India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 145 of 311 · 7,456 total
Rallifan Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
Rallifan Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 1213190) from the register. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Rajesh Kumar Naredi Trading as Visesh Appliances v.Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Naredi against Rallifan Limited concerning the rectification of Trademark No. 306508 in Class 11. The dismissal occurred because both parties had reached a settlement agreement, which was formally recorded by the court. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex intellectual property disputes efficiently.
Russell E. Freebury v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Russell E. Freebury against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of their trademark 'ZINKA'. The court noted that the goods covered by the appellant were distinct from those cited in opposition, and considering the long-standing use of the mark, it set aside the refusal order. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed with a modified device mark, directing the Registry to process its registration.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Aurobindo Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 216665 against Aurobindo Pharma Limited and the Controller of Patents. The court noted that the patent's term had expired on June 24, 2014, rendering the matter infructuous.
Google Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for capturing panoramic images. The core contention was that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims under Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, leading to an unsustainable rejection order.
Mrs X v.Union Of India And Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a writ petition filed by 'Mrs. X' seeking the removal of her non-consensual intimate images (NCII) from various online platforms. The case details how Mrs. X was victimized after being coerced into paying money, leading to the leakage of explicit photos and videos on pornographic websites. Despite complaints to social media giants like Google and Microsoft, the content remained online. The Court emphasized the need for robust mechanisms to protect victims' privacy and dignity in a patriarchal society. While acknowledging existing legal frameworks under the IT Act, the judgment highlighted the reluctance of intermediaries in implementing these laws effectively. The court issued directions urging all concerned entities to comply with the stipulated provisions.
M/s Vets Farma Ltd. v.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the review application filed by M/s Vets Farma Ltd. The court clarified that while statutory provisions may restrict registration until a competent court determines rights, this does not bar the Civil Court from admitting assignment deeds into evidence to examine their validity and enforceability during litigation. The judgment underscores the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts in resolving complex trademark disputes involving assignments.
Agensys Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Asnd Designs
Agensys Inc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its application under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that their monoclonal antibody invention demonstrated a technical effect (improved affinity/cross-reactivity) not considered by the Controller, thus warranting the setting aside of the impugned order.
Sugen, Inc. v.Mr. K Vijaya Prakash
Sugen, Inc. filed applications alleging that Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and associated defendants willfully violated an injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2016. The original suit concerned the infringement of three patents covering the drug Crizotinib (marketed as Xalkori®). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including photographs and investigator reports, suggesting the manufacturing and sale of the generic product 'CRIZO SPL™' after the injunction was issued. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had control over the infringing entities, leading to a finding of wilful contempt against him.
Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited
This commercial appeal challenged an interim order that restrained Tri-Parulex (appellant) from infringing the Plaintiff's Patent No. 202302, which relates to a fire protection system for electrical transformers. The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, finding no prima facie case of infringement and noting that the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the appellant.
Sunshine Velvet Private Limited v.Ramesh Kumar Jeevraj Luniya & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court issued procedural orders while addressing an interim application. The court noted that Defendant No. 3 was yet to be served and directed fresh service. Crucially, regarding the core dispute, the court confirmed the existing interim order concerning Defendants 1 and 2, despite their claim of changing the firm's name from 'SAANCHI VELVET FABRICS' to 'SAMIKSHA VELVET FABRICS'. The matter is set for further pleading completion.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged the position taken by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court found the affidavit filed by the Respondent to be inadequate in reasoning regarding Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the court directed the Controller General to ensure specialized Controllers assist the court on the next hearing date.
Ankit Aggarwal Proprietor Of M/S Vepson Engineers v.Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed petitions filed by Ankit Aggarwal to cancel two trademark registrations held by Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the respondent's marks were confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'JAI KISAN,' used since 1985 in agricultural implements. Furthermore, the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of their registered marks for a continuous period of five years, leading the court to remove them from the Register under Section 47 of the Trade Mark Act.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the term of the patent had already expired on June 4, 2021.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706 held by Mylan Laboratories Limited and the Controller of Patents. However, the court noted that the term of Patent No. 205706 had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Novartis AG
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212815 titled “N-substituted 2-cyanopyrrolidines” under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after noting that the patent term had already expired and the petitioner had previously requested withdrawal.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 252762. The court noted that the term of this patent had already expired on February 3, 2014.
Abs Global, Inc. v.Cytonome/ST, LLC
Abs Global, Inc. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 240790 granted to Cytonome/ST, LLC. However, the court noted that leave had been granted in another proceeding for the petitioner (and defendants) to withdraw the revocation proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the current petition as withdrawn.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 224634, which was granted to Matrix Laboratories Limited. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 224634 had expired on the date of the judgment.
Lupin Limited v.Dong-A ST Co., Ltd.
Lupin Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236862 granted to Dong-A ST Co., Ltd. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they would not prosecute the matter further due to the patent's term expiring shortly.
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v.Union Of India
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited challenged the constitutional validity of Section 37A of FEMA, arguing it violated fundamental rights. The dispute centered on royalty payments made by Xiaomi to foreign entities like Qualcomm for Standard Essential Patents used in its mobile phones.
M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius (substituted by MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius, seeking substitution of its name with MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd. The change was necessitated by a Deed of Assignment executed for certain trademarks, including 'TIVOLI HOTELS & RESORTS'. The court permitted the substituted appellant to carry out proposed amendments in the appeal memo and set a deadline for filing the revised appeal.
RSPL LIMITED v.AGARWAL HOME PRODUCTS & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute where RSPL LIMITED alleges that Respondent No. 1's registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' is deceptively similar to its well-known trademarks, 'GHARI' and 'GHADI'. The petitioner has filed an opposition against related marks and sought injunctive relief. The court acknowledged the core issue—the similarity between the marks—and granted the petitioner time to present relevant case law before scheduling a re-notification.