India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 94 of 311 · 7,456 total
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argues that this section is contrary to Section 11A(7) because it restricts patent subsistence based on the date of application rather than the date of publication. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and res judicata before adjourning the matter for arguments on merits.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Honasa Consumer Limited's appeal against the refusal to register its trademark 'THE DERMA CO'. The initial rejection was based on similarity and likelihood of confusion with an earlier cited mark. However, by providing a disclaimer that they only claim rights over the composite mark and not the word 'DERMA', the court accepted the application. This decision highlights how strategic disclaimers can overcome objections in trademark registration proceedings.
Adret Retail Private Limited v.Abhinandan Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a detailed order in the ongoing suit concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off by defendants using the 'KAPIVA' family of marks. The court granted an interim injunction application (I.A. 8103/2024) by directing the execution of local commissioners' commissions at the defendants' premises. This action is crucial for the plaintiff, Adret Retail Private Limited, to gather evidence regarding the alleged counterfeit products and unauthorized use of their registered trademarks in the market.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Mankind Pharma Limited and Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr. The court directed the Respondent to file additional documents demonstrating that the Petitioner was simultaneously seeking rectification of the impugned trademark 'CUREKIND' before the Trademark Registry. Furthermore, the hearing was adjourned to September 2nd, 2024, allowing both parties time to submit composite briefs.
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. against Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark 'FAIRMONT', had made out a prima facie case for infringement. This order specifically restrains the defendant from using 'FAIRMONT' or any deceptively similar mark in connection with their hotel properties, including the disputed 'OCTAVE FAIRMONT SUITES'. The ruling underscores the immediate protection available to brand owners against unauthorized use of their trademarks.
Mittal Electronic Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mittal Electronic Industries filed a petition challenging the current registration status of the trademark 'MILTON' (No. 419520). The petitioner contends that despite their historical association with the mark, the proprietorship is now incorrectly listed under an unrelated entity, 'Indian Agencies.' The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, prompting a formal inquiry into the ownership and registration details of the trademark.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders And Anr
Mohd Shakir filed a petition seeking rectification of an artistic work titled 'MYA', which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner claimed that the impugned registration belonging to Gopal Traders copied an earlier artwork owned by a third party in Lebanon and had prior international trademark registrations for 'MYA'. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting that copyright registration is only prima facie evidence of particulars entered therein. Furthermore, the court highlighted the petitioner's own conflicting assertions regarding ownership in previous opposition proceedings, ultimately upholding the validity of the existing registration.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Indian Patent No. 235625, which was held to be prima facie invalid by co-ordinate benches of the court.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prime Diamond Tech & Ors.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd challenged a trial court order that allowed its former employees, who formed Prime Diamond Tech, to continue their business activities despite allegations of copyright infringement. The appellant claimed that the respondents were using proprietary drawings and confidential information related to High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) machines for diamond coloring. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim of a proprietary right is purely a question of fact requiring expert evidence during trial, and thus, no prima facie case warranted an injunction.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The court addressed arguments concerning the maintainability of a writ petition related to the deletion of an amendment in five patent claims. The court noted similar pending decisions on this issue and allowed the interlocutory application (I.A.) to proceed, considering the counter claim filed by the defendant.
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Abdul Rehman & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application in a trademark infringement suit brought by Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. The court accepted the Plaintiff's claim regarding the established goodwill associated with 'FAIRMONT' and 'THE FAIRMONT'. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease using the infringing device mark and domain name 'www.fairmontin.in', leading the Court to grant a temporary injunction and a four-week period for implementation of the changes. The court also extended these directions to Defendants No. 2 and 3.
Castrol Limited v.Vikas Mishra
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited against Vikas Mishra regarding alleged trademark and trade dress infringement. The court found a prima facie case based on the similarity between Castrol's established global brand and the defendant's use of marks like 'ACTIVE', 'ACFIVE', and 'POWER'. This initial order restrains the defendant from using confusingly similar branding while mandating the disclosure of sales accounts, setting the stage for further litigation.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical And Food Product And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd against D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical, ordering the removal of the respondent's registered mark under Class 32. The petitioner successfully argued that the impugned trademark was either not used continuously for the required period or constituted an infringement/passing off risk given the established reputation and extensive use of the 'AMUL' brand. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against unauthorized registrations.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit alleging infringement of its Patent No. 271425 against Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation. Concurrently, the defendants filed a counter claim seeking the revocation of this patent. The Gujarat High Court examined both the infringement claims and the validity challenges raised by the defendants. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove infringement, and consequently, rejected the counter claim for revocation, affirming the novelty and inventive step of the suit patent.
President And Fellows Of Harvard College v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The dispute involves President and Fellows of Harvard College challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'non-native' pancreatic beta cells used in diabetes treatment. The Controller General objected primarily on grounds related to Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that any cell product originates from an animal source. The court directed both parties to file a brief note clarifying the patentability of these 'non-native' cells and reviewing relevant precedents before proceeding with other objections.
Sulzer Mixpac Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sulzer Mixpac Ag appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'STATIC MIXER' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in view of cited prior art documents (D1-D4). The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Patent Office's objections.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This order addresses two concurrent proceedings concerning Patent IN 243301, which had expired on August 18, 2023. The erstwhile patentee argued the petitions were infructuous due to expiry. Petitioners contended that validity must still be decided as they faced ongoing infringement actions where invalidity was raised as a defense.
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v.Olx India B. V. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Reliance Industries against Olx India. The court confirmed that the existing interim injunction, initially granted to prevent misuse of 'JIO' and 'RELIANCE' trademarks in job advertisements, would continue throughout the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the scope of this injunction was clarified to apply specifically to job-related misuses, while reserving rights for further action regarding product sales.
Varun Chohpra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a new suit filed by Varun Chohpra & Anr. against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf, which alleged trademark infringement concerning the 'NATRAJ' brand. The court noted that a similar matter was already pending in Bangalore. Before proceeding with summons, the court directed steps to ascertain the maintainability of the current suit due to the new cause of action. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants for a returnable hearing.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order that his patent application was deemed abandoned due to a four-day delay in responding to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to a clerical error. The High Court found the reasons acceptable, noting the minimal delay and the Controller's failure to properly address the Rule 137 application.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a dispute over the artistic work 'ENERZY powder' between Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The core legal battle centered on whether the Commercial Court was correct in directing the plaintiff to amend their plaint based on an agreement dated 22.01.2015, specifically regarding valuation for court fees. The High Court examined the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution and ultimately ruled that the statutory copyright right should govern the suit's substance, not solely the contractual terms.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order that deemed his patent application abandoned due to a four-day delay in filing the response to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to clerical error, and that the Controller had sufficient power to condone such irregularities. The High Court found the reasons acceptable and condoned the delay.
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited's appeal, setting aside the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its 'BONUS' trademark application. The court accepted the appellant's plea of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, despite a phonetic conflict with an existing mark ('BONUSS'). The judgment emphasized that prior usage, even in different classes, can establish bona fides, allowing for registration.