India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 71 of 311 · 7,456 total
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petition 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 place on record its general bulk procurement process and provide details of all granted patents and patent applications in India related to these medicines.
Lakshay Agarwal v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-to-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record the general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD medicines.
Ashok Bhutani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Ashok Bhutani successfully challenged the Trademark Registry in the Delhi High Court regarding the non-renewal of his word mark 'SNOWPEAK'. The petitioner argued that the failure to receive mandatory O-3 notices prevented him from filing timely renewal applications. Recognizing the registry's lapse, the court directed the respondents to issue all pending renewal certificates and subsequently restore and renew the trademarks for a further ten-year period.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
Pfizer Inc v.Teena Biolabs Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner and the establishment of a Confidentiality Club. The petition aimed to facilitate the collection of confidential documents and testimony from Teena Biolabs Private Limited in India, which are relevant to ongoing patent infringement litigation (US Patent No. 9,770,441) before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Anr.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. challenged the status update issued by the Union of India, which deemed its patent application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to non-filing of a request for examination. The petitioner argued that this failure was solely attributable to the negligence of their erstwhile Patent Agent and not due to any fault or lack of intent on their part. Citing previous judgments where courts extended time in such circumstances, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition. Consequently, the court quashed the deemed withdrawal status and directed the Indian Patent Office to restore the application and allow the petitioner a chance to proceed with examination.
Jai Prakash Singhal v.Tirupati Structurals Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction restraining Tirupati Structurals Limited (the defendant) from using the trademark 'MM TIRUPATI' due to its deceptive similarity to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court clarified that even if a portion of a trademark is subject to a disclaimer, the overall composite mark can still be protected against passing off. This ruling reinforces the principle that established goodwill and consumer confusion are paramount in protecting brand identity.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The suit concerned infringement of Patent IN 2287201 for Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction and deposit of revenues. Given the patent was nearing its expiration, the Court issued directions requiring the Defendant to disclose earnings and earmark 20% of net sales value in a No Lien account.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited v.Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction sought by Max Healthcare Institute Limited against Imax Healthcare Private Limited. The core dispute centered on the alleged deceptive similarity between Max's well-known 'MAX' trademark, used extensively in healthcare services since 2000, and the respondent's use of 'IMAX'. While acknowledging the strong prima facie case for confusion, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the injunction application.
Asana Biosciences Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant sought condonation of a 37-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, while simultaneously issuing notice regarding the main appeal seeking to set aside the impugned patent office order.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning a system for selectively operating regenerative braking in a vehicle. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure regarding essential vehicle parameters. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
Biotyx Medical (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Biotyx Medical challenged the refusal of its patent application for an absorbable iron-based alloy implantable medical device. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient scientific reasoning and proper methodology in adjudicating the invention's merits. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application back to the Controller for a detailed assessment of the inventive step.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the pharmaceutical infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises. This order provides a robust mechanism for the plaintiff to secure evidence related to alleged infringement.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given Dcm Shriram's established brand presence and statutory protection for its 'Shriram Super 303' mark. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like '303' in relation to wheat seeds, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation during the critical Rabi cropping season.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of the Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a consistent disclosure model, directing that all seven PLAs held by the plaintiffs and the full Qualcomm agreement held by the defendants must be shown to all members of the Confidentiality Club.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of a Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a reciprocal disclosure model, requiring full access to PLAs for all members of the Confidentiality Club.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc v.Designarch Consultants Private Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a complex trademark dispute between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch Consultants Private Ltd through a comprehensive settlement. The parties mutually agreed to acknowledge each other's core trademarks, such as 'BURJ AL ARAB' and 'BURJNOIDA'. Crucially, the agreement mandates the withdrawal of numerous pending cancellation petitions and oppositions filed by both sides, effectively clearing the path for continued use while establishing clear boundaries on brand usage.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Kiehberg Gmbh And Anr v.Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kiehberg GmbH against Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of passing off, arguing that the defendant's use of the identical trademark 'KIEHBERG' for airguns was likely to cause confusion and damage their established goodwill. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using the disputed mark until the full trial.