India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 58 of 311 · 7,456 total
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche filed a suit alleging infringement of its species patent (IN 334397) for the drug Risdiplam, marketed as EVRYSDI®, by Natco Pharma Limited. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the API. However, the court found that the defendant had raised a credible challenge regarding the validity of the patent. Considering the public interest in affordable medicine for rare diseases like SMA, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, though it clarified that damages would be payable if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the trial.
Neoculi Pty Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Neoculi Pty Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, Kolkata, which rejected its application for an antibacterial pharmaceutical composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, unpatentability under Section 3(e), and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter.
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP v.M/s. NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP, finding that the defendant's use of 'NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant' constituted deceptive similarity and trademark infringement. The court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, especially since both parties operate in the identical restaurant business. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions against further misuse and an order for the destruction of all infringing materials.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Sharanjeet Singh
Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.
M/S Crompton Greaves Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
In this rectification case, M/S Crompton Greaves Limited sought to rectify Trademark No. 1131780 used by a respondent. However, given that the respondent had simultaneously filed an application seeking cancellation of the same trademark before the Registrar of Trade Marks, the High Court directed the Registrar to address the cancellation request directly. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of without further proceedings.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the judgment that rejected his appeal regarding Patent Application No.5606/CHENP/2012. The petitioner argued there were patent errors concerning Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically related to technical effect on hardware. However, the High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the rejection of his earlier appeal, which had been rejected on both maintainability grounds (Section 117A) and merits. The petitioner argued that patent errors existed in the interpretation of Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically concerning technical effect and best mode. The Madras High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
AMST – SYSTEMTECHNIK GMBH v.Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order treating its Patent Application No.3022/CHENP/2011 as withdrawn due to failure to request examination within the stipulated period. The court considered the sequence of events, noting that the petitioner intended to prosecute the application and citing previous judgments where similar facts led to non-withdrawal.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Bristol Myers Squibb challenged communications from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Patent Application No. 5948/CHENP/2014, arguing that additional documents submitted by the opponent (Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance) should not be considered due to procedural non-compliance. The court ultimately declined to interfere with the decision to receive these documents but directed that the proceedings must conclude expeditiously within three months.
Akebia Therapeutics, INC. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Akebia Therapeutics appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647000423). The rejection was primarily based on the argument that amending the original method-of-treatment claim to a pharmaceutical composition claim violated Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside this order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The review petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the original judgment dated January 15, 2025. The core dispute revolved around whether raising a defense of invalidity in an infringement suit (Section 107) prevents the patentee from filing a separate revocation petition (Section 64).
Anand Sarup Sachdeva M/S Diachi International v.Rex Sewing Machine Co. Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction of clerical errors in a previous order related to a trademark dispute. The Court found that certain discrepancies, including the petitioner's name and the scope of cancellation, were inadvertent mistakes. Consequently, the court corrected the relevant paragraphs, ensuring the restoration of M/s Daichi International's trademark registration (No. 696905) while confirming the cancellation of the respondent's mark (No. 1573729). This order clarifies the legal standing of both parties in the ongoing dispute.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appeal concerned the non-payment of service tax on royalty charges received by M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. from group companies for using the 'TTK' logo. The Department alleged that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant argued that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co appealed against demands for service tax on royalty charges collected by group companies for using their logo "TTK". The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under Copyright Act and thus exempt from service tax.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges collected from group companies for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged an order by The Controller General of Patents and Designs, which had refused its patent application. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patent Act, citing concerns over public order or morality due to the nature of tobacco products. The appellant argued that the process—a method for preparing a sugar-containing syrup from Nicotiana species stalk (tobacco flavourant)—should not be rejected simply because all forms of tobacco are injurious. The court directed the Controller to take necessary instructions before further proceedings.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant, engaged in trading and distribution of consumer durables and health care products, was charged service tax on royalty received for using its logo "TTK" across group companies. The Department argued the logo functioned as a Trademark (IPR Service), while the Appellant contended it was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, exempting it from IPR service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in favor of the Appellant.
Indian Institute Of Science (Oa ...) v.The Asst. Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents that rejected a patent application related to microfluidic apparatuses for quantifying component concentration. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked independent application of mind, and violated principles of natural justice due to the absence of reasoned justification.
Rajani Products v.Bhagwan Das Harwani S/o Unknown; Karishma Trading Corporation
The Rajasthan High Court allowed an appeal, quashing a lower court order that had rejected an interim injunction application. The petitioner, Rajani Products, holds a registered trademark for 'Swastik' used in edible oils. The court found prima facie evidence that the respondents were using a deceptively similar mark ('Shree Parwati Swastik'), amounting to infringement. Citing prior identical rulings in related cases, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the infringing trademark until the main suit is decided.
Grena Limited v.Axon Medical Solutions Pvt Ltd And Anr
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an opposition matter concerning the 'GRENA' trademark. The court granted status quo regarding two specific trademark registrations (No. 5661191 and 6050365) held by Respondent No. 1, ensuring no changes are made until further judicial direction. Furthermore, the respondent was given four weeks to file their replies in the ongoing litigation.
Kemin Industries, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries v.Trulines Technologies
Lin-O-Matic Graphic Industries filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement of its drawing of a book binding machine. The appeal challenged the High Court's order which, while not setting aside the initial expert report, directed the Investigating Officer to obtain an additional expert opinion. The Supreme Court set aside this direction, finding it would cause confusion and prejudice.
Ashish Padia v.Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Ashish Padia, filed a commercial suit against Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd alleging infringement of several registered IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyright related to various bowl products. The court issued an order settling the issues and directing both parties to file their respective lists of witnesses and evidence for further proceedings.
National Engineering College v.All India Council for Technical Education
This case involved a dispute between National Engineering College and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the college's right to use 'National' in its name. The petitioner challenged AICTE regulations that sought to prohibit such usage, particularly those applied retrospectively. The Madras High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the college, holding that the regulatory notification was invalid and could not be applied retroactively, thereby protecting the institution's established identity.