India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 80 of 311 · 7,456 total
Pfizer Products Inv. v.Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Pfizer Products Inv. against Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. The court noted that the respondents had withdrawn their trademark registration application, rendering the original dispute moot and infructuous. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Amul Brush Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the ongoing dispute between Satnam Brush Industry and Amul Brush Company. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction to Satnam Brush Industry, recognizing that the defendants' packaging and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-established brand 'AMBER'. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' books of accounts and infringing products, signaling a deep dive into the alleged infringement and passing off.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Mr. Vishal Chhatwani
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit against Mr. Vishal Chhatwani alleging infringement across multiple IP domains, including trademark, design, and copyright, related to industrial oils and lubricants. The parties successfully entered into mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement dated July 9, 2024. The court subsequently decreed the suit in favor of Hero Motocorp Limited based on the terms of this settlement, which included an acknowledgment of IP ownership and payment of ₹ 4,00,000/- by the defendants.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision dismissing an opposition against a similar mark (ZORA). The appellant argued that the use of ZORA by a bag manufacturer would exploit the goodwill and reputation of their well-known trademark, ZARA, particularly in relation to textiles. While the court granted procedural relief regarding delay condonation and exemption from filing copies, it issued notice to the opposing party (Respondent No. 2) to file a reply, indicating that the substantive dispute over trademark infringement and passing off is yet to be decided.
Emami Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Emami Ltd. seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'CHYAWANPRASAD' registered in favor of Dabur India Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not using the mark, engaging in what they termed 'ghost registration.' Although the respondent initially conceded non-use, the court directed Dabur to immediately initiate the process for cancellation of the mark from the Trade Mark Registry, effectively favoring Emami's claim regarding the mark's validity and use.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant adopted a phonetically similar trademark (ZEEDUX) and copied the entire trade dress and color scheme of the plaintiff's well-known brand (ZEDEX). This order temporarily restrains the defendants from manufacturing or using the infringing product while the main suit proceeds.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Jagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite having been provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked proper reasoning regarding both grounds. The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation regarding the amendments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Ve Commercial Vehicles Limited v.Jaswant Industries & Ors
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered designs related to the Volvo 9600 buses. The defendants are accused of copying the design and engaging in unfair competition.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of Patent No. 262968, along with damages and other reliefs. The case involves allegations of contempt against the defendants for violating an interim injunction.
ITW GSE APS & ANR. v.DABICO AIRPORT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) units. A judgment was passed on July 4, 2024, restraining the defendants from dealing with the infringing units.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117031510. The appellant contends that the refusal was erroneous as the application meets all criteria for patentability, while the respondent argued it failed tests under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), and 3(e)/3(i) of the Patents Act.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. appealed an order from the Additional District Judge-11, Surat, challenging a rejection of its interim injunction application in a patent infringement suit. The plaintiff claimed that defendants were infringing their patented Diamond Holding Devices used in High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) diamond treatment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the trial court's finding, concluding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the defendants were directed to maintain accurate accounts of revenue related to the disputed technology.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The High Court found that the Controller failed to assign valid reasons for either rejection ground. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Sakata Seed Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sakata Seed Corporation appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'Eustoma having Cytoplasmic Male Sterility,' citing that it was essentially a biological process. The appellant argued that specific human interventions, such as screening and checking hybrid seeds, made the invention non-biological. The High Court agreed with this contention but found the Controller lacked sufficient reasoning on the matter.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The High Court found that the impugned order was unreasoned because the Controller failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite it being provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Syngenta Limited And Anr v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a patent-related suit, directing the appointment of a Scientific Advisor from IIT Delhi. The advisor is tasked with examining the manufacturing processes, sites, and chemical usage by the Defendant regarding DroneX and Azoxystrobin technical to assist the court in resolving complex technical issues.
Makemytrip (India) Private Limited v.Tickmytrip Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions filed by Makemytrip seeking the rectification and cancellation of Tickmytrip's registered trademarks (Nos. 2801898 & 2801899). The court accepted a written undertaking from Tickmytrip stating that they do not intend to renew these trademark registrations once their current term expires on September 2, 2024. Since the marks will lapse, the court found no necessity for further orders regarding cancellation.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Bhagwati Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Rspl Health Private Limited, confirming a prior compromise reached with Respondent No. 1 in TM-84/2021. As part of this settlement, the respondent undertook to cancel their registered trademark 'SAKSHI XPERIA' and withdraw all related applications for marks containing 'XPERT' or 'XPERIA'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending applications, upholding the terms of the compromise.
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Delhi
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trademarks Delhi's refusal to register the trademark 'SKYN' in Class 5. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed submissions on the matter. This marks an active legal challenge regarding the registrability of the mark.
Just Lime My Child Foundation v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Just Lime My Child Foundation against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration of the word mark 'GIRL POWER PROJECT.' The court found that the Respondent erred by dissecting the composite mark and incorrectly deeming it descriptive. Crucially, the court emphasized that a composite mark must be evaluated as a whole, not in isolation, thereby upholding the distinctiveness of the foundation's brand.
Pushpendra Patel & Anr. v.Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to the plaintiffs, who are innovators in water purification systems. The court found a prima facie case suggesting that the defendant's trademark complaint was fraudulent and based on copied designs. Consequently, the court directed Amazon Seller Services (Defendant No. 1) to immediately re-list all de-listed product postings belonging to the plaintiff, while also restraining future arbitrary de-listings.