India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 61 of 311 · 7,456 total
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged a communication from respondent authorities that cancelled a scheduled hearing for its patent application, citing redundancy in cited prior art. The petitioner argued this cancellation was unjustifiable without following procedural mandates. The court found serious infractions of procedure and directed the matter to be reassigned and heard afresh.
M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Sakthi Oil Mills, directing The Registrar of Trademarks to permit the renewal of the trademark 'THENALEE.' Despite the mark having lapsed, the court relied on previous judgments stating that if a trademark is not removed from the register, the owner is entitled to seek renewal. However, the petitioner was put on strict terms, including paying costs and filing the application within 30 days, to prevent future negligence.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Shree Bhawani Agro Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Shree Bhawani Agro Industries. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the unauthorized use of the trademark 'SHAKTIMAN' by the defendant on agricultural products like Rotavator Blades. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds, underscoring the urgency in protecting established brand rights.
Smart Call Centre Solution Private Limited v.Harinder Singh And Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages against the defendant for alleged disclosure of confidential and proprietary information. The court granted leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent and dispensed with the pre-mediation process due to grave urgency. Subsequently, an interim order was passed restraining the defendant from disclosing or utilizing confidential client data and trade secrets.
Creativeland Advertising Private Limited v.Winzo Games Private Limited
In a dispute concerning the use and registration of the tagline "Jeeto Har Dinzo," Creativeland Advertising sought interim protection against Winzo Games, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trademark infringement. Despite the petitioner's request for immediate injunctions, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The court appointed Justice Manmohan Singh as the arbitrator and directed him to expedite the proceedings within five days due to the imminent advertising campaign timeline.
Adyar Gate Hotels Limited v.ITC Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the trademark 'Dakshin'. The court found that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was independently using the mark since 2015 and had shifted premises recently. This decision allows the matter to proceed on merits, requiring the appellant to file a formal response before the case is heard fully.
Mr.Amit Agarwal / M/s.Seetu Orbit Cable India Pvt. Limited v.Mr.Shiv Kumar Gupta / M/s.ADL Orbit Cable (India)
The Madras High Court addressed applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand ORBIT/ADL ORBIT. While upholding the interim injunction against the use of the registered trademarks, the court recognized the potential hardship caused by immediate cessation of the trading name. Consequently, it granted a 60-day grace period for the defendant to transition its branding, balancing public interest in preventing consumer confusion with commercial viability.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's mark 'MYRON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established brand 'KYRON,' particularly as both were used for French Brandy. Furthermore, the court cancelled the defendant's registered trademarks ('BSB MYRON') following rectification petitions, effectively protecting the plaintiff's market exclusivity.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.The Controller Of Patents
The Regents of the University of California appealed the refusal of their patent application concerning a recombinant Salmonella microorganism based live vaccine. The Controller argued that the broad scope of the claims led to two major issues: first, they potentially covered naturally occurring loss-of-function variants, making them non-patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act; and second, the complete specification lacked sufficient disclosure and clarity for the wide range of organisms claimed. The Delhi High Court upheld the Controller's decision, dismissing the appeal on grounds of insufficient disclosure and non-patentability.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.M.M. Oil Traders
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, which is suing M.M. Oil Traders for infringement. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from advance service and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the case. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to confiscate infringing products and inspect the defendant's accounts, signaling strong judicial support for the plaintiff's claims regarding trademark, design, and copyright infringement.
UPL Limited v.Astec Lifeciences Limited And Anr
The appeal challenged an earlier pre-grant objection order passed under Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that the impugned order suffered from a gross violation of natural justice due to its mechanical and verbatim reproduction of the private respondent's submissions without independent application of mind. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. initiated legal proceedings against Maj(Retd) Sukesh Behl and others concerning a Suit Patent related to an 8/16 modulation method used in data recording on discs. The court addressed complex issues, including the patent's validity under various sections of the Patents Act (such as novelty, sufficiency of disclosure, and non-patentability). Ultimately, after analyzing infringement claims and the defendants' conduct, the judgment focused on determining appropriate FRAND royalty rates for the patented technology.
