India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 22 of 311 · 7,456 total
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks Govt. Of India
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim measure in the trademark opposition case filed by Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks, Government of India. The court directed that no further proceedings related to the specific publication date (11.08.2025) shall be taken until the next hearing date. This temporary stay provides crucial breathing room for the petitioner while procedural requirements are met.
Koninklijke Kpn N V v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The case involves Koninklijke Kpn N V alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio by Guangdong Oppo Mobile's WebRTC compliant devices. The court issued several orders regarding procedural matters, including granting extensions, allowing the filing of confidential documents, and setting dates for interim injunction hearings.
Bayer Healthcare Llc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Bayer Healthcare Llc filed an appeal seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 1788/DELNP/2007. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the patent term had expired.
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited
The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.
Zydus Lifesciences Limited v.E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc
Zydus Lifesciences appealed an injunction restraining it from selling its anti-cancer drug ZRC 3276, which was allegedly infringing E. R. Squibb's patent (5C4). The court considered the conflict between protecting IP rights and ensuring access to life-saving medication. Ultimately, the court modified the order by vacating the injunction but requiring Zydus to file audited accounts of sales until the patent expires.
Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties v.M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre
This matter originated from a civil suit filed by M/S Burhanpur Jalebi Centre seeking an injunction against Mohd Haroon Trading And Proprieties for trademark infringement. The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of their application regarding mandatory pre-litigation mediation proceedings. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the impugned order was passed by a Civil Judge below the rank of a District Judge, necessitating an appeal to the appropriate Commercial Appellate Court.
Kapil Goyal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Kapil Goyal appealed the refusal by The Registrar of Trade Marks to register the mark 'DOUBLE-CHOICE' under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The initial rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and descriptive. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the reasoning for deeming the mark descriptive was unfounded, especially since the application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
Trutech Machinery v.Controller of Patents & Anr.
Trutech Machinery challenged the Assistant Controller's order allowing a patent application for an improved round corner cutting machine. The Petitioner raised objections under Section 25, including anticipation and lack of inventive step. The Court found no legal error in the summary inquiry conducted by the Controller and directed the Petitioner to seek revocation under Section 64.
Steigerwald Arzneimittlewerk Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application (No. 1285/DEL/2009) on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The invention relates to a method for producing a plant-based medicament, Iberogast, which requires a specific mixing sequence for stable quality. The High Court found infirmities in the Controller's order regarding the reasoning under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its subject trade mark, 'PETKIND', citing similarity to a prior application. The Appellant argued that their extensive use and established goodwill with marks containing 'KIND' should qualify them for higher protection. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing the registered Trade Mark 'POSTMAN', used for refined groundnut oil. The Plaintiffs contended that despite a temporary discontinuation, they had not abandoned the mark and it held substantial goodwill. While some issues were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs (including granting an injunction), the court recalled its previous pronouncement and directed the suit to remain pending for further determination on damages.
Saint Gobain Tm Kk v.Assistant Controller Opf Patents And Designs
Saint Gobain Tm Kk filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order issued by the Assistant Comptroller of Patents and Designs regarding patent application no. 201717018424. The court accepted notice and granted time for the respondent to file written submissions, listing the case for further hearing.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
Largan Precision Co. Ltd filed a suit seeking an interim injunction and disclosure of sales against Motorola Mobility India Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. TN 395095. The court allowed notice to the defendants and listed the matter for further consideration.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in products that infringe their Indian Patent No. 426553, specifically mentioning the brand name NYKRON. The court accepted notice and directed the defendants to file a reply within two weeks.
OCV Intellectual Capital Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application for a high-performance glass fiber composition that achieves S-glass properties at a lower manufacturing cost. The Controller rejected it based on lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentable subject matter. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to consider key arguments regarding technical advancement and synergistic effect.
Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v.Lyka Bdr International Limited
The applicant filed an Interim Application in aid of Execution Application seeking the execution of an award dated November 15, 2023. The court granted directions requiring the respondent to disclose all particulars of their assets, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks), within four weeks.
People Interactive India Private Limited v.Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani And 3 Ors.
The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known matrimonial platform 'Shaadi.com', filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against the Defendants who used the similar mark and domain name 'getshaadi.com'. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and awarding substantial costs due to the Defendants' non-participation.
Natco Pharma Limit v.Novo Nordisk A/S And Ors.
The petitioner, Natco Pharma Limit, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appellant, Kba Notasys Sa, challenged an impugned order issued by the Controller General of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to apply established guidelines for determining inventive step and did not properly assess the invention described in their drawings. The respondent contended that the claimed invention was not patentable as it was covered by existing prior art.
Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. v.Koninklijke Philips Nv
The appeals challenged the Single Judge's decree awarding substantial damages against the appellants (Maj Retd. Sukesh Behl & Anr.) for infringing Patent IN 2182555 held by Koninklijke Philips Nv. The court adjudicated applications seeking stay of execution of this judgment and decree.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Anrose Pharma
The suit was filed alleging infringement and passing off concerning the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ZERODOL. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's use of 'ZEROVOL-P' was deceptively similar, confusingly misleading, and aimed at capitalizing on the Plaintiff's goodwill in medicinal preparations. Given the Defendant failed to contest the suit despite being served, the Court decreed the suit.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal was filed against the Joint Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition. The respondent argued that the amended claims were already covered by the parent application and did not meet statutory requirements, citing prior art.
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. v.Aquestia Limited
Automat Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. appealed a Single Judge's decision which held that its product, Hydromat Valve (an FCV), infringed Patent IN 4270503 of Aquestia Limited. The appellate court found errors of principle in the lower judgment regarding claim interpretation and fundamental differences in technology between the two valves.
Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v.Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr.
The appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that struck off the registered BLUE-JAY trade mark under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court examined whether the removal was justified based on grounds like bad faith and prior user status.