India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 124 of 311 · 7,456 total
Starpharma Pty Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Starpharma Pty Ltd appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 10044/CHENP/2013, which covered a method and gel formulation for treating bacterial vaginosis. The appellant argued that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and complete specification. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Chinese University Of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4812/CHENP/2012), which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed invention—a process for fetal genomic analysis from maternal samples—was an unpatentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that determining foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not 'diagnostic' in the statutory sense, allowing the patent application to proceed to grant.
T.V.Nagarajan v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.
UPL Limited v.Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Triveni Chemicals And Industries Ltd. was manufacturing and selling a product containing the composition protected by UPL's Indian Patent No. IN 428514. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons to the defendants, and directed parties to file pleadings and respond to the interlocutory injunction application.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural disputes raised by PepsiCo in its appeal against a trademark rectification petition filed by Parle Agro. The court noted that the primary grievance concerned the alleged departure from prescribed procedures under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While acknowledging concerns about the fast-tracking of the original application, the Court allowed PepsiCo to file its reply and evidence within a specified timeframe, subsequently postponing the hearing date for the rectification proceedings.
Britannia Industries Limited v.Amar Biscuit Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Britannia Industries Limited against Amar Biscuit Private Limited. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'GOOD TIME' with a deceptively similar color combination and trade dress to Britannia's established 'GOOD DAY' butter cookies was likely to cause consumer confusion. Given the enormous goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's brand, the court ruled that immediate action was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
M/S Natures Magic World v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
M/S Natures Magic World filed a writ petition seeking the Trademark Registry's direction to formally record an Assignment Deed dated February 17, 2016. The petitioner sought to establish ownership of the mark 'COLORESSENCE' (TM No. 1541613) following its assignment from M/s Nature Essence Pvt. Ltd. Despite the existence of the valid assignment deed, the recordal had not been given effect due to administrative confusion stemming from a subsequent name change of the original owner. The Court directed further hearings to resolve these procedural issues and ensure the assignment is duly recorded.
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. Ltd v.Sudershana Singh
Balajee Wedding And Eventz Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Sudershana Singh alleging trademark infringement concerning wedding planning services. The Plaintiff holds a registered trademark 'BALAJEE EVENTZ' (No. 4175314) and claims the Defendant is infringing by using similar names like 'BALAJI EVENTS'. The Delhi High Court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from filing documents and instituting pre-litigation mediation, before formally registering the suit and directing the issuance of summons to the defendant.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Capital Tv And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tv Today Network Limited against Capital TV and others. The court found a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, noting that the defendants were imitating the plaintiff's distinctive program names and logos across various digital platforms. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using deceptively similar marks for news/current affairs programs and ordered to take down all infringing links online.
Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. v.C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of two petitions filed by Sancheti Applicance Pvt Ltd. against C.Lal Marketing Pvt Ltd. The challenge to the respondent's marks, which were under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, was rendered moot because the impugned trademarks had expired and subsequently been removed from the Register due to non-renewal. Consequently, the petitioner sought and received permission to withdraw the proceedings.
M/s.Jupiter Drugs v.Mrs.M.Sarojini
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. Jupiter Drugs' petition seeking to expunge or limit the trade mark 'ZIPROVIT.' The court noted that the last registration was valid only until December 14, 2017, suggesting the petitioner might no longer be an aggrieved party. Furthermore, due to the absence of a current address for service on the petitioner, the court found it impossible to proceed with the matter.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.Milka Nutriments Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Pioneer Bakeries, directing the removal of two specific trade marks (No. 821974 and No. 691534) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that both marks had long expired because their renewal periods had lapsed, making them liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision underscores the importance of timely maintenance and renewal of intellectual property rights.
M.Viyan Aarman v.Etecetra Entertainment
M.Viyan Aarman filed a suit for copyright infringement concerning the title of the film 'Saamaniyan'. The appeal challenged an order rejecting the application for injunction, arguing that the appellant had registered the title and faced breach of trust by the first respondent. However, the court found that the appellant was only alleging infringement qua title, which is not maintainable under existing legal precedents.
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited v.Rt Diagnostics
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark and passing off against Rt Diagnostics, which was using a similar trade name. The appellant sought temporary injunctions, which were previously rejected. This appeal challenged those rejection orders before the Madras High Court.
ITC Limited Of Virginia House v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks And Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a previous Registrar's decision that had treated ITC's opposition to the mark 'LUCKY NINE' as abandoned due to delayed filing of evidence. The court held that since ITC had clearly stated its willingness to rely on the grounds of opposition within the prescribed period, the abandonment was unjustified. Following this ruling and citing precedent, the High Court ultimately cancelled the registration of 'LUCKY NINE', restoring ITC's rights.
Crocs Inc.Usa v.Aquallite India Limited And Anr.
The plaintiff alleged infringement of the design of its footwear, known as the 'CROCS DESIGN'. The design registration was cancelled due to lack of novelty and prior publication.
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v.The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd filed an appeal challenging the order of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which dismissed a Post-grant Opposition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 312437. The opposition contended that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, or was not patentable under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court examined the technical aspects and found no infirmity in the impugned order.
Cryomass Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cryomass LLC filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application, '201917048279,' titled "Cryogenic Separation of Plant Material." The initial rejection by the Assistant Controller was based on a lack of inventive steps and falling under Section 3(f) of the Patents Act. Cryomass argued that their non-aqueous cryogenic system offered novel advantages not disclosed in prior art. The Delhi High Court, while setting aside procedural objections regarding delay subject to costs, directed further pleadings before listing the case for final hearing.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited filed a civil suit against M/s. Indianpasand Inc. and other defendants, alleging trademark infringement (SANGU vs. SHIPPY), copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of their registered marks and artistic designs by the defendants. However, due to the current non-sale status of the disputed products, the plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the suit against the first defendant while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case if infringement occurs in the future.
Intervet International B.V. v.Reyaansh Healthcare
The plaintiffs, holders of Indian Patent 283279 for the veterinary product Fluralaner, filed a suit against Reyaansh Healthcare for manufacturing and selling Fluralaner tablets under the brand Flurashield without a license. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the product until further hearing.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The dispute concerning the infringement of Patent IN 247381 related to Apixaban was settled through mediation. The settlement agreement required the defendant to confirm it did not distribute 'Apixaban' in India during the patent term and agreed not to challenge its validity.
ITC Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of ITC Limited, restraining defendants from using infringing domain names and sub-domains that fraudulently solicit franchises and dealerships under the guise of ITC's brand. The court reinforced previous orders, directing Domain Name Registrars to immediately lock and suspend the specified domains while also instructing the Cyber Cell to freeze numerous bank accounts linked to these fraudulent activities.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Glaxo Group Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Dermazone Pharmaceuticals in a trademark infringement suit. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendant's mark, 'BECLOVATE,' is phonetically and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark, 'BETNOVATE.' Given the identical nature of the products (skin treatments) and strong market presence of Glaxo, the court granted immediate relief to prevent consumer confusion. The injunction restricts the manufacture and sale of the infringing product moving forward.