India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 120 of 295 · 7,068 total
Sml Limited v.Mohan & Company & Another
Sml Limited filed a suit alleging that defendants are manufacturing and selling a fertilizer composition named 'Aladdin' which infringes upon its granted Indian Patent No. IN 282092. Chemical analysis confirmed the defendant's product contained sulphur (67.8%) and zinc oxide (22.7%), falling within the patented range. The court found a prima facie case of infringement.
Sml Limited v.Mohan & Company & Another
Sml Limited filed a suit alleging that defendants are manufacturing and selling a fertilizer product named Zeeka Sulf, which infringes upon its Indian Patent No. IN 282092. The plaintiff provided chemical analysis reports and expert opinions confirming that the composition of Zeeka Sulf falls within the scope of the patented claims.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
Vifor International Ltd., a patentee, filed suit against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited regarding the alleged infringement of its patent (IN'536) covering the manufacturing process of Ferric Carboxylmaltose (FCM). The court examined whether the defendants' processes infringed upon Vifor's patented method for producing this intravenous iron complex. The judgment ultimately found that the impugned processes used by the defendants were non-infringing, allowing them to proceed with launching their product.
Bluechip Amusements (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.Crazy Concepts And Mazes Pvt.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by Bluechip Amusements against Crazy Concepts and Mazes. The dismissal was due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner informed the court that they no longer operated their outlet under the name 'HORROR HOUSE.' This outcome highlights the importance of active litigation management in trademark disputes.
M.Sarojini v.M/s. Ce Biotech (P) Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by M.Sarojini seeking the expungement of the trademark ZIPROVIT (No. 1631278) from the register, which was held in the name of M/s. CE Biotech (P) Limited. The petitioner subsequently informed the court that they were withdrawing the petition due to the non-renewal of the relevant trademark registration. This outcome highlights the procedural necessity of maintaining active IP rights.
M/S.Verizon Trademarks Services Llc v.M/s. Verinon Technology Solutions Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking rectification and cancellation of Trademark No. 2110042 due to non-renewal. The court noted that since the trademark registration had lapsed (last renewed up to March 4, 2021), no further adjudication was required on the merits of the dispute. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take necessary steps within four weeks to rectify the register and cancel the mark.
Ramesh Gupta And Rajan Gupta Partners Of M/s Ganga Containers v.M.A.Hameed Proprietor, AH Food products
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark petition filed by Ramesh Gupta and Rajan Gupta Partners against M.A. Hameed Proprietor. The court noted that the core subject matter, Trademark Registration No. 1879905, had been cancelled. Since the underlying right was no longer valid, the entire petition became infructuous, leading to its dismissal without any order regarding costs.
M/s. Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Limited v.Mylsamy Ranga Ramanujam
M/s. Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the rectification or revocation of Patent No. 262529, alleging it was invalid and obtained by misrepresentation. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition.
M/S. Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.H.Omar Farook and The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/S. Hatsun Agro Product Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 2555577 in Class 25, arguing its invalidity or non-use. However, upon receiving an affidavit from the first respondent, H.Omar Farook, which confirmed that the trademark had expired on June 27, 2023, and that he would not renew it, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. This outcome highlights how a simple change in registration status can immediately resolve complex IP disputes.
M.Y. Mumtaj Begum & M. Badrudeen v.K.R. Iqbal Ahmmed & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed an Original Petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1509172, which was granted to K.R. Iqbal Ahmmed for beedies and tobacco products. However, before any substantive hearing could take place, the petitioners communicated their decision to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Novartis AG v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Novartis AG appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding an opposition filed under Section 25(2) concerning Patent No. 223313. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 223313 had expired on May 16, 2023.
Humanity Life Extension Llc v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner, a US-based medical device manufacturer, challenged the amendment to Rule No. 138 of the Patents Rules, 2003, arguing that it removed the provision allowing extension of time for international patent applications and conflicted with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The petitioner sought directions to entertain its National Phase Application despite missing the deadline.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioners filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondents sought to transfer these petitions to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to consolidate them with ongoing infringement suits related to Patent IN243301 covering Linagliptin. The court dismissed the applications for transfer/consolidation.
Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. v.Mohammad Akil And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement case following a comprehensive settlement between Livguard Energy Technologies Pvt Ltd. and Mohammad Akil And Anr. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner's exclusive rights in LIVFAST/ and agreed to cease using confusingly similar marks like LEFAST/. Crucially, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to forthwith cancel two specific registrations (4059607 and 4380874) in favor of the respondent, finalizing the dispute while allowing a grace period for existing stock exhaustion.
Body Cupid Private Limited v.Mr Gaurav Bhadani
Body Cupid Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the lower court's refusal to grant an ex-parte temporary injunction against Mr. Gaurav Bhadani. The core dispute revolved around alleged infringement of Body Cupid's 'WOW SKIN SCIENCE' trademark, trade dress, and registered design by the respondent using similar marks like 'WAW SKIN COSMO'. The Karnataka High Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition but extended the interim restraining order until the Trial Court could dispose of the underlying injunction application.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
M/S Sharad Enterprises v.M/S Saboo Emery Stone Industries
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/S Sharad Enterprises, which sought to overturn a lower court's rejection of its plaint. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent's trademark infringement suit was subject to mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court found that since the respondent had filed an application for temporary injunction and pleaded recurring business loss, the matter clearly contemplated urgency, thus exempting it from the strictures of Section 12-A.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
Kurian John Melamparambil v.Sulbha G. Shenoi; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Kurian John Melamparambil seeking rectification of Trademark No. 1301085. The dismissal was based on a submission from the first respondent, stating that the trademark had not been renewed since August 6, 2014. Consequently, the petition to remove or rectify the entry became infructuous.
M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd v.M/S Gokuldas Intimatewear Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an Original Suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their granted patent (IN 306901) related to 'Fab-Shield Period Panty'. The dispute, which also involved challenges to the patent's validity, was subsequently settled by both parties. A Patent License Agreement was entered into on January 01, 2023, and the suit was disposed of accordingly.
M/S.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food v.M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by M/S.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 1408388, which was registered in favor of another party. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, the petitioner voluntarily chose to withdraw the Original Petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa Trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited v.G.Kannan Trading as D.S.K.Garments
This case involved a suit filed by Mr. Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa (trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store) and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited against G.Kannan (D.S.K.Garments) and Hitlar Fashions. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the 'TECHNO' brand used on garments. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa (Trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store) and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited v.G.Kannan (Trading as D.S.K.Garments)
This case involved a suit filed by Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited against G.Kannan and Hitlar Fashions for alleged infringement of their trademark 'TECHNO' and copyright in artistic works used on garments. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.
Novartis AG v.Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. IN/PCT/2001/00016/CHE) to proceed to grant. However, the appellant failed to note that Patent No. 223313 had already expired on May 16, 2023. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.