India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 44 of 295 · 7,068 total
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a method to detect genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on flawed reasoning regarding Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.
Dominos Ip Holder LLC successfully secured an interim injunction against M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors. in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that the defendant's use of names like 'Dominic Pizza' and 'Domindo Pizza' was highly likely to cause confusion, deception, and passing off with the globally renowned Domino's brand. This preliminary order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's trademarks while the main suit proceeds.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.R Y Easy Shop Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Play Games 24X7 Private Limited. The plaintiff informed the court that they had identified additional entities infringing their intellectual property rights and would seek impleadment of these parties. The court directed the matter to be listed before the Joint Registrar on April 23, 2025, while continuing the existing interim order.
Milliken And Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Milliken And Company appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant an Indian patent application. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider a crucial expert statement by Dr. Nathan A Mehl. The High Court found merit in the appeal, holding that foreign decisions are not binding and directing the matter back for fresh consideration.
Bionorica Se v.Union Of India And Ors
Bionorica Se appealed against a rejection order passed by the Patent Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was perverse and lacked reasoned application of mind. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it cryptic and unreasoned, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on merits.
Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, (Govt. Of India)
In this writ petition, Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya sought judicial intervention to expedite the pending registration of his trademark 'LAKHOTIA DURGA' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that previous opposition had been resolved through a compromise and there was no longer any impediment to registration. The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the prayer, issuing a mandamus-like direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks.
Ambika Ramesh v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
Ambika Ramesh filed a writ petition seeking intervention regarding her registered Ayurvedic product trademarks. Despite inadvertently missing the renewal deadline, she submitted a detailed representation outlining her grievances. The Kerala High Court intervened, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending representation within 60 days, ensuring due process.
M/s. Effra Life Science v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of M/s. Effra Life Science's application for a device mark registration. The court found that despite both marks being in Class 35, the appellant's business (marketing pharmaceutical products) was fundamentally different from the cited prior mark's business (repair and installation of machinery). This distinction negated the likelihood of confusion, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
Neeraj Jain challenged the rejection of his design application (No. 393302-001), which was deemed abandoned due to a delay in filing the Power of Attorney (POA) and subsequent reply to the FER. The Controller had rejected the application because the response was filed beyond the stipulated six-month period. The Delhi High Court, recognizing a bona fide mistake by the petitioner's agent, intervened.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp
Sonani Industries challenged an impugned High Court order regarding its patent rights concerning Diamond Holding Devices. The Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the Special Leave Petition, finding that the petitioner's interests were protected while directing parties to resolve the underlying suit and post-grant objections within specified timelines.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl v.The Asst Controller Of Patent And Designs & Anr.
Fresenius Kabi Ipsum Srl filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated November 21, 2024, which refused Patent Application No. IN201611009993. The court issued notices and set dates for further submissions.
BASF SE v.JOINT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS
BASF SE appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application for 'CRYSTALLINE MODIFICATIONS TO PYRACLOSTROBIN' (Form IV modification). The appellant argued that the 18-year delay in disposal violated natural justice and that the rejection was erroneous on merits. The court set aside the impugned order, primarily due to the egregious delay.
Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala seeking the rectification of a trademark registration held by another party. The court observed that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings for rectification before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition but directed the Registrar to expedite the consideration and passing of orders on the existing rectification application within six weeks.
Shaperon Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Shaperon Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning compositions for treating allergic skin disorders containing GPCR19 agonists. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd.
The suit was filed by Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. against Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Ors for alleged infringement of a patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and a registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap', along with claims of passing off. The court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings, including counterclaims regarding the novelty and inventive step of the Plaintiff's IP rights.
Mukesh Chand Khandelwal Trading As M/S Khandelwal Brothers v.M/S S N Biri Factory Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal filed by Mukesh Chand Khandelwal. The court condoned an eight-day delay in refiling the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. The case challenges the Registrar's decision that dismissed the appellant's trademark application due to a successful opposition filed by the respondent.
YC Electric Vehicle v.Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'YATRI' and 'SAHYATRI', constituted infringement of the plaintiff's renowned trademarks ('YATRI' and 'YC') and copyright associated with electric vehicles. This order provides immediate protection to YC Electric Vehicle while the main suit proceeds.
Hindustan Syringes And Medical Device and Ltd. v.Unomedical A/S and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes against a previous decision by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court set aside the impugned order, which had previously dismissed the opposition filed by Hindustan Syringes regarding the mark 'UNOMEDICAL'. Furthermore, based on the parties' consent, the court also allowed a rectification petition, leading to the cancellation of UNOMEDICAL's trademark registration in Class 10. This decision significantly impacts the validity and scope of the contested brand.
Epikindifi Software And Solutions Pty Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed rectification petitions filed by Epikindifi Software and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. concerning the marks LEND.EZEE (No. 6174368 and 6174369). The court noted a procedural error in the filing, specifically regarding the petitioner's name. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a corrected Memo of Parties within one week. Further proceedings were scheduled after granting time for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
University College London v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
University College London appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application concerning 'A Delayed Release Drug Formulation.' The core dispute centered on whether the complete specification of the parent application related to more than one invention, which was the basis for rejection. The appellant argued that their claims were distinct and did not constitute double patenting. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for reconsideration.
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the 'Toy Building Block' design (No. 345217-001), filed a suit against various defendants, including e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, alleging infringement and dilution due to counterfeit toys being sold online. The court found that Defendants no. 6, 8, and 10 were misusing the registered design, granting permanent injunctions against them.
Jansen Pharmaceutica Nv v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Jansen Pharmaceutica appealed the rejection of its patent application for a dry, intravenously administrable formulation of tipifarnib. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive steps and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court found that the impugned order was vague, lacked reasoning, and failed to apply established principles for determining inventive steps.
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas appealed an order rejecting Patent Application No. 201941042481 for a method to capture carbon dioxide. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that new grounds were raised by the respondent, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.