India IP Litigation
7,167 annotated decisions
Page 88 of 299 · 7,167 total
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.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals, the registered proprietor of Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, which was supported by an interlocutory injunction application.
Sicpa Holding Sa v.The Controller of Patents
Sicpa Holding Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Inline Spectroscopic Reader and Methods' by the Controller of Patents, which cited a lack of inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller had not adequately considered the detailed explanations provided by the appellant in response to the objections raised on prior art. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
M/S Lavos Performance v.M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Trial Court that dismissed its application to stay proceedings in an infringement suit, arguing that a revocation petition against the respondent's patent was pending before the competent authority. The Karnataka High Court ruled that while evidence relating to alleged infringement could be recorded, the final arguments on the merits of the suit must wait until the outcome of the patent revocation application.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller of Patents
Qualcomm appealed an order from the Patent Controller rejecting its invention titled 'ENHANCED BLOCK-REQUEST STREAMING SYSTEM FOR HANDLING LOW-LATENCY STREAMING'. The appeal argued that the Controller failed to adequately consider the appellant's written submissions and did not correctly assess the novelty and inventive step against prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn. v.The Controller of Patents
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn appealed an order from the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on a propylene impact copolymer and method. The appellant argued that the rejection was flawed because the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and amendments made in response to prior art objections. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Audertec Solutions Llp v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks & Anr.
Audertec Solutions LLP appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning 'a method and system for detecting road anomalies.' The Controller rejected the application, primarily citing a lack of inventive step compared to prior art D-2. The Delhi High Court was tasked with determining if the distinguishing features of the invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the disclosures in D-2. Ultimately, the court found no reason to differ from the Assistant Controller's decision.
Omega SA v.The Controller of Patents & Design, Government of India
Omega SA appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a ceramic element inlaid with metallic decoration, which was rejected by the Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller failed to apply his mind properly to the issue and equated the hyper-precision technology to ordinary laser etching. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.Controller Of Patents New Delhi & Anr.
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting the appellant's patent application for 'Charge Recirculation Air Intake Main Ford (CRAIM)' on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and an Assistant Controller, allowed the appeal.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.