India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 70 of 311 · 7,456 total
M/s. Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Private Limited v.M/s. Narasu'S Saarathy Enterprises Private limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order by the Commercial District Court, Salem, which allowed the respondent to file a written statement beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner argued that since the suit was filed under the Trademarks Act and designated as commercial, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that because the specified value of the suit was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Courts Act did not grant jurisdiction to the court in the first place. Consequently, the Trial Court's decision to accept the written statement was upheld on the ground of lack of commercial jurisdiction.
Embio Limited v.Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Embio Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 249376 granted to Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step. The court examined the arguments regarding prior art and technical advancement but found no illegality or perversity in the grant.
Ube Industries Limited & Anr. v.S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ube Industries Limited, granting a permanent injunction against S. Vijaya Bhaskar & Ors. for trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'UBE' mark. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated their long-standing use and registration of the distinctive trademark across various industries, despite the defendants claiming prior usage. This judgment reinforces the importance of established goodwill and registered rights in preventing unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 408932, which had been ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees. The appellant argued that the failure was caused because the patent grant notification was sent to an erroneous email address instead of the registered service address. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the cessation was not the fault of the appellant.
Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v.Babu Lal Aggarwal Trading As Modern Namkeen Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'MODERN' (No. 915745) from the register, alleging that the respondent has adopted an identical/deceptively similar mark and trade dress. While granting procedural exemptions to the petitioner, the court proceeded with the main petition by issuing notice to all parties. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing after both sides file their respective replies.
Gurcharan Singh v.The Controller Of Patents
Gurcharan Singh filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order which dismissed his Review Petition. The initial application for condonation of 150 days delay was allowed by the High Court, and the main appeal was listed for further proceedings.
M S Cothas Coffee Co. v.Ms Cotha Associates
The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.
Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
Sreevidya Kumaramkandath v.Alkaabi Est & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Sreevidya Kumaramkandath seeking the cancellation (revocation) of the registered device mark 'TEATIME' held by Alkaabi Est & Anr. The court noted the petitioner's claim that the impugned mark causes confusion due to its deceptive similarity to the petitioner's trademark. While initial procedural issues regarding party addresses were addressed, the core dispute over trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion is set for further hearing.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Kulbir Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited's petition seeking cancellation of a competing trademark, 'ROGER'. The court found that the impugned mark was liable to be removed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act due to non-use by the respondent. Given that the respondent failed to appear or file a reply despite being served, the petitioner's claims regarding extensive use and goodwill were deemed unrebutted, leading to the successful cancellation of the mark.
Klf Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Johnson Varghese
The appellant filed a commercial appeal challenging the refusal by the lower court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction and appoint a local commissioner regarding alleged copyright infringement and passing off. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It held that since the order refusing the injunction was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, the appeal was not maintainable and consequently dismissed.
Ms Jainam Multi Product India Pvt Ltd v.Chen Chih-Chuan & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN 414503, titled 'ANTI-THEFT ELECTRONIC SEAL', arguing that its registration was arbitrary and contrary to the Patents Act, 1970. The petition challenges the patent based on various grounds under Section 64(1).
Unique Entrepreneurs And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant is using the deceptively similar trademark 'REALLY' against the plaintiff's registered mark 'RALLI', leading to infringement and passing off. The court granted various leaves sought by the plaintiff, including leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the suit to proceed.
Shankar Engineering Works And Ors v.Sankar Iron Engineering Works Pvt Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants concerning an alleged mark used by the defendants for identical products. The plaintiffs argued that there was urgency and sufficient cause to bypass the pre-mediation process.
The Hershey Company v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Hershey Company successfully sought the expansion of its existing interim injunction against new parties found to be engaging in trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead several new defendants and extended the protective order, specifically restraining them from using or reproducing the company's name and marks on domains like THEHERSHEYCOMPANY.IN. This ruling reinforces the court's willingness to expand injunctive relief when evidence reveals additional infringing parties.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
This order pertains to an appeal filed by T-Mobile Usa Inc against the Controller of Patents. The matter involves the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, and was released from part-heard due to roster constraints.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union of India & Anr.
The matter concerns the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general, bulk procurement process and disclose all its relevant patents and patent applications in India.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard multiple connected matters concerning the procurement of rare disease medicines, specifically those used for DMD patients. The petitioner argued that the current patient-to-patient process is extremely cumbersome and inefficient. Consequently, the court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent information.
Master Arnesh Shaw Through His Next Friend And ... v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta to document a bulk procurement process and provide details of all its relevant Indian patents and patent applications.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring rare disease medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to these medicines.
Master Drashtant Jhala Through His Next Friend and Natural Father Sh. Jaydeep Singh Jhala v.Union of India & Anr.
The petition addresses the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring rare disease medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard matters concerning the procurement process for medicines used for DMD patients, noting that the current patient-by-patient system is cumbersome and unrealistic. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent portfolio in India.