India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 66 of 311 · 7,456 total
Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v.Sana Herbals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.
M/s.Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works v.M/s.Ganga Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works against the Registrar's decision rejecting its opposition to Ganga Products' trademark application for 'DEVICE OF LORD SHIVA'. The court held that names of Hindu deities are not exclusive and cannot be monopolized, citing established Supreme Court precedents. While dismissing the appeal, the court granted liberty to the appellant to seek cancellation under Section 47 if the mark is eventually registered.
Fena Private Ltd v.Balwinder Kumar & Anr.
Fena Private Ltd successfully petitioned for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'NIPPU,' registered by Balwinder Kumar in Class 3 goods. The Delhi High Court found that Fena had established prior rights and extensive goodwill with its mark 'NIP' since 1976. Given the identical nature of the goods (detergents/cleaning preparations) and the deceptive similarity between the marks, the court ruled that the impugned registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon Fena's reputation, leading to its removal from the Register.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu
Financiere Batteur Sas successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel a registered trademark, 'Physiolac AR,' held by Kalai Arasu. The petitioner argued that the mark was adopted in bad faith and had suffered prolonged non-use, violating Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court agreed, finding that the lack of genuine use for over five years demonstrated malafide intent to ride on the petitioner's established international reputation. Consequently, the trademark registration was ordered to be removed from the Register.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed an order from The Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on non-speaking orders and failed to properly consider their contentions regarding prior art documents. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed against an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on prior art documents without proper reasoning or consideration of their contentions. The Madras High Court quashed the impugned order due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Shanmugavadivel v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Shanmugavadivel against an order passed by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The core issue was that the Registrar dismissed the appellant's review petition without providing a hearing, despite a scheduled date being fixed. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registry for fresh consideration on merits after ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S A v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Nestle appealed a trademark refusal order from the Trademark Registry to the Delhi High Court. The original rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and similar to existing registered marks. Due to procedural issues following the dissolution of the IPAB, Nestle had to file a fresh appeal in the High Court. The court accepted notice and scheduled further proceedings.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice concerning its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539). The petitioner argued that they never received the communication regarding the First Examination Report (FER) due to coordination issues between patent agents in Canada and India. The Court found that since the deadline was missed due to non-receipt of the FER, it set aside the abandonment order and revived the application.
Swatch Ag And Ors v.Labham Agarwaal and Ors
The Swatch Group (and its associate companies) filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against several defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their luxury watch brands. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately prove their case during the trial, particularly regarding the seized goods and wrappers.
Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.V.Shanmugam And S.Murugesan (Trading as Arokiya Foods)
Hatsun Agro Product Limited sought the cancellation of a registered trademark ('AROKIYA') held by V.Shanmugam and S.Murugesan, alleging non-usage for over five years under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's minor alteration to the mark (removing a device mark) did not constitute a substantial change affecting its identity. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding non-usage.
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v.SITA SINGH Trading as Nikunj Traders
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, concerning its established trademark GHARI/GHADI. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress in relation to detergent powder, soap, and allied goods.
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED v.Govind Rathore
The plaintiff, M/S RSPL Health Private Limited, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Copyright Act, 1957. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (GHARI/GHADI) and associated trade dress by the defendants in relation to FMCG goods like soap and detergents. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Largan Precision Co Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd for infringing its Indian Patent No. 363203, which relates to light blocking sheets in camera systems. The court addressed applications related to interrogatories and the need for confidentiality, ultimately directing the formation of a confidential club.
Draka Comteq B.V v.The Controller Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks
Draka Comteq B.V challenged the refusal of its patent application for 'Multimode Fiber' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the original order lacked proper reasoning regarding how a person skilled in the art would move from existing knowledge to the subject invention. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration.
Department of Atomic Energy v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Department of Atomic Energy challenged an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents refusing to process its patent application No. 201921029932, citing a delay in submitting the power of attorney. The petitioner argued that they had substituted a fresh power of attorney which was accepted by the respondents. The High Court quashed the refusal order, finding it passed without proper consideration and violating natural justice.
Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG against the refusal of its trademark registration for 'REPELLAN'. The court found that the Assistant Registrar's original order was cryptic, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice because it failed to consider the appellant's detailed arguments regarding the difference in goods (textile vs. construction) between 'REPELLAN' and the cited mark 'REPELLIN'. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the Registrar was directed to publish the trademark for public opposition.
Ranjitkumar Saklchand Jain v.Pratapchand (Deceased) & Others
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Ranjitkumar Saklchand Jain seeking to remove the trademark 'SANGHVI' from the register. The core dispute centered on whether the petitioner was a prior user of the mark for Roti Makers, despite having registered it later than the respondents. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence, such as invoices or sales turnover, to substantiate his claim of continuous use since 1996, thereby upholding the validity and protection rights of the respondent's trademark.
M/s Architectural Solution and Production v.Sandeep Kumar Jangid Trading as M/s Bhavishya
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging illegal acts of infringement, piracy, passing-off, and unfair trade competition against the defendant regarding its registered design. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and trading lamps and LED lights. The court passed a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Divya Novelty v.Commissioner of Customs, Mundra
Divya Novelty appealed against the absolute confiscation and penalties imposed by Customs for importing shoes bearing famous brand names (NIKE, ADIDAS, etc.), which were deemed counterfeit. The Tribunal found that since the required procedure under IPR Enforcement Rules was not followed, the goods could not be held prohibited for confiscation. Furthermore, the valuation method used by the Revenue was deemed illegal.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Rpd Workstations Private Limited
Lenovo successfully challenged the registration of the mark 'THINBOOK' belonging to Rpd Workstations Private Limited in the Madras High Court. Lenovo, asserting its status as the originator and exclusive proprietor of the 'THINK Family of Marks,' demonstrated that the impugned mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to its established brand. The court ruled in favor of Lenovo, directing the cancellation and removal of the infringing trademark from the Register, thereby protecting Lenovo's goodwill and reputation in the market.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v.Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited appealed a demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalty levied by the Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST. The department treated payments made to foreign vendors for manuals, software, and license fees related to aircraft manufacturing/repair as taxable services (Transfer of IP Rights). The Tribunal ruled in favor of HAL, finding that these amounts were merely amortization costs for intangible assets and not consideration for services received.
Jay Switches India Pvt Ltd v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap for Vehicle'. The court examined the infringement claims, noting ambiguities in the patent claims. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh appealed a rejection order passed by The Controller of Patents, which refused their application for "Containers for Compositions Comprising Meloxicam." The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in light of cited prior art. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to address their detailed written submissions distinguishing the invention from the prior arts. The Delhi High Court agreed, noting the Controller's order merely reproduced objections without proper consideration of the arguments, and consequently set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for fresh, reasoned consideration.