India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 67 of 311 · 7,456 total
Poorliya Mobiles World And Electronics v.Kanni Uvaraj and Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark dispute between Poorliya Mobiles World And Electronics and Kanni Uvaraj/Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. The parties reached a full and final settlement during the hearing. The appellant accepted the original trial court decree, provided they paid Rs. 1 lakh in damages, and formally undertook not to infringe upon the respondents' registered trademark.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.S.A Medline Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited and S.A Medline Private Limited reached a joint settlement in the Delhi High Court regarding a trademark dispute. As part of the compromise, the defendant agreed to withdraw its contested trademark registration (No. 5328362) within seven days. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit against the defendant and allowing for a refund of court fees.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Arvind Kumar & Anr.
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Mr. Arvind Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court. The court found that the defendants' use of identical packaging and trade dress for their product was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SHRIRAM 303'. Given the likelihood of market confusion and irreparable injury to Dcm Shriram Limited, the court granted immediate relief restraining the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or designs.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed an order by the Deputy Controller refusing to grant a patent for a Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on the timing (filing after original patent grant) and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the timing issue was not proven against the appellant and that principles of natural justice were violated.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed against an order refusing to grant a patent for its Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on timing and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the fact that the application was filed on the same day as the original patent grant, and also violated principles of natural justice.
Sharad Mehra v.Sanjay Mehra
In a dispute stemming from a prior settlement between two brothers, Sharad Mehra filed an application alleging that Sanjay Mehra was violating the terms of their agreement by misusing the trade name 'Superon' and interlinking group companies. The Delhi High Court found prima facie evidence suggesting a violation of the Settlement Terms regarding the use of promotional materials at an International Trade Fair. Consequently, the court issued interim directions compelling the Respondent to immediately remove all banners and stop using any promotional material that conjunctively uses their company names.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Micor Labs Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited sought the rectification of Micor Labs Limited's trademark 'DOLOBENE', arguing it was deceptively similar to their mark 'DOLOBAN'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay and acquiescence. The court found that Mankind had lost its right to claim prior user due to the significant lapse between Micor Labs' registration date and the filing of the rectification application.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/S. Salus Pharmaceuticals And Another
The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated urgency and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding when they became aware of the infringement and noted a significant delay between knowledge/patent grant and filing the suit.
United Spirits Limited & Anr. v.Globus Spirits Limited
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Globus Spirits Limited seeking leave to cancel trademark registrations held by United Spirits Limited. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' trademarks were not in use. The court accepted notice from the plaintiffs and directed them to file a reply within four weeks, followed by a rejoinder within two weeks, setting the next hearing for February 24, 2025.
The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting its patent application, citing issues with both claim amendments and failure to meet the time limit for filing the National Phase Application. The court found that the respondent failed to properly consider the provisions allowing condonation of delay (Rule 138) and erroneously rejected the application based on non-application of mind.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
Ganesh Grains Ltd. v.Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Intervet International B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Design
Intervet International B.V. challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its novel crystalline forms of the drug 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary and non-speaking, failing to adequately consider expert evidence regarding superior stability. The Madras High Court agreed, finding a violation of natural justice in the original order.
Signal Pharmaceuticals v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Signal Pharmaceuticals appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing to grant a patent for its mTOR kinase inhibitors. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on a non-speaking order, failing to properly appreciate evidence and ignore the inventive step and therapeutic efficacy of the compound. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Mohammed Faisal T.P. v.The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Mohammed Faisal T.P. seeking an expeditious processing of his pending Trademark Application No. 5007957. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to ensure that the application is processed within a stipulated timeframe. This order provides clarity and urgency regarding administrative delays in trademark registration processes.
Psyco Remedies Ltd. v.Micro Labs Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment concerns a petition filed by Psyco Remedies Ltd. seeking rectification of a trademark held by Micro Labs Ltd. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the rectification request, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Both sides agreed to withdraw related litigation and mutually refrained from taking further action against each other concerning the subject trademarks. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Make Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v.Pankaj Laljibhai Kachadia & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'MAKSHINE,' which was flagged as likely to be removed due to non-renewal. Citing precedents from other high courts, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from its official website. This order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition should the trademark eventually be renewed, effectively resolving the immediate issue while preserving future rights.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.
Prakash Pipes Limited v.Jai Ambay Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Prakash Pipes Limited against Jai Ambay Industries. The court found that the respondent's registration of the mark 'KIRANPARKASH' was obtained fraudulently and dishonestly, as it was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established mark 'PRAKASH'. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's claimed turnover versus its micro-enterprise status. Consequently, the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned trademark from the register.
M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Mh 7 News And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd., cancelling the trademark registration 'MH7' held by the respondents. The court found that the mark 'MH7' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established and prior trademark 'MH1'. Given the similarity and the fact that both parties operate in the same media/entertainment sector, the court determined that the respondent's registration was illegal and liable for removal.
Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) (Through her son) Trading as Nalli Weaving Center v.N.Kuppuswami Chettiar
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) against a rectification order concerning her trademark. The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to appear or prosecute the case. Consequently, the original registration was allowed to continue without challenge from the appellant's side.
M/S ILU A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MRS VIDUSHI CHAWLA v.ASIAN HOBBY CRAFTS LLP AND ANR
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S ILU against Asian Hobby Crafts LLP, successfully challenging the validity of the 'DREAMCATCHER' trademark. The court ruled that since 'DREAMCATCHER' is a generic and descriptive term for a specific type of decorative product, its registration violated Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision reinforces the principle that no party can claim an exclusive monopoly over common or descriptive terms defining a product.
Puma Se v.Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.