India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 98 of 311 · 7,456 total
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, arguing that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh board. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the independent duty to assess its merit.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
International pharmaceutical companies (Petitioners) challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent. They argued that the Board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by them under Rule 60, due to inaction by the Patent Controller.
Pfizer Inc. v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Limited
The court confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier, restricting defendants from dealing in infringing products related to Patents No. 243571 and 250050, as other patents had expired. The court also directed service of notice for discovery regarding the origin and import of impugned products and allowed amendments to the plaint.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Union of India, The Controller of Patents & Designs, Zydus Healthcare Limited
The petitioners, international pharmaceutical companies, challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent (IN340060). They argued that the board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the petitioners. The court found that the Controller's failure to pass orders on procedural applications led to an incomplete scrutiny, thus vitiating the recommendations.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, alleging that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh Opposition Board. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the duty to make an independent decision.
Suzuki Motor Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Suzuki Motor Corporation appealed regarding objections related to their patent claims. The Court noted that while there is no specific provision for re-consideration, amendments might be allowed if errors relate to translation/transliteration. The Court subsequently directed the Appellant to file an application under Section 57 of the Patents Act to amend their modified claims.
Baxalta Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Baxalta Incorporated appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents which refused their application for "FACTOR VIII POLYMER CONJUGATES" due to lack of novelty and inventive steps in product claims. The appellant sought leave to submit an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to method claims. The High Court allowed this submission, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
M/S Imberatek Llc v.Apple Inc & Anr.
M/S Imberatek Llc filed a commercial suit alleging patent infringement against Apple Inc. Initially, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit to explore mediation, and the court allowed it with a refund of court fees. However, subsequent consideration found that since no urgent interim relief was sought, the plaintiff could not circumvent the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Voicemonk Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Voicemonk Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a system and method related to content recommendation using Augmented Reality. The Controller had raised objections regarding lack of clarity, subject matter eligibility (Section 3(k)), and novelty/inventiveness (Sections 2(1)(j) and 10(4)).
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of Patent 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the defendants from using or manufacturing the subject compound. However, the court noted evidence presented by the defendants showing they were already manufacturing the compound through a similar process prior to the patent application date.
Saera Electric Auto Limited v.Malak Techno Private Limited
Saera Electric Auto Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement suit against Malak Techno Private Limited through mediation. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, which the Delhi High Court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, Malak Techno agreed to cease all use of the impugned mark 'MAYUR' and any deceptively similar variations, acknowledge Saera as the sole owner of the 'MAYURI' trademarks and copyright in its logo, and pay damages totaling Rs. 2,50,000/-.
Sunil Dutt Trading As Kilter v.Pro Muscle Science & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between Kilter (owner of 'MUSCLE SCIENCE') and Pro Muscle Science regarding trademark infringement in the dietary supplement market. The court found that the Defendants' use of marks like 'PRO MUSCLE SCIENCE' was highly likely to cause consumer confusion, as the Plaintiff's registered mark is entirely incorporated into the competing names. Consequently, the existing interim injunction favoring the Plaintiff was confirmed. While the matter proceeds toward mediation, the ruling strongly affirms the protection afforded to established trademarks against similar competitors.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors v.John Doe And Others
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to involve WhatsApp LLC in the proceedings. The court allowed WhatsApp's impleadment and issued specific directions requiring the platform to remove or block identified infringing groups and accounts associated with Sequoia Capital's trademarks. Crucially, while ordering the removal of known infringers, the court also mandated that Plaintiffs must first notify account holders before any further blocking action is taken, balancing enforcement needs with due process concerns.
Inox India Private Limited v.Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged the dismissal of a Commercial Trademark Suit, which had been rejected on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centered on whether proprietary engineering drawings used for commercial vehicles qualified as an artistic work under copyright law and if their protection lapsed after exceeding a production threshold of 50 units. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the Commercial Court to reconsider both the rejection and injunction applications simultaneously.
GenSquare LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, Patent Office
GenSquare LLC appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing its divisional patent application. The refusal was primarily based on the ground that the divisional claims did not flow from the original parent application. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller's reliance on an overruled judgment was flawed.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application. The core dispute revolves around whether the claimed method for data processing qualifies as an invention despite being classified as a computer program per se under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Niranjan Arvind Gosavi And Ors v.Innovatiview India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendant infringed their patent (No. 336205) related to secure document validation methods by bidding for an NTA e-tender requiring enhanced QR Code solutions. The court refused to grant an ad-interim injunction, considering the impact on the tendering process, but directed the defendant to maintain full accounts if they succeed in the tender.
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs (F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag) filed an application seeking the constitution of a Confidentiality Club. The Defendant (Zydus Lifesciences Limited) argued that access should be contingent upon preliminary findings regarding the identity of the biosimilar to the innovator drug. The Court directed both parties to submit their proposed members for the confidentiality club.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Medisave Formulations India Llp
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Novartis against Medisave Formulations. Recognizing the urgent nature of the case, the court exempted the plaintiffs from standard procedural requirements like advance service and pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search at the defendant's premises, seize infringing products bearing the mark 'ZYMADA', and inspect relevant financial documents, finding prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the marks and packaging.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Majji Suresh
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to strike off a confusingly similar trademark, 'PEPPS,' registered by Majji Suresh. The court found that the mark PEPPS bears striking phonetic and visual resemblance to PepsiCo's globally recognized mark, PEPSI. Given PepsiCo's established reputation and well-known status of its brand, the court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Joy Creators Llp v.Bath And Body Works Brands Management Inc.
The Delhi High Court directed both parties to engage in mandatory pre-litigation mediation regarding a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'JOY'. The plaintiff sought an injunction against Bath & Body Works for alleged passing off and trademark infringement. However, the court noted that the defendants had previously proposed a resolution, suggesting they would only sell the product through their own branded stores to avoid confusion, and were willing to refrain from filing trademarks on 'JOY' as a descriptive term. Given these discussions, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with litigation.
Alpha Foundation for Education and Research v.Akara Education Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed multiple appeals filed by Alpha Foundation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to treat their opposition as abandoned. The court ruled that the failure of the Registrar to provide proof of service of the counter statement was fatal, overriding procedural delays in filing evidence. Consequently, the opposition has been restored, and the challenged trademark registrations have been held in abeyance pending a full hearing on the merits.