India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 96 of 311 · 7,456 total
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Ericsson against Lava International. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents, while simultaneously determining the scope of infringement and the quantum of damages owed. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the validity of seven specific patents while directing the revocation process for another patent, alongside awarding substantial damages to Ericsson.
Genentech, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Genentech appealed the rejection of its patent application for a medicinal compound, 'Inhibitors of IAP', by the Controller. The Controller rejected the claims citing lack of novelty and inventive step under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Controller's objections farfetched.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Lava International Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Fabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
Ollos Biotech Private Limited v.Omega Ecotech Products India Limited
Ollos Biotech Private Limited filed an Original Petition to revoke Patent No.411774 granted to Omega Ecotech Products India Limited. The petitioner contended that the invention lacked novelty, inventive step, and was patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that both the product claim and method claim lacked an inventive step or novelty based on prior art and non-patent literature.
Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel v.Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel against the trial court's order granting an injunction to Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had established use of the 'SPG' trademark since 2007, noting that appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings made by the trial court. While dismissing the main appeal, the High Court granted a temporary stay on the order for three weeks.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8954/CHENP/2014) concerning an ARC-Welding method and apparatus. The appeal challenged the Controller's decision, arguing that the rejection based on lack of inventive step was not adequately reasoned or explained in the impugned order.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent, 'a self locking glazing system'. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and directed the parties to proceed with the suit. The Defendant contested the injunction, raising objections regarding the validity and suppression of the patent.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trade Mark and Geographical Indications
Malikie Innovations Limited appealed against the Patent Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its file system software. The Controller had raised objections primarily under Section 3(k), arguing it was pure software lacking hardware limitations. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, concluding that since the invention relates only to software and is permissible under existing guidelines, the refusal should be set aside.
Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.
M/s.Star Plastics v.Chandrasekhar
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.
Up Hotels Clarks Limited v.Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Up Hotels Clarks Limited, cancelling a competing trademark registration held by Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established 'CLARKS' brand, which possesses significant goodwill and reputation dating back decades. Despite the respondent's claims of honest adoption, the court determined that the similarity, coupled with the identical class of services (hotels/restaurants), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion, thus violating trademark law.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a written statement in a trademark infringement suit involving domain names. The court clarified that in complex domain name disputes with numerous impleadments, the 120-day period for filing a written statement commences from the date the amended memo of parties is filed, not the initial notice date. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants' written statement to be taken on record after they paid a stipulated fee.
Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Apex Laboratories P.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd against Apex Laboratories P.Ltd. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 343270) in Class 5, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal confirms that the parties had reached a compromise in an earlier case (C.S.No.614 of 1998), and the terms of that settlement remain binding.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register its trademark 'VAPOR PLUS'. The appeal sought to set aside the refusal order dated July 24, 2018. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant voluntarily withdrew the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
M/s.Zeenath's Leather Planet v.Mr.M.Abdul Rasheed
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s. Zeenath's Leather Planet seeking the removal of Trade Mark No. 1623248 from the Register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the petition for default. This highlights the critical importance of timely representation and adherence to court schedules in IP litigation.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Office's decision to reject its patent application concerning a gene sequence designed to increase plant biomass. The appellant argued that the rejections were based on misconceptions regarding claim scope, subject matter eligibility (3j), and inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Nripendra Kashyap v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting his patent application for a reference signal design in cellular communication systems, citing objections under Sections 10(4) and 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the amendments were merely cosmetic substitutions and criticized the Controller's cryptic rejection, ultimately allowing the appeal.
The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School Nand Teachers Training College v.Rajneesh Arora And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a joint application regarding the settlement between The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School and Rajneesh Arora. As part of the agreement, Respondent No. 1 agreed to withdraw their impugned trademark (No. 1519967) registered in Class 41. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 also withdrew oppositions filed against the Petitioner's trademark applications (Nos. 2825545 and 2825546). The Court directed the Trademark Office to process these withdrawals expeditiously, confirming that both parties remain bound by the settlement terms.
Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v.Rajkumar Sabu
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex family dispute concerning the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' used for sabudana. The appeal challenged a lower court judgment that favored the respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove prior use of the mark. Recognizing the contentious nature and the underlying familial connection to the brand creation, the Court directed that the status quo ante should be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal. This allows both parties to continue operating their businesses without claiming sole ownership.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Sanjay Jain & Anr
Pidilite Industries Ltd. sought the rectification and cancellation of a respondent's trademark ('POMA-EX KIWKHEAL') under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their well-known mark 'FEVIKWIK'. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Pidilite could not claim a monopoly over the generic element 'KWIK' or its variations. Furthermore, the court noted that the rectification application must stand on its own merits and cannot rely solely on prior injunctions granted in separate infringement suits.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited against Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'Western Choice' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'Officer's Choice.' This crucial ruling immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling alcoholic beverages using the infringing label. Furthermore, the order mandates a structured process for the disposal of existing stock while the main suit proceeds.
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v.Ldd Bioscience Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited against Ldd Bioscience Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'TUMOTIN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'TUMORIN,' leading to a prima facie case for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. While the injunction restricts future use, the parties were also directed to mediation to amicably resolve the dispute.