India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 93 of 311 · 7,456 total
Regency Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Chowdhury Enterprise And Ors
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief concerning its registered mark "METRO" against the respondents. The court addressed procedural matters, granting the plaintiff leave to add prayers and confirming jurisdiction under specific legal provisions.
Alcon Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alcon Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of its Indian Patent Application No. 201914027377. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions, setting a date for re-notification.
Oxular Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Oxular Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant an Indian Patent Application (No. 201817034819). The appellant argued that the invention disclosed a substantial technical advancement and economic significance, fulfilling the necessary criteria.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application (no. 202117034705) under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court first condoned a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and subsequently issued notice to the respondent for submission.
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd filed an appeal against objections raised by The Controller of Patents. The respondent completed submissions on Sections 10(4) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, requesting a hearing regarding objections under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d).
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents to grant a patent titled 'Reversible 2-Dimensional Pre-/Post-Filtering for Lapped Biorthogonal Transform'. The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court ultimately held that the invention provided tangible benefits beyond ordinary computing functionality and was therefore patentable.
V.Lakshminarayanasamy & Suguna Lakshminarayanasamy v.Siva Bhaskaren & The Deputy Registrar, Trademark Registry, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal or cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1191299, which was registered in Siva Bhaskaren's name for goods like pressure cookers and fans. The court noted that the trademark's validity expired on April 10, 2023, as no renewal request had been filed within the ten-year period. Consequently, the petition seeking rectification became infructuous, leading to its closure.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The appeal addressed objections concerning lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and ambiguity in claim language. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, allowing the patent to proceed subject to specific amendments and deletions.
V.K.R. Venkatesan v.S.Athiappan
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against S.Athiappan, Proprietor of Chitra Enterprises, alleging infringement of his registered trademarks ('SIVAJI' and 'V.K.R. SIVAJI BRAND') and copyright over artistic works. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SIVAJI GOLD'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure, despite multiple pre-grant oppositions citing prior art. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order, directing that the patent proceed to grant after specific amendments were made to address clarity issues.
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises
The Delhi High Court allowed Taco Bell Corp. to withdraw its rectification petition against Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises' trademark registration, provided the latter adheres to a binding undertaking. Tamoghna had previously initiated opposition proceedings against Taco Bell’s 'TACO SUPREME' mark despite limitations on their own registered device mark. The court accepted Tamoghna's commitment to cease all oppositions and cancellations related to 'TACO SUPREME', allowing the petition to be disposed of while preserving rights for future action in case of breach.
Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited v.Jona'S Cafe
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited, finding that Jona'S Cafe was infringing upon its registered trademark 'JONAH'S' and engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'JONA'S,' despite a minor alteration, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, especially given their proximity and identical business sector (food chain). Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions and directed the defendant to pay damages based on profits earned.
Jabir Hussain Trading As M/S Hakeem Hotel v.Ali Asgar Trading As M/S. Hakeem Restaurant
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Jabir Hussain (M/S Hakeem Hotel) against a Commercial Court's decision to return its trademark infringement plaint. The appellant sought permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing and passing off their registered trademarks in North West Delhi. The High Court ruled that since the plaintiff pleaded both existing operations via e-commerce platforms within Delhi's jurisdiction, and an imminent threat of physical expansion into Delhi, a valid cause of action existed within the territorial limits. Consequently, the Commercial Court's order returning the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored.
Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by Meenu (M/S Albro Industries) in an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order. The court condoned a 11-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and allowed the appellant exemption from submitting original documents. The core dispute, concerning whether a counter statement was properly served during opposition proceedings for the 'AIRODO' trademark, has been listed before the Joint Registrar to complete service, setting the stage for further litigation.
Electronica India Ltd. v.Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Electronica India Ltd., setting aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' communications that allowed a subsequent proprietor (Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.) to record ownership via Form TM-24. The court found significant procedural flaws, including the lack of a speaking order and discrepancies in official records. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner is given a full opportunity to be heard before any decision is made.
Soremartec S.A v.M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited
The Madras High Court closed rectification petitions filed by Soremartec S.A against M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited after both parties executed a comprehensive Memorandum of Compromise. The settlement allows Cavinkare to continue using the disputed marks ('MOMENTS') but strictly limits their application to specific, non-conflicting goods (e.g., coffee and tea). Crucially, Cavinkare agrees not to use these marks for confectionery or chocolate products, thereby protecting Soremartec's superior rights in 'FERRERO MOMENTS'.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201717045317 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the refusal erroneously applied the test of inventive step, failing to recognize the technical advancement and substantial differences in the claimed invention compared to prior art.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited appealed against an order dismissing its writ petition, which challenged the post-grant opposition proceedings against its patent IN387429. The dispute centered on whether the original Opposition Board had adequately considered expert evidence before submitting its recommendation to revoke the patent.
Bhimavaram Community Network Bcn v.M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit filed by the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that the petitioner was infringing the respondent's copyright by removing/overshadowing the 'T-Series' Logo while broadcasting content. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no patent perversity in the Trial Court's decision.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Www.Royalenfielddealerships.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing ad interim injunction granted in favor of Eicher Motors Limited against various parties involved in trademark infringement. The court found that new imposter domain names were being used to deceive customers, collecting money under the guise of fake dealerships using the 'Royal Enfield' mark. Consequently, the court issued sweeping directions requiring Domain Name Registrars and financial institutions to lock and suspend the infringing domains and accounts.
Mallcom (India) Limited v.Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mallcom (India) Limited, protecting its registered trademark 'TIGER' used for safety shoes. The court found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar and violated both statutory and common law rights. While restraining further use, the defendants were allowed a grace period to deplete their existing stock and were ordered to take down the infringing website.
Fmi Limited v.Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Fmi Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal for using the deceptively similar trademark 'FREEMANS PROFESSIONAL' on protective hand gloves. Despite the defendant arguing that he was merely a reseller and not the manufacturer, the court found his admission of dealing in the infringing goods sufficient to uphold the infringement claim. The judgment underscores that even resellers can be held liable if they use marks confusingly similar to an established trademark.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v.JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the word 'silk' in relation to paint products. While acknowledging that 'silk' can be used descriptively to denote a specific product finish, the court cautioned against its misuse as a trademark that could lead to consumer confusion (passing off). The court allowed JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd. to continue using 'silk' on their product tumblers, provided they strictly limit its use only to products with a silk finish and clearly state this description in advertisements. The core proprietary rights of Berger Paints India Ltd. over the term remain undecided pending trial.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction against the exploitation of its patent (IN 276026) covering Ceritinib. The dispute centered on whether the patent was invalid due to prior art and obviousness, which Natco argued. The court dismissed Natco's application to vacate the existing interim injunction.