India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 65 of 299 · 7,167 total
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
Pps International filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of registered patent number 475011 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed an exemption application and issued notices to all respondents for filing their replies.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its patent application (no. 202217036137) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court issued notice to the respondent and granted time for filing a reply, setting the matter for renotification.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This appeal was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd against an order dated March 14, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original application for patent (No. 202117022431) was rejected based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Agro Innovation International v.The Controller Of Patents
Agro Innovation International filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision dated 23.02.2024, which had rejected their patent application no. 202017025064. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned a delay of eight days in filing the appeal, subsequently issuing notice to the respondent.
University Of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated v.The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for application no. 202017034395, citing non-patentability under Section 3(b). The court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal before directing parties to file replies regarding the main appeal.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim International filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents' order dated April 24, 2024. The core issue is whether the patent application constitutes a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an interim exemption regarding document filing and listed the main appeal for further hearing.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing copyright. The defendant raised defenses regarding service of documents and asserted that its activities are limited to permissible uses under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
L&T Valves Limited v.M/S Isteel
In a suit concerning trademark infringement, L&T Valves Limited successfully secured several interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing the plaintiff to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court passed an order for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing material and inspect relevant documents, thereby providing immediate protection against alleged trademark misuse.
The World Community Services Centre v.Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by The World Community Services Centre seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust. The dispute, which involved specific service descriptions within Trademark Registration No. 3654426, was resolved amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise signed by both parties. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to implement the terms of this compromise.
Charles And Keith International Pte Ltd v.Ambud Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the fashion house Charles And Keith, directing the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner successfully argued that its established brand 'CHARLES & KEITH' and abbreviation 'C&K' was well-known and used extensively across various classes, including Class 09 for masks. Given the similarity and the petitioner's prior use, the Court cancelled the respondent's mark in Class 09, despite it being filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd against Ks Agro Impex. The court found that the defendant's use of a nearly identical packaging and mark ('ZARDA SPECIAL') created a significant likelihood of consumer confusion with the plaintiff's 'Zarda King' product. This ruling protects the plaintiff's trade dress, which was deemed both an original trade dress under the Trade Marks Act and an original artistic work under the Copyright Act.
Natera Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed against an order issued by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that its patent application (No. 18/DELNP/2015) was not patentable due to non-compliance with various sections of the Patent Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding infringement of patent IN'841. The court considered the defense that the defendants were only engaged in permitted activities under Section 107(A) and had not yet obtained commercial manufacturing licenses from CDSCO. The court granted an interim order allowing the defendants to proceed with obtaining necessary permissions.
Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha Trading As Yonex Co Ltd v.Harshit Setia & Anr.
Yonex filed a petition seeking the rectification and expungement of a trademark registration (No. 5548308) in Class 25, held by Harshit Setia, for the mark 'AERUS'. Yonex argued that the registration was obtained in bad faith and lacked bonafide use, making it ex facie illegal under Section 47(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies within specified timelines, setting the matter for further hearing.
Havells India Ltd v.Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors regarding the alleged infringement of the registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark, 'REIO', constituted passing off and dilution. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct searches at the defendants' premises, seize infringing goods, and inspect relevant financial records.
Mr.A.Salaudeen v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Sunita Jaykumar Patel & Anr. v.International Institute Of Pelvic Floor Research Rahab and Education & Ors.
This Gujarat High Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging a restrictive interim injunction granted in a trademark and copyright dispute. The parties reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to resolve key aspects of the conflict, specifically regarding the use of the 'V Care' mark and the scope of copyright protection for educational materials. Consequently, the court substituted the original injunction order with the terms agreed upon in the MoU, effectively settling the immediate dispute at the injunction stage.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Jindal (India) Limited against Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr. While granting procedural exemptions, the court specifically advanced the main injunction request (I.A. 6082/2024). The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's registered mark 'JINDAL' and the defendants' usage on roofing sheets, ordering notice to the defendants to record their undertaking before the Court.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s application seeking permission to introduce crucial new evidence into the ongoing trademark dispute. The plaintiff sought to file the official trademark registration certificate and status, which was granted after the initial opposition filed by the defendants was rejected. This ruling allows the plaintiff to strengthen its case for rectification in the suit.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the invention was not merely a method of treatment but rather an in vitro method for selecting specific allogenic T-cell lines. The respondent had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, on this ground. The Madras High Court found that the respondent erroneously failed to appreciate the actual scope of the claim, which focused on the selection process rather than treatment itself.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited appealed the Controller's order refusing the grant of a patent (Application No. 202017011947) for Catalytic Combustion. The appellant argued that the refusal was flawed because it failed to consider their detailed responses and amendments, and that non-attendance at the hearing was not abandonment due to financial difficulties. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.