India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 85 of 295 · 7,068 total
Intelligent Energy Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Intelligent Energy Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3716/CHENP/2007) by the Controller General, which held that the invention lacked inventive step due to close resemblance to prior art D1. The appellant argued that their technique for capturing byproduct hydrogen represented a significant improvement over existing technology. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.5542/CHENP/2010), which was rejected primarily on grounds that the claimed 6E4 antibody was an inherent feature and not patent-eligible under Section 3(c) as it was discovered in nature. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the specific method of production made the antibody patentable.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody targeting PDGFR alpha, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a naturally existing substance. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and transgenic mouse technology, making it recombinant and non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody capable of binding to A-beta oligomers. The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibody was a natural nonliving substance and thus not patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection order.
Genmab A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genmab A/S appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 4718/CHENP/2007) for a monoclonal antibody targeting human CD38. The respondent argued that the antibody was merely a discovery of a naturally existing molecule, thus ineligible under Section 3(c). The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the antibody was produced through substantial human intervention and possessed inventive step.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents
Micro Labs Limited filed this Commercial Suit seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 and an injunction against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH Co. KG. The court noted that the same parties were involved in related proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the application to withdraw the suit was allowed.
Industeel France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, Design, Trade Mark And Geographical Indications Patent Office
Industeel France appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 119/CHENP/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller repeatedly changed objections and prior arts, causing procedural inconvenience. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.
M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Sachin Gupta Trading As M/S Jai Balaji Grah Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against the Defendants for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'LACY' brand. The court allowed the Plaintiff to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendants' premises using Local Commissioners, aiming to prevent further unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks like 'LECY'. This order establishes strong preliminary protection for the Plaintiff's established goodwill in the FMCG sector.
Prakash Singh & Anr. v.Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed cancellation petitions filed by Prakash Singh & Anr. seeking the removal and rectification of trademarks registered by Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr. The petitioners alleged that the respondent, a charitable trust, sought to monopolize the spiritual heritage and goodwill associated with the late 'GURU JI' on a mala fide basis. The Court accepted notice from the respondent and scheduled the matter for further arguments.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Delhi High Court heard several part-heard matters concerning a common legal question under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970. The order was passed in hybrid mode and scheduled for further hearing.
Erytech Pharma v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Erytech Pharma filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the Assistant Controller's decision regarding Indian Patent Application No. 661/CHENP/2010. The appellant subsequently sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the dismissal of its patent application (No. 4866/CHENP/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on alleged non-filing of Form-3, coverage by the original application, and exceeding the specification. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller had not applied its mind to the facts, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v.Mr Vishal Choudhary
The plaintiffs, SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary for allegedly manufacturing and selling similar brick making machines that infringe on their patents (Nos. 353483, 359114, etc.) and copyrights in technical literature. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
Ab Skf & Anr v.M/S Osaka International Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of Ab Skf & Anr, reinforcing existing injunctions while addressing new infringement concerns. The court directed a defendant involved in non-compliance with an earlier injunction to file a compliance affidavit regarding sales cancellations and refunds. Furthermore, based on evidence of counterfeit goods and domain squatting, the court ordered Defendant No. 12 (GoDaddy LLC) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing domain name 'www.skfsg.com', demonstrating proactive enforcement against trademark misuse.
M/s.Mesmer Pharmaceuticals v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration of 'REJUSTAR' in Class 5. The Registrar had cited phonetic similarity to other marks, but the court held that it was premature to determine deceptive similarity based solely on scrutiny under Section 11. Given that the appellant's mark is an invented word and the cited marks were used for different goods or outside India, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for further processing.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Mohd. Nazim And Anr.
The Delhi High Court registered the commercial suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Mohd. Nazim And Anr., concerning alleged trademark infringement of 'AUGMENTIN' by the use of 'ZENMENTIN' for similar pharmaceutical products. The court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and granting permission to submit sealed documents related to sales figures. Crucially, the court directed that notice be issued to the defendants regarding the injunction application (I.A. 5188/2024), setting the stage for a full trial on the infringement claim.
Hmd Global Oy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trademark Registry
Hmd Global Oy successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its word mark 'PureDisplay' in the Madras High Court. The core issue was the Registry's finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness, despite the appellant providing evidence of global use and registration. The court found that the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by passing an order under a different section (9(1)(b)) without giving the appellant a hearing on that specific ground. Consequently, the rejection was set aside, and the application was remanded for final consideration.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a pre-grant opposition by the Patent Office despite an internal decision to proceed with the patent grant. The court addressed procedural issues related to the timing of the decision versus the filing of the opposition, referencing Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma concerning the similar corporate names 'REXCIN' and 'REKIN'. The court noted that while Rexcin holds registrations for 'REXCIN', they are not currently using it commercially, whereas Rekin has registered 'REKIN-SP' in Class 05. To resolve the conflict, the Court proposed a potential settlement where both parties could agree to restrict the use of the disputed term only as part of their corporate name, rather than as a trademark or trade name. Both counsels agreed to consult their clients on this proposal and were directed to consider mediation.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Daichi International
In this trademark infringement suit, Western Digital alleged that Daichi International was rebranding and reselling used/refurbished HDDs originally manufactured by WD under the 'Daichi' brand. The Delhi High Court issued conditional interim directions, allowing sales to continue but mandating that all impugned products must carry a clear disclaimer stating they are used and refurbished goods. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to file detailed stock statements regarding the purchase and sale of these specific HDDs.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Jyoti Dewani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Pataka Industries Private Limited against Jyoti Dewani. The court noted that the appellant had previously benefited from an injunction and allowed the application, restraining the respondent from using the trademark '502 Pataka' on any product or label until further orders. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks.
Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v.Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.