India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 43 of 299 · 7,167 total
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court addressed whether Rainbow Health Care was infringing upon or passing off against the registered trademarks of Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to maintain an injunction against deceptive use of its brand name. The trial court had previously dismissed these interim applications and vacated existing injunction orders. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned orders, reviving the ad-interim injunctions until the final decision of the suit.
Bmi Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs And Another
Bmi Group Danmark Aps appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for a multi-layer sealing web. The core dispute centered on whether the invention possessed inventive step, specifically concerning the unique combination carrier insert featuring glass nonwoven and knitted glass reinforcement. The Delhi High Court examined the technical analysis and found that the Controller incorrectly interpreted the claim's features and relied improperly on non-analogous prior art. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and directed the grant of the patent.
Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India Ors
The appellants challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patent Act, 1970, arguing that the delay in granting their patent (from application date to grant date) and subsequent demand for renewal fees violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution and that the USA model of Patent Term Adjustment is not conducive to India.
M/S Zine Davidoff S.A. v.Union Of India And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Zine Davidoff S.A., restoring its mark 'DAVIDOFF' (No. 454875) after it had been removed by the IPAB for alleged lapse. The court found that the petitioner had renewed the mark within statutory timelines, and crucially, noted that the Trade Mark Registry failed to issue a mandatory Form O3 notice before removal. Given the Registry's admission of lacking records regarding this notice, the High Court mandated the restoration of the trademark.
Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.IMO Holding Gmbh
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) challenging the validity of Patent IN254458, arguing that it lacked novelty and did not comply with relevant provisions of the Patents Act. However, the counsel for the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they had reached a settlement with the contesting respondent.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr 6/2020/PT/KOL) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged the refusal of its patent application for a tobacco flavorant method, which was rejected solely on the grounds that all forms of tobacco are injurious to human health (Section 3(b) of the Patents Act). The petitioner argued that the rejection lacked any scientific basis or reasoning, being based merely on a preconceived notion. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's order unsubstantiated and arbitrary. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Controller Of Patents
Vifor (International) Ag appealed an order by the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used to treat iron deficiency. The appellant argued that the rejection based on lack of novelty and inventive step was flawed, as the prior art cited was irrelevant and the Controller ignored technical data provided.
Abbvie Biotherapeutics Inc & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal of an Indian patent application for 'ANTI-cMet ANTIBODY DRUG CONJUGATES AND METHODS FOR THEIR USE'. The appellant sought to amend claims from methods of treatment to product claims. The court upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the original specification focused on method-of-use and the proposed amendments were an impermissible broadening of scope.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents refusing to grant its patent application concerning microvesicles derived from adult stem cells for tumor treatment. The core legal dispute centered on whether the appellant could amend the claims at the appellate stage to overcome objections regarding novelty and inventive step. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the amendments, finding that they were merely explanatory or disclaimers and did not broaden the scope of the original claims. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh examination.
Grey Swift Private Limited Through Mr. Shivam Singla v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Grey Swift Private Limited has appealed a rejection order from the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks regarding its wordmark 'BharatStamp' in Class 9. The examiner rejected the mark, citing lack of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting a date for arguments on August 28, 2024.
Diageo Scotland Limited v.Prachi Varma & Anr.
Diageo Scotland Limited successfully appealed against the rejection of its opposition to a new trademark registration, 'CAPTAIN BLUE'. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Diageo, finding that 'CAPTAIN BLUE' was deceptively similar and constituted an imitation of Diageo's established family of marks, particularly 'CAPTAIN MORGAN'. The court set aside the previous order and directed the removal of the infringing mark from the Register, reinforcing the protection afforded to well-known brands.
Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Oreo Healthcare
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products under the registered trademark 'HAEMOCAL', sued defendants for using the deceptively similar mark 'HEMOCAL' and copying their unique packaging and labeling. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the public.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning alleged copyright infringement related to proprietary engineering drawings used in manufacturing LNG semi-trailers. The core issue was whether these technical drawings fell under the definition of 'design' under the Designs Act, thereby invalidating the claim for copyright protection. The Supreme Court held that determining this mixed question of law and fact could not be done at a preliminary stage (Order VII Rule 11 CPC). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Commercial Court was directed to conduct a full trial to comprehensively assess all IP claims.
Epifi Technologies Private Limited v.Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Epifi Technologies Private Limited against Formula One Licensing Bv & Anr., successfully arguing that the respondent's registered mark 'F1' should be removed from the register. The court found that the impugned mark had not been used in commerce for the required continuous period, and furthermore, the respondent failed to obtain necessary regulatory approvals despite its registration date. This decision reinforces the principle that trademark registrations must reflect genuine commercial use.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Takeda Pharmaceutical appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for Novel Protein Kinase Inhibitors (Brigatinib). The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to consider crucial supplementary data demonstrating Brigatinib's superior selectivity and therapeutic efficacy.
Advanced Electric Machines Group Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
This appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning an improved electrical sub-assembly for electric/hybrid vehicles, which aimed to enhance Switched Reluctance Machines (SRMs). The petitioner argued that the rejection order lacked reasoning and failed to consider key aspects of the invention. The court found significant procedural flaws in the respondent's decision, including failure to issue a proper Second Examination Report and citing foreign documents without translation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Syrma Sgs Electronic Pvt Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 483156, which relates to a backpack with an avalanche safety system. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning the submission and exemption of documents. Notice was issued to all respondents for further proceedings.
Fashnear Technologies Private Limited v.John Doe/S And Ors
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction reliefs sought by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited against John Doe and others. The court issued sweeping directives requiring entities like NPCI, telecom service providers, and Meta Platforms to take immediate action—including blocking UPI IDs, suspending phone numbers, and removing infringing social media content—to protect the plaintiff's trademarks ('MEESHO') and copyrights. This order sets a strong precedent for how IP holders can leverage court intervention against digital infringement across multiple platforms.