India IP Litigation

8,024 annotated decisions

8,024
Decisions
4
IP Types
10
Courts

Page 335 of 335 · 8,024 total

patent defendant favorable · Jan 23, 1934

National Carbon Co., Incorporated v.Bright Star Battery Company

Calcutta High Court · AIR1934CAL725

The National Carbon Company held Patent No. 17148 of 1930 for dry cell batteries. After initial litigation, they sought to amend their patent specification under Section 17 of the Act. The Bright Star Battery Company opposed this application, arguing that a suit for infringement was pending and an appeal had been lodged against the dismissal of the original suit. The Court ultimately dismissed the amendment application.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 7, 1926

Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd. v.Juggi Lal, Kamlapat Cotton Spinning And ...

Allahabad High Court · AIR1927ALL81

The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Swadeshi Mills Co., Ltd., finding that the plaintiffs had successfully established a reputation for their cotton goods under the trade name 'kamalchap' through continuous use of specific lotus flower designs and impressions. The court granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from using colorable imitations of the marks. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to remove all infringing marks from their stock and pay substantial damages to the plaintiffs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 14, 1925

Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. v.E.S. Luard

Calcutta High Court

The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 8018, granted to E.S. Luard, arguing that it lacked novelty and invention, and was anticipated by prior art (Hardy's Patent and existing designs). The court found that the respondent's patent was not an improvement on the petitioner's design and disclosed no invention.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Dec 19, 1924

A.J. Von Wulfing v.D.H. Jivandas And Co.

Bombay High Court · null

The plaintiffs alleged that they had established a high reputation for chemical compounds sold under the names 'Sanatogen' and 'Formamint' in India. They sued the defendants, who were importing and selling similar goods at lower rates, alleging deception through the use of the marks and resemblance in packaging. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to their trade mark rights and ruled that the defendants' sale constituted infringement/passing off.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 7, 1922

Jwala Prasad v.Raghubir Prasad

Allahabad High Court · 70IND. CAS.833

The appeal concerned questions arising from a partnership dispute involving patent rights to locks named "Kartoos" and "Impervis." The court addressed the scope of judicial power concerning patent ownership when it arises within a winding-up of a partnership, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

design plaintiff favorable · May 22, 1917

Ernest Otto Gammeter v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · 48IND. CAS.437

Gammeter appealed against the cancellation of his watch band design registration by the Controller. The core legal issues were whether the Controller had the authority to cancel the registration based on a third party's application, and whether Gammeter's design constituted a novel invention.

patent plaintiff favorable · May 7, 1915

Kheshtra Pal Sharama v.Pancham Singh Varma

Allahabad High Court · N/A (1915)ILR 37ALL446

This 1915 Allahabad High Court judgment addressed a dispute over trademark infringement concerning medicinal products. The applicant, selling 'Sudha Sindhu,' sued the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered trademark through advertisements in Muttra. The court ruled that if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true—specifically, that the advertisement was calculated to induce confusion—then the trademark has been infringed within the jurisdiction of the local court. Consequently, the lower courts' decision to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds was set aside, allowing the case to proceed.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 20, 1914

Bhathey Sundara Rajan And Ors. v.A.A. Kuppusami Iyer And Anr.

Madras High Court · null

The appeal concerned an infringement suit regarding the 'Amp hill Patent Loom.' The court addressed whether defendants could raise defenses beyond those specified in the Patents Act, particularly concerning lack of subject matter. Ultimately, the appeals failed because the defendants were unable to discharge the burden of proving prior use before the patent application date.

1 •••333334335