India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 84 of 311 · 7,456 total
Sree Devi Video Corporation v.M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures
The plaintiff sued the defendants seeking a declaration that it was the absolute owner of limited video, cable TV, and internet copyrights in certain films, acquired from M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures under an agreement dated 02.12.2000. The suit also sought permanent injunction against infringement by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff successfully established its case through documentary evidence.
Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier rejection of its opposition against a competing trademark application. The court found that the respondent's mark, which featured an elephant device and the word 'Haathi,' was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered 'JUMBO' mark for tea and spices. Given that both parties operate in the same market and consumers associate the elephant motif with the goods, the court ruled that the similarity would inevitably lead to consumer confusion.
Amir Biri Factory And Ors. v.Sk Faruk
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit between Amir Biri Factory And Ors. and Sk Faruk after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The core of the settlement involves Sk Faruk agreeing to cease using certain disputed marks (like 'JULFIKAR TARE A-1 KHAINI') in connection with goods outside Chewing Tobacco/Khaini, while also accepting modifications to their mark usage. Furthermore, Sk Faruk committed to exhausting existing stock within one month and agreed not to raise further legal claims related to the dispute.
Srinivas S. Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S. Devathi challenged the Union of India's refusal to provide a consent letter required under Section 86 of the CPC to initiate legal action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner alleged that USPTO committed fraud by issuing a fabricated International Search Report (ISR) for his PCT application, thereby jeopardizing his global patent rights. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order of the Ministry of External Affairs and directing the Union of India to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned decision within six months.
ATLAS COPCO AIRPOWER NAAMLOZE VENNOOTSCHAP v.THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR
The petitioner company filed an appeal (IPDPTA/12/2022) which was dismissed for default. The petitioner sought condonation of a 330-day delay, citing being based in Belgium and unaware of the transfer of IPAB matters to the High Court due to legal changes and COVID-19. The court found sufficient cause and allowed the delay, restoring the appeal.
Srinivas S Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S Devathi filed a writ petition alleging that the USPTO, acting as an International Search Authority (ISA), fabricated an International Search Report (ISR) for his patent application (US Patent No. 8910998 B1). He claimed this fraud led to the rejection of his patent rights globally. The petitioner sought directions from the Union of India to initiate legal action against USPTO and WIPO. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the claims required extensive evidence and were outside writ jurisdiction, and given the prior requirement for consent under Section 86 of the CPC, the present petition was premature and not maintainable at this stage.
Mayco Monsanto Biotech (India ) Ltd v.The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Mayco Monsanto Biotech filed a writ petition challenging an impugned G.O. issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which fixed the reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds for 2015-16. The court considered the arguments regarding potential prejudice to the petitioners if the order was suspended.
Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
Professor Jayashankar v.Monsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681, granted to Monsanto Technology LLC, under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The petition was heard by the Madras High Court on June 13, 2024. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear despite being served notice, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Professor Jayashankar, Telangana State Agricultural University v.Monsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar, representing Telangana State Agricultural University, filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology LLC. The petition aimed to challenge the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. However, despite being served notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the Madras High Court on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Astral Limited (Formerly known as Resinova Chemie Limited)
Pidilite Industries Limited filed an interim application alleging that Astral Limited was infringing its registered design for the M-SEAL PV SEAL container. The plaintiff claimed originality in the shape and configuration of the container, which is used for solvent cement products. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant's use of similar containers.
Ashish Anilkumar Desai (M/s. Sujanil Chemo Industries) v.M/S.Maas Herbals Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Ashish Anilkumar Desai against M/S. Maas Herbals Private Limited. The petition sought rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'LICYL' from the register, citing issues with Registration No.2089321. Crucially, the court noted that despite multiple opportunities and service of notice, the petitioner failed to appear for hearing. Consequently, the case was dismissed purely on grounds of non-prosecution.
Skoda Auto A.S. v.M.R.Sanjeevi
Skoda Auto A.S. filed a suit against M.R. Sanjeevi and others, alleging infringement and passing off concerning its well-known trade mark 'SKODA' and its logo. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for unauthorized use of similar marks. However, on the date of hearing (June 11, 2024), the court noted that the plaintiff had failed to file the required proof affidavit for chief examination as directed by the Court. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for default.
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT Madras) v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
IIT Madras appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a method for doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate to increase burn rates in solid propellants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) restrictions. The High Court upheld the rejection on grounds of Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja), finding the claimed technical advance obvious.
M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons v.Vemula Manikyam
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons against Vemula Manikyam and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner sought the removal or cancellation of the trademark 'KISMAT BEEDI' from the register, citing concerns over maintaining the purity of the register. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear for hearing despite being duly served notice, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
M/S. Chandras Chemical Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors
The Calcutta High Court issued a directive in the matter concerning the registration of the mark "DENSEAL (Gom.Dev)". Noting that the Registrar of Trade Marks had failed to transmit the original case record despite previous court directions, the Court granted a final opportunity. The Registrar was ordered to submit the complete record by August 19, 2024, with a warning that failure to comply would result in mandatory appearance before the Court on August 27, 2024.
Prabhu Soap Works v.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Prabhu Soap Works challenged the department's demand for service tax levied on notional interest, arguing that permitting its wife's concern to use its registered brand names did not constitute a taxable Intellectual Property Service. The Tribunal found that since no consideration was charged for the alleged IPR service, the departmental assessment based on notional interest and cost-based valuation was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Fives Combustion Systems P Ltd v.Vadodara-I
The appellant challenged the demand raised by the revenue regarding royalty payments made for technical knowhow supplied by a foreign company. The core issue was whether this payment constituted a taxable intellectual property service under Indian law, given that the service provider was not governed by any Indian law.
Dr. Nidhi Gulati v.M/s. Repro Books Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Repro Books Limited (and Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd.) for the unauthorized reproduction and sale of her copyrighted Ph.D thesis, "Construction of Childhood in Cinema," as a book. The court found that Defendant No. 1 infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff by selling a word-for-word copy without permission or royalty.
Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd v.M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited
The Madras High Court partially decreed the suit filed by Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd against M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using or passing off the identical mark 'TINTOMETER' in relation to colorimeter products, and ordered the surrender of infringing materials for destruction. While rejecting the claim for specific damages, the court passed a preliminary decree compelling the defendants to render true accounts of profits made through the use of the disputed trademark.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technolgy Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile appealed a judgment regarding the payment and security requirements for using Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Interdigital. The dispute centered on whether the appellants were unduly penalized for non-compliance with previous consent terms involving global bank guarantees. The Court issued directions requiring the defendants to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee from an Indian public sector bank instead of relying solely on foreign guarantees, allowing them continued use of the SEPs.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technology Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile filed appeals challenging a single judge's order that imposed deposits, costs, and restricted their ability to secure respondents with an Indian Bank guarantee. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecommunication standards by mobile device manufacturers.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
The Appellant, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201617008869 by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The High Court issued notice and set a date for re-notification to hear the matter.