India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 59 of 311 · 7,456 total
Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v.Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing And Agencies Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on a Commercial Court's injunction, which had previously barred Bhole Nath Foods Ltd from using its 'Cheetal' trademark. The court found that there was no phonetic or visual similarity between 'Cheetal' and the respondent's 'Double Deer,' noting that the appellant held a valid registration dating back to 2007. This decision allows the appeal to proceed without immediate restriction on the use of the disputed mark.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed an order by the Controller rejecting its patent application (3623/KOLNP/2013) due to lack of inventive steps. The court set aside the rejection, finding that certain cited prior art documents (D5 and D8) were inadmissible because they were published after the priority date.
Gurpal Singh v.Bhim Sain Wadhwa
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to introduce historical letters and recent Income Tax Returns (ITRs) into a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'KHUSHDIL'. The court allowed the plaintiff to place on record old letters, which lend credence to the origin of the name through state functionaries. However, the request to admit ITRs spanning 2010 to 2025 was rejected due to the belated nature of the filing and adherence to commercial suit procedures. This decision allows the case to proceed with a mix of historical evidence and existing records.
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for methods using cell-free DNA to identify diseases. The original rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, arguing that the method found application in diagnostics. The High Court set aside this order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only if the invention 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art.
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.
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 related to detecting genetic aberrations associated with cancer. The appellant argued that the rejections under Sections 3(i), 3(k), and 10(4)(c) were flawed, citing lack of reasoning and procedural unfairness. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201747006075). The rejection was primarily based on Section 3(i), arguing that the method for detecting tumor-derived cell-free DNA falls under diagnostic processes and is therefore not patentable. The High Court set aside the impugned order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only to inventions that 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
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.