Evonik Operations Gmbh And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr.
This appeal was filed by Evonik Operations Gmbh challenging an order dated May 2, 2023, which rejected Patent Application No. 201837000665. The court directed the appellants to file an Informal Paper Book and listed the matter for April 2025.
Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited v.Salahudeen Abdhullatheef
The Madras High Court addressed two petitions concerning trademark rectification in Class 9, involving Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited and Salahudeen Abdhullatheef. The court allowed the petition filed by Solidaire to expunge a prior mark (TM No.3882705), finding that its use predated the challenged registration. Conversely, the court dismissed Abdhullatheef's petition seeking rectification of his own mark, concluding that Solidaire's mark was deceptively similar and possessed superior priority in both use and registration.
Punjab Fc Private Limited v.Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited
Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others v.Drugs Controller General of India & Others
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against generic manufacturers (Hetero and Cadila) seeking permanent injunctions. The current judgment addresses applications for the disclosure and production of documents related to the defendants' regulatory approvals, arguing that the approvals were obtained by suppressing material facts.
Tahoe Research Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Tahoe Research Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201647014734) by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that principles of natural justice were violated regarding lack of clarity objections, and that the novelty analysis incorrectly applied EPO reasoning without considering material differences in the claims.
F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Drugs Controller General Of India
The plaintiffs, innovators of biological cancer drugs 'bevacizumab' (AVASTIN) and 'trastuzumab' (HERCEPTIN), filed suits against the Drugs Controller General of India and associated defendants. The current judgment addresses applications seeking disclosure and production of documents related to the DCGI approvals granted to bio-similar versions of these drugs.
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Vgx Pharmaceuticals Inc challenged the refusal of its patent application concerning 'Electroporation Devices and Methods.' The appeal argued that the Assistant Controller's order was unreasoned, failing to provide a clear justification for rejecting the invention based on prior art D4 and D5. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and lacking necessary analysis regarding inventive step. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal and remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Mankind Pharma v.Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mankind Pharma against Lemford Biotech Pvt Ltd., directing the removal of the trademark 'LENOKIND'. The court found that 'LENOKIND' was confusingly similar to Mankind Pharma’s established and well-known family of marks, particularly those containing the element 'KIND'. Given Mankind Pharma's extensive prior use, massive market presence in pharmaceuticals, and acquired goodwill, the registration of 'LENOKIND' was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against an injunction restraining them from using marks similar to Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd's registered trademarks. While the court stayed the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants to continue their use in the interim, it imposed strict conditions. The appellants must prominently display 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and include a clear disclaimer stating they have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.
Sammaan Finserv Limited v.Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed appeals challenging an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv and Sammaan Capital from using names similar to Svamaan Financial Services' registered trademarks. The court disposed of the interim applications by staying the operation of the restrictive judgment, allowing the appellants time to continue their current advertising campaigns. However, it mandated that the appellants must include clear disclaimers in all future advertisements, such as 'Formerly known as Indiabulls' and 'We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd,' to prevent consumer confusion.
Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited v.Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed a rectification application filed by Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited against Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr. The court found that the mark registered by the respondent was deceptively similar to the applicant's long-standing trademark 'Shrinath'. Crucially, the applicant successfully demonstrated prior use of the mark since 1978, establishing significant goodwill and reputation in the travel industry. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the infringing registration, reinforcing the importance of proving continuous prior usage rights.
Cadbury Uk Limited v.ITC Limited
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court directed that the Registrar of Trademarks be formally included in the proceedings. This procedural step ensures all relevant parties are involved in the ongoing litigation between Cadbury UK Limited and ITC Limited. Furthermore, the court granted the petitioner liberty to carry out necessary informal amendments to their case filings. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 5th, 2025.