India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 83 of 311 · 7,456 total
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.
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL appealed against an impugned order dated February 20, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original order refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 1908/DELNP/2015, citing lack of full disclosure and technical advancement. The High Court noted the submissions and directed parties to file replies.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a patent application (No. 6134/DELNP/2015). The rejection was based on the alleged lack of inventive constructional features and failure to meet novelty and inventive step criteria. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons, issuing a Writ of Mandamus against The Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought direction to accept an old renewal request (dated 27.03.2013) for their trademark due to alleged inaction by the Registry. The Court found that the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, was not provided to the proprietor. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to accept the renewal request and allow further renewals.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. v.Anand Aggarwal And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., preventing the defendants from using the identical trademark 'HUALI'. The Plaintiff successfully argued that despite the Defendant securing a statutory registration, their prior and extensive common law usage established significant goodwill and market reputation for the mark. The court found that the Defendants' adoption was dishonest and likely to cause irreparable consumer confusion, thus protecting the Plaintiff's brand equity.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited against Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr. following a successful out-of-court settlement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged infringing the plaintiff's trademark rights and wrongly using 'J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC'. The court formalized the agreement, which required the defendant to cease the wrongful use and surrender its GST registration obtained under the disputed trade name.
Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S B.R. Industries
The Meghalaya High Court admitted the appeal filed by Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. against an earlier order concerning alleged trademark infringement and costs. The appellant primarily sought reconsideration regarding the quantum of costs imposed. The court allowed the matter to proceed for further hearing, provided the appellant deposits Rs. 1.50 Lakhs within one week.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' decision dated March 5, 2024, which refused to grant a Patent under Section 15 of the Act. The appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of eight days delay in filing the appeal.
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited against Ashok Kumar and others. The court found a prima facie case that the respondents were illegally imitating, impersonating, and infringing upon the petitioner's registered trademarks ('Cordelia Cruises') and copyrighted material related to its cruise services. The order specifically restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff's marks across all media platforms and directed the blocking of an offending website until the final hearing.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed an order rejecting the grant of a patent application (No. 2559/CHENP/2012) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to provide proper consideration or independent reasons for concluding the invention was obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge.
Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited v.Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court judgment in India Cements Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd. (though the parties listed are Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.) resulted in the dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff, Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited, chose to withdraw the case on June 27, 2024, before a final judgment could be delivered. This action effectively ended the litigation regarding the use of the deceptively similar mark 'NOIDA SUPER KINGS' against the defendant.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected citing lack of inventive step and being a mere admixture. The appellant argued that the crucial feature—the formation of a double population structure—was ignored by the respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses in the rejection order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Fincraft Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar & Ors.
Fincraft Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to file a suit concerning copyright infringement related to the film 'Natyasamrat-Asa Nat hone Nahin.' The petitioner argued that while most transactions occurred in Mumbai, some agreements were executed in Hyderabad, potentially challenging the court's territorial jurisdiction.
West Bengal Chemical Industries Limited v.M/s. GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner, an API manufacturer, claimed that the respondents were infringing their patents (IN370845 and IN434424) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose. The petitioner sought an interim injunction against the alleged infringement. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for granting the injunction.
Upl Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Upl Limited challenged an order dated February 8, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the order was cryptic and failed to consider all filed documents (D3 and D4) when rejecting amended claims under Section 2(1)(j)(a) of the Patents Act. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's submissions.
Naveel Danish v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Madras High Court judgment, the court addressed a writ petition seeking direction for the re-examination of Trademark Application No. 55070330. The petitioner sought intervention to compel the Registrar to act on previous representations requesting fresh examination and criminal proceedings. While the initial prayer was broad, the court ultimately directed the Registrar to proceed with fresh orders in accordance with law, ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity during the process.
Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg. v.Saneet Gmbh and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg., leading to the removal of an identical trademark registration held by Saneet Gmbh and Anr. The court found that the Petitioner was the prior user and proprietor of the mark 'JACO,' which possessed extensive international reputation and goodwill spilling over into India. Given the Respondent's failure to contest the matter despite multiple opportunities, the Court ruled that the impugned registration was fraudulent and contrary to honest trade practices, thereby protecting the Petitioner's rights.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
Ajinomoto Co., INC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Ajinomoto Co. appealed the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 4039/CHENP/2014). The core issue was whether the Authority complied with Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, which requires examination of amended specifications in a manner similar to the original specification. The High Court found that this procedure had not been followed.