India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 49 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation v.M/s.TKP Pictures
The Madras High Court heard an appeal regarding the ownership and infringement of copyrights related to the film 'MALLU VETTY MINOR'. The court found that the petitioner, M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation, was the absolute owner of the copyrights. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted against Respondent No.1 (TKP Pictures) for infringing these rights.
Vmi Holland B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vmi Holland B.V. appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected their patent application, titled "Assembly for and method of making a tyre component," on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The High Court found the rejection order to be arbitrary, devoid of reasons, and lacking proper adjudication on the merits.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject a patent application for a lamp lightning control circuit. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to address their submissions and ignored evidence, thus violating natural justice. The Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents, which dismissed their application for 'A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT' on grounds of obviousness and lack of inventive steps. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked reasons and failed to address the appellant's submissions and evidence.
Fena Private Limited v.Bajranglal Rathi Trading As M/S. Maheshwari Soap Industries and Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a trademark dispute brought by Fena Private Limited against Bajranglal Rathi Trading. The court noted that prima facie, the impugned registration appears to infringe upon the appellant's rights. Furthermore, the court observed evidence suggesting a clear case of non-use regarding the respondent's mark, which was not disputed at the hearing. Consequently, the matter has been adjourned for further arguments and submissions.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Sanofi - Aventis challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller Patent and Designs, which rejected their subject invention under Sections 2(i)(j)(a) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court took cognizance of this appeal (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol). While the Respondent Controller remained unrepresented, the court directed Sanofi - Aventis to ensure proper service on the Controller and file an Affidavit of Service before listing the matter for further hearing.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Driving Support Device and Vehicle Driving Support Method'. The rejection was based on the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'NOVEL FORMS Of CDDO METHYL ESTER' on grounds of non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The appellant argued that the rejection failed to consider crucial clinical trial data demonstrating enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the authority must deal with all submitted evidence and provide reasoned orders.
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
AROA BIOSURGERY LIMITED appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design regarding its application for 'TISSUE SCAFFOLDS DERIVED FROM FORESTOMACH EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX'. The invention relates to an implantable tissue scaffold device using ruminant forestomach extracellular matrix, intended for applications like wound repair and breast augmentation. The initial rejection was based on grounds including Sections 3(b) and (i), and failure to comply with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
ARDENIA INVESTMENTS, LTD. v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR
This case involves an appeal filed by Ardenia Investments Ltd. against a previous order dismissing its patent application for a "Drug Delivery System for administration of poorly Water Soluble pharmaceutical Active Substances." The original dismissal held that the subject matter lacked technical advancement and inventive steps, specifically citing Section 3(d) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court has issued procedural directions to the appellant regarding the continuation of the appeal.
M/S. Nichino Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Registry's refusal to register the word mark 'METAMORPH' in Class 5 (pesticides/herbicides). The court found that the Registrar erred by assuming prior long-term use of a cited mark, especially since that application was initially filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The judgment mandates the Registry to re-examine the case, considering the appellant's claims regarding non-similarity and potential entitlement under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act.
M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to accept and process a renewal application for the mark 'NATURE'S WEALTH RESTORES HEALTH.' The court held that as long as the trade mark has not been formally removed from the register, the proprietor is entitled to seek renewal, setting aside the rejection order issued by the Registry. This decision provides crucial protection against administrative hurdles preventing legitimate trademark renewals.
M/S. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr v.The Additional Commissioner
Court decision.
Moneywise Finvest Limited v.Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited
Moneywise Finvest Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited regarding the use of similar marks ('STOXKART' vs 'STOCKART') in the financial services sector. While the plaintiff initially sought an urgent ex-parte injunction due to delisting from Google Play, the court noted that this issue had been resolved by the plaintiff's appeal. The court subsequently allowed various procedural applications and scheduled the matter for further consideration, allowing the suit to proceed.
Vaibhav Agarwal v.Prabhakar Kumar & Ors.
Vaibhav Agarwal, claiming ownership of the 'Haldiram' trademark, challenged the actions of the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding the Corporate Debtor, Haldiram Fincap Pvt. Ltd., citing potential IP infringement. The RP argued that the name was inherent to the corporate debtor and that Form G could not be withdrawn under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Recognizing the dispute's complexity, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter for mediation, encouraging an amicable resolution between the parties.
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd v.H.R.Marketing
S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd successfully secured a judgment against H.R.Marketing in the Madras High Court regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to their product label and trade dress. Although the suit involved claims under both Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the parties reached a memorandum of compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, granting permanent injunctions and ordering the destruction of all infringing materials.
Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work; Mr.R.Logenthiran, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work v.Mr.P.Moorthy; The Registrar of Copyrights
Petitioners sought rectification and expungement of a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic photograph of a pump assembly. Petitioners argued that since the article was also registered as a design earlier, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act should apply. However, the Court found that the work registered was the Pump Assembly itself (as a design), not the photograph/artistic work, and therefore dismissed the petition.
The Sun Products v.The Controller, Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The Sun Products filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Controller and Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to reject the application for registration of the trade mark 'Alagumayil' by Sri Hari Agency, citing similarity with the petitioner's existing trade mark 'Mayiil Oma Water'. The court disposed of the petition by directing the official respondents to consider the objection and conduct an enquiry within eight weeks.
Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy v.Mr.P.Moorthy
Petitioners sought to rectify/expunge a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic work photograph of a pump assembly, arguing that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act renders it invalid because the article was already registered as a design. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Pump Assembly itself, not the photograph, was registered as a design and that the photograph did not meet the requirements of a design.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a material disclaimer in its registration certificate, which limited exclusive use of the device 'Swastik'. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration and obtaining copyright protection. However, the court found that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact—a disclaimer in its own registration certificate limiting exclusive use. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
SML Limited v.Mohan & Company &Anr.
The plaintiff, SML Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Mohan & Company &Anr. for infringing its agricultural composition patent (IN'092). The infringement was alleged through the sale and marketing of products under the brand name 'Aladdin'.
Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikas Pal And Anr.
In a trademark infringement suit filed in the Delhi High Court, Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. sought various reliefs, including permanent injunctions and damages against Vikas Pal and others. The court addressed several interlocutory applications related to the case's progression. Crucially, the court granted the Plaintiff liberty to file necessary additional documents within three weeks, allowing the litigation process to move forward while addressing procedural requirements.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.798/CHE/2011) for an invention related to a bearing structure in an internal combustion engine. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art D1 and D2. The High Court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing that a proper obviousness analysis must be conducted before rejecting the application.