India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 67 of 295 · 7,068 total
M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited v.Mr. Mukesh Goyal and others
The Chhattisgarh High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant, M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited (owner of GOEL), argued that the respondents were deceptively using 'GOYAL GLOBAL' in the steel goods market to capitalize on its goodwill. While directing the Commercial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously, the High Court maintained an interim restraint order preventing the named respondents from using the disputed marks until the final judgment.
Ttk Prestige Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for infringing on its design registration for the Svachh Deluxe Alpha pressure cooker. The defendant was set ex-parte after failing to respond adequately to the claims.
Bia Separations D.O.O. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bia Separations D.O.O. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.185/CHENP/2009 for 'METHOD FOR INFLUENZA VIRUS PURIFICATION'. The appeal challenged the Controller's finding that the invention lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sapporo Medical University v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sapporo Medical University appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.1899/CHENP/2010 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to properly consider the prior art or the detailed explanations provided regarding inventive step. The High Court found the respondent's conclusion unsupported by material and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 20174704977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the invention was a computer program/implementable method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection (computer program vs. mathematical/statistical), leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 201747024977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, claiming the invention was a non-technical computer program or mathematical method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection, leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. v.M/S Ignyt Electricals
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. challenging a Commercial Court order that had restricted their use of the trademark 'IGNYT' due to alleged infringement on M/S Ignyt Electricals' registered mark 'IGNYT'. The appellants argued they were merely distributors of genuine goods and sought permission to sell their existing stock. While the High Court noted procedural gaps in the lower court's decision, it deferred a final ruling on the stay application, listing the matter for further instructions from both parties.
Aarogyaai Innovations Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar
The plaintiff, AarogyaAI Innovations Private Limited, holds registered trademarks for 'AarogyaAI', a software that uses AI to analyze genomic data for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 fraudulently purchased similar domain names (aarogyaai.com and aarogyaai.in), causing potential misrepresentation and trade mark infringement. The court found the defendants liable and decreed the suit.
M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.
Zuventus Healthcare Limited v.Zaventis Health Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Zuventus Healthcare Limited against Zaventis Health Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ZAVENTIS HEALTH CARE,' was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'ZUVENTUS,' leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. This order allows the suit to proceed while restraining the defendant from using any deceptively similar branding in relation to pharmaceutical products.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs, ITW GSE APS, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd for infringing their registered patent IN 330145. The patent relates to a Preconditioned Air Unit (PCA) with Variable Frequency Driving (VFD). The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary challenged the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," which occurred because he failed to file a response to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The court found that the negligence and lack of communication from the appointed Patent Agent constituted professional misconduct. Consequently, while the petition was disposed of, the court directed the CGPDTM office to initiate an enquiry against the defaulting Patent Agent and mandated the creation of a formal Code of Conduct for IP agents.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A has filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its application (No. 201617028283). The refusal was based on the ground that the invention is not patentable under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, specifically concerning E-cigarettes.
M/S Jay Plastic Company & Ors. v.M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trade dress and trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Jay Plastic Company against M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for an immediate local commission, allowing a Local Commissioner to search the defendants' premises and seize goods bearing deceptively similar packaging and marks (SPARROW vs ARROW). This decisive step allows the plaintiffs to gather crucial evidence of infringement and unfair competition while the main suit proceeds.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd v.M/S Triad Shoes
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd, which is pursuing a suit against M/S Triad Shoes for trademark infringement and passing off. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from advance service requirements. Crucially, the court passed an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction, authorizing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged infringing goods.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The High Court found the original order cryptic, noting that it failed to discuss prior arts or address specific submissions made by the appellant regarding synergistic effects and foreign patents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5584/CHENP/2010). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and exclusion as a computer program per se. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the invention possesses enhanced technical effect and meets the inventive step criteria.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The appellant argued that the respondent's order was cryptic, failing to discuss prior arts or submitted evidence like a US patent grant. The High Court found merit in these arguments and allowed the appeal.
Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited v.Arvind Fashions Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited against the trademark registration of 'NNNOW'. The dispute centered on removing specific descriptions of services from the impugned registration. Crucially, both parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo before the court. Consequently, the petitions were withdrawn, marking an amicable resolution to the intellectual property conflict.
Nord Lock Ab v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging that the defendants were infringing two registered patents related to the manufacture of washers. The court issued notice and directed that if the defendants file a suit challenging the validity or non-infringement of these patents, it must be done within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Nokia Of America Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Nokia appealed the rejection of its patent application, arguing that the respondent's order failed to properly discuss the invention and how it was hit by obviousness. The court found that the Controller merely concluded that a person skilled in the art could calculate technical glitches using prior arts without adequately testing them against the claimed invention.
Castrol Limited v.Kapil & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction to Castrol Limited in its suit against Kapil & Anr., allowing the plaintiff to proceed with an ex-parte local commission. The court recognized that the defendants were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit engine oils, infringing on Castrol's trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights related to their packaging. This order permits a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence of infringement.
V.Sundaresan & Ors. v.Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.
The Madras High Court addressed multiple appeals and petitions concerning a trademark infringement dispute over the 'Varalakshmi' brand name used for sago/sabudana products. Recognizing the overlap between the appellate issues and the main suit, the Court directed the Commercial Court to expedite the original trademark suit within 16 weeks. Crucially, while vacating previous stays on proceedings, the High Court ensured that the existing interim order from the lower court would remain in effect until the final judgment of the main suit.
M/s.Babu Ram Om Prakash v.A.Manickavel
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition concerning the rectification of Trade Mark No. 502558 after both parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise. The petition, which had been transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, was settled amicably between M/s. Babu Ram Om Prakash and A. Manickavel. This resolution allows the matter to be closed without further judicial intervention.