHENP/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The Madras High Court noted that this appeal was a duplication of another pending appeal, leading to its closure.
Sheeja Menon trading as M's Shwethas Hygeine Products v.M/s. Novel Tissues Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, finding that the first respondent fraudulently registered an identical device mark (No. 2298691) in Class 16. The petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and ownership rights over the mark for cosmetic wet wipes since 2011. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the impugned registration, preventing confusion in the market.
E.Kiruthika v.(1)K.S.Moorthi Ram, (2)M.Maheshwari Partnership Firm M/S.Vishwak Garments, The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by E.Kiruthika seeking to cancel the trademark registration 'VISHWAK' (No.2406200). The court noted that the trademark registration had expired on October 4, 2023, and since the long stop date for renewal had passed, the petition was deemed infructuous. This highlights the critical importance of timely action regarding trademark renewals to maintain legal rights.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v.Meta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.
The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P. v.Home Needs
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an adverse commercial court order in favor of The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., which was seeking to protect its trademarks against 'POLOLIFETIME'. The court noted that the appellant holds registrations for 'POLO' and 'RALPH LAUREN', and referenced prior findings recognizing these marks as 'well-known'. Finding merit in the challenge, the High Court stayed the lower court's order until further hearing.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh & Anr.
In a trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, the court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of a 21-day delay. The petitioner, Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited, expressed no objection to the delay being excused. Consequently, the court allowed the application, allowing the respondent's reply to be taken on record and granting time for filing a rejoinder.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Shree Dev Colour And Hardware and Ors.
The Bombay High Court disposed of a portion of the IPR suit after the parties reached a settlement via Consent Terms dated 31st October, 2023. Specifically, the suit against Defendant No.2 was disposed of based on these terms, which included undertakings to cease using infringing marks and destroy counterfeit materials.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Ayur Gen Herbals
The parties, Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Ayur Gen Herbals, settled their disputes in the Bombay High Court. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patents by the Amazon Prime Video service, specifically regarding the Trending Now and Continue Watching features.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit against Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered designs for pressure cookers and passing off due to the defendant's use of identical shapes, configurations, and phonetically similar marks like 'Svachh'. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Mitsu Chem Plast Limited v.Abs Mediequip And Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a suit concerning the infringement of design rights and passing off related to hospital beds. Despite previous undertakings by the defendant acknowledging Mitsu Chem Plast Limited's rights and promising cessation of use, the plaintiff alleged continued infringement. The court found sufficient grounds to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from adopting or using designs identical or deceptively similar to the registered design and trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
V.C.Dinesh v.Aby K.George; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trade Marks) filed by V.C.Dinesh against Aby K.George and The Trademark Registry. The petition sought to remove an entry from the Register relating to registration No. 1507478, arguing it was wrongly made under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, the court noted a memo of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, confirming that the parties had reached a settlement in a prior case and agreed to withdraw this petition.
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited v.M/s. Seasco Dae Jong Bldg & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. Mex Switchgears Pvt. Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an earlier opposition order related to a trademark application in Class 9. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Madras High Court accepted the memo of withdrawal and consequently dismissed the appeal without passing any orders regarding costs.
CRYTEK GmbH v.Hameed Firnas
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by CRYTEK GmbH, a German company specializing in computer games, seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the impugned mark registered to Hameed Firnas was deceptively similar to CRYTEK's earlier trademark and was likely to cause public confusion. Crucially, the respondent failed to provide any evidence of use for their mark despite being given an opportunity, leading the court to direct its cancellation.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.