India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 21 of 311 · 7,456 total
Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v.Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rekin Pharma regarding trademark infringement, passing off, and domain name misuse. The core dispute revolved around the similarity between 'REXCIN' (Petitioner) and 'REKIN-SP' (Respondent), particularly concerning pharmaceutical goods in Class 5. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish continuous use of REXCIN as a source identifier for Class 5 products.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim
The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Sware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.
P V Anand Kishore v.M/S Bhatt Electronics (P) Ltd.
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order that held M/S Bhatt Electronics liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in damages for infringing registered designs and trademarks related to emergency lights. The original suit was filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Designs Act. While the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of manufacturing or sales linking them to the infringement, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding. The court concluded that since there was no denial by the defendant regarding the sale of the product, the liability for damages could be inferred from the facts and circumstances.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh for infringing Patent No. 209816, which covers SITAGLIPTIN. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial compensatory, exemplary, and costs damages.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The suit was filed alleging infringement of Patent No. 269841 (IN'841) by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd regarding the compound Ruxolitinib. After discussions, the Defendant provided an undertaking that they would not commercialize the patented compound during the patent's validity. The court accepted this undertaking and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
Jesal Vimal Jetha v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the Controller's refusal of a patent application for a customizable comforter system, citing failure to meet objections under Section 2(1)(ja). The appellant argued that the decision was mechanical and violated natural justice due to procedural irregularities in handling prior art documents. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Trackon Couriers Private Limited v.B N Srinivas
The Plaintiff, a courier service company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendant for using marks containing 'TRACK-ON' or 'TRACK-ON EXPRESS', which are confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted temporary relief.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant, Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc., challenged a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The court heard preliminary submissions regarding whether the sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4) was complied with and if the rejection order lacked adequate reasons.
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja And Another v.Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a revision petition concerning a composite trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that while joinder of causes of action is permissible under CPC, the delay in trial due to combining both claims necessitated modification. Consequently, the court granted the defendant time to seek rectification of the plaintiff's registered mark, stayed the infringement claim for three months, and directed that the passing off claim be tried as a separate suit.
Gloster Limited (SRA) v.Gloster Cables Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed a complex dispute regarding the ownership and status of the trademark 'Gloster' within the context of insolvency proceedings (IBC). The core issue was whether the trademark, which had been assigned to Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), remained an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The Court ultimately set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s finding that the trademark belonged to the Corporate Debtor, but clarified that this ruling did not definitively resolve the underlying title dispute between the parties. This judgment highlights the limitations of insolvency forums in adjudicating complex intellectual property ownership claims.
Symrise Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Symrise Ag filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 202117041016) for 'An Antimicrobial Mixture', holding that it was not patentable under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd filed a petition before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner submitted that a third-party post grant opposition had led to the revocation of the patent held by the respondents under Section 25(2) read with Section 25(4) of the Patent Act, 1970. Consequently, the court dismissed the present petition as infructuous.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited, filed an affidavit seeking leave from the Delhi High Court to amend its claims in a patent application. The company asserted that the amendments were lawful, bona fide, and did not broaden the original disclosure, but merely provided clarification.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Uvw Extruder
Steer Engineering Private Limited appealed against a commercial court order that dismissed its application for temporary injunction. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Patent No. 318271, titled 'Stress Concentration Free Spline Profile', which protects components used in Twin Screw Extruders. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing the patent during the pendency of the suit.
M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v.Pyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep
The applicant (M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a revision application challenging an order that rejected its application for rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit. The dispute centered on allegations of infringement of the plaintiff's industrial oven design by the respondent. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application, finding no grounds for rejection.
Dr. Dulal Kumar De v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his patent application for 'Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting' on grounds of abandonment. The core dispute revolved around whether the service of the First Examination Report (FER) via email, rather than registered post, invalidated the time limits under the Patents Act, 1970.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks that dismissed his opposition against the registration of the mark 'JBR'. The dispute centered on whether 'JBR' was likely to cause confusion with Karan Rathore's pre-existing device mark used for motor parts and automotive accessories. The court allowed the appeal, finding that both marks were identical and the goods were similar enough to warrant refusal.
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a cancer detection method using nematode olfaction. The Appellant argued that the invention was merely a detection method (in vitro) and not a diagnosis, despite descriptive language in the specification. However, the High Court upheld the original order, finding that the claimed method functioned as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Act.
Viacyte Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Viacyte Inc appealed a rejection order from the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding an invention for a bioreactor used to culture primate pluripotent stem cell-derived cell aggregates. The Controller rejected the application, finding it lacked inventive steps and failed disclosure requirements. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Vishal Choudhary v.SNPC Machines Private Limited
Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling subject brick-making machines, which were patented by SNPC Machines Pvt. Ltd. The appeal primarily raised issues of territorial jurisdiction and the merits of patent infringement. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction in favor of the plaintiff (SNPC).
Ashish Padia v.Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging infringement across multiple IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyrights related to 'Bonded Fusion Bowl' and various bowl designs. The court framed several issues regarding infringement, patent revocation, and entitlement to damages.