India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 18 of 311 · 7,456 total
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 330145 related to PCA units, which were allegedly used at various airports. Defendant No. 3 sought its deletion from the array of parties, arguing it was not involved in the infringement activities or liable for the actions of other entities.
Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.
Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notices and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201617000209). However, the Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal.
Universal Test Solutions Llp v.Punam Kumari Singh and Others
The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.
Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notice and directed Respondent No. 1 to file a reply within four weeks.
Saurabh Arora v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents which dismissed a post-grant opposition filed against Patent No. IN 283059. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned, failing to assess the technical merits of the prior art (D1) cited under Section 25(2)(c).
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The respondent authorities adopted a narrow interpretation, arguing that GUIs are mere software and not registrable articles. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the existing legal definitions must be interpreted expansively to recognize GUIs as industrial designs.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUI qualifies as a registrable design were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh consideration.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that the Controller adopted an unduly strict interpretation, failing to recognize GUIs as registrable designs. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests regarding GUI registration.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Geonix International Private Limited
The appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) bearing their registered trademarks. The respondents purchase these HDDs after they reach an 'end-of-life' stage, are extracted from equipment abroad, and imported into India. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that neither trademark infringement nor reverse passing off was established.
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.