India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 97 of 311 · 7,456 total
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order which concluded that its subject patent lacked inventive step. The appellant argued that the subject application claimed improvements over an earlier granted patent (Patent No. 327649) and sought conversion into a patent of addition under Section 54 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found merit in this submission.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appellant filed an auxiliary request proposing amended claims for their patent application. These amendments were necessitated by limitations granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). The court addressed issues related to prior art and whether the subject application constitutes a method of treatment.
Nymox Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Nymox Corporation filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application. The rejection was based on grounds related to novelty, inventive step, and subject matter limitations under the Patents Act, 1970.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Ksc Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited against Ksc Industries & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' use of the mark 'EVERYDAY' was deceptively similar to Eveready's well-known trademark, 'EVEREADY', leading to potential infringement and passing off. Given the prima facie case made out by Eveready and the risk of irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Narender Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the existing interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Narender Kumar & Ors. The dispute centered on alleged passing off, where the defendant used the mark 'CAFTADAY' for an eye drop containing the compound ALCAFTADINE, deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAFTA'. Despite arguments from the defense regarding generic drug naming conventions and INNs, the Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the triple test for passing off. Consequently, the injunction was maintained, preventing the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's issuance of a pre-grant hearing notice, arguing that it had not been provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opposers. The court found this procedural lapse and set aside the notice.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's hearing notice regarding its patent application, arguing that it was not provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opponents. The court found that the procedure was flawed due to this omission.
L Oreal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
L Oreal appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 4652/DELNP/2013) for a process using thiopyridinone compounds. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider expert reports or properly analyze prior art under the Patents Act, 1970.
Ceat Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed Ceat Limited's appeal challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'FARMAX'. The court found that the appellant failed to adequately explain a significant delay in filing the appeal, rendering the condonation plea specious. Furthermore, on the merits, the court held that 'FARMAX' was structurally and phonetically similar to existing marks ('FORMAX' and 'FARMOX') registered for related goods (vehicles/tractors), creating a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
Puma Se v.Gajari Online Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Puma Se against Gajari Online Services Private Limited, ordering the variation of the respondent's registered trademark (No. 3685326). The court accepted the petitioner's argument that the 'leaping lion' device within the impugned mark was deceptively similar to Puma's well-known 'leaping cat' device. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the leaping lion element from the trademark while allowing the word 'GAJARI' to remain.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Passiflora Pharmaceuticals
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Passiflora Pharmaceuticals, alleging trademark infringement of its registered mark 'FLORA' in the pharmaceutical sector. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for filing replies to the injunction application (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC). The proceedings are moving forward with standard civil procedure steps, indicating an active dispute over brand reputation and market goodwill.
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The appeal challenged the Patent Controller's decision, arguing that the Controller failed to properly address objections related to amendments and fell back on earlier claims without due process.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Qualcomm appealed the Controller General's order rejecting its patent application for an invention related to pilot transmission in wireless communication systems. The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of hardware support (Section 3(k)) and lack of novelty/inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)).
Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT LTD v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd
M/S Sumotek Innovation Pvt Ltd (Appellant No. 1) filed a suit seeking declaration of rights and permanent injunction against Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd (Respondent No. 2) for using their patented technology (Patent No. 208216). The appeal challenged the Trial Court's rejection of the interim injunction application, which was based on lack of locus standi. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant might have locus standi, they did not establish a prima facie case for an injunction due to the patent nearing its expiry.
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The rejection was based on various objections including lack of novelty and insufficiency of disclosure. The High Court found that the Controller erred by falling back on earlier claims after the applicant had made amendments, without issuing a proper hearing notice regarding the new objection (Sec. 59).
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Everest Beverages And Food Industries & Anr.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court challenges an earlier order that set aside an opposition filed by Everest Food Products against a Trademark Application. The appellant argued that crucial documents were misplaced or not supplied to them, hindering their ability to present a full case regarding prior use and rights. While the court did not rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, it granted an adjournment to allow further submissions and document exchange.
Abhishek Kumar Goyal v.M/S Diyaa Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by the appellant against a Hearing Officer's decision in a trademark opposition case concerning detergent products. The court found that the original officer erred by comparing the respondent's mark with only the appellant's word mark, ignoring the appellant's prior device mark which was on record and presented during hearings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh, de novo hearing.
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited v.Mr.Bean Trampoline Park/Mr.Been Trampoline Park
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited successfully obtained leave from the Bombay High Court to proceed with a commercial IP suit against Mr.Bean Trampoline Park. The petitioner, owner of the 'Mr.Bean' character and associated trademarks/copyrights, alleged infringement by the respondent operating under similar names and marks. The court granted permission, finding that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within Mumbai, thereby establishing jurisdiction despite the park being located elsewhere.
Waycool Food Products Private Limited v.Cheedalla Gopinath, Aditya Rice Enterprises, Sree KVR Industries
Waycool Food Products Private Limited filed a civil suit against several defendants alleging passing off, copyright infringement, and misuse of its distinctive trade dress and logo in the packed rice market. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged violations. Ultimately, both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on February 17, 2024, leading to the court decreeing the suit while noting that the plaintiff had waived the claim for monetary damages.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
Sulphur Mills Limited sought an interlocutory injunction against several defendants, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent IN 282429 for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition.' The plaintiff argued that their composition offered significant advantages over existing fertilizers, such as faster sulphate conversion and compatibility with modern irrigation. However, the court found that the defendants had successfully established a credible challenge to the patent's validity on the grounds of obviousness based on extensive prior art.
BASF SE v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
BASF SE appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application for an 'Auxiliary spring having axially running contour elements'. The rejection was based on various objections, including procedural and technical ones. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the cosmetic objection should not deny the applicant their rights, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Puma Se v.K.Srinivasan Trading as K.Srinivasan Mills & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Puma Se's petition for rectification, directing the removal of a conflicting trade mark registration (No. 2892343) held by K.Srinivasan Mills. The court found that the leaping cat depicted in the respondent's label bore a strong resemblance to Puma's registered 'leaping puma' logo. This ruling reinforces the principle that established trademark proprietors are entitled to protect their distinctive logos against confusingly similar marks, even if those marks operate in related classes.