India IP Litigation
7,456 annotated decisions
Page 99 of 311 · 7,456 total
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' product composition infringes on their patented weedicidal formulation, which includes a specific blend of chemicals. The case involves determining whether the Defendants' product violates the claims of the Plaintiff's patent.
Hygieia, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Hygieia appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10225/CHENP/2013) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on various grounds, including Section 59, which alleged that the amended claims exceeded the original specification. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that a patent specification must be read as a whole.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Inder Mohan Chadha
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Inder Mohan Chadha for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's' and the Two Horse logo. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing falsified marks identical or deceptively similar to those registered by Levi Strauss & Company.
Eli Lilly And Company Private Limited v.Eskayef Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs, Eli Lilly And Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN 297760 (covering Abemaciclib) by the Impugned Drug 'Abeclib', manufactured by Defendant No. 1. The court prima facie found that 'Abeclib' infringes the patent and granted an interim injunction.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Business Objects Software Limited appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its invention, titled 'Transparent Distribution and Module Decoupling Through Asynchronous Communication and Scopes', under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patent Act. The High Court found that the Controller's order lacked quality and failed to consider the appellant's amended claims during the hearing.
Wyeth Llc v.The Controllers Of Patents
Wyeth LLC appealed an impugned order regarding its patent application. The core dispute revolves around amendments made by the appellant from a PCT application (claiming a 'regimen') to subsequent national phase applications (claiming a 'combination' and 'pharmaceutical pack'). Wyeth argues these amendments were within the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Novartis Ag & Ors. v.Noviets Pharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement dispute between Novartis Ag & Ors. and Noviets Pharma & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted an exemption from mandatory pre-suit mediation. Crucially, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial, while also addressing the preliminary injunction application seeking restraint against trademark infringement.
Nababuddin Ahmed v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Kolkata And Anr
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Nababuddin Ahmed, setting aside the unauthorized removal of his registered trademark. The court held that merely uploading a notice on an official website does not constitute valid service under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the petitioner was not given individual notice and opportunity to rectify defects, the administrative action taken by the Registrar was deemed vitiated.
Pfizer Inc. v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Pfizer Inc. claims that Beacon Pharmaceuticals has infringed on their patents. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding the subsisting patents.
Diageo North America, Inc v.Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd.
Diageo North America filed a petition seeking rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BULLET MALTED WHISKY' registered by Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd., alleging that it is deceptively similar to Diageo's well-known mark 'BULLEIT'. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioner had established a case for cancellation.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents concerning its patent application No. 5945/DELNP/2009. The appellant argued that the Controller's observation contradicted previous hearing notices and written submissions, specifically regarding industrial applicability under Section 2(1)(ac) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr
This order addresses an interim injunction application filed by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Plaintiff) against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The court noted that the suit patent IN'720 was nearing its expiration date. The parties debated whether to proceed with the hearing given the imminent expiry and broader legal questions regarding patent coverage versus disclosure.
Martinswerk Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk Gmbh appealed the rejection of its product patent application for novel aluminum hydroxide flame retardants. The appeal argued that the Patent Controller repeatedly shifted and reverted between different limbs of Section 3(d) without providing a consistent or fair hearing process. The High Court found merit in these submissions.
Gm Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Gm Modular Pvt Ltd., successfully challenging the registration of a similar mark held by Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Impugned Mark was not genuinely used in commerce, despite the respondent's claims. Based on the lack of substantial evidence of use and potential confusion with the established 'GM' brand, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, challenged the charging of TDS and interest by the DCIT regarding annual payments made to international educational boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held these payments constituted royalty for using trademarks. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing and restored the matter to the AO for further clarification on the nature of the lump sum fees.
Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application based on objections under Section 3(k) and Section 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the Controller's order was not adequately reasoned and failed to consider the inventor's submissions regarding both sections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
A.L.M.Holding Company v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
A.L.M.Holding Company appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a cold-in-place recycling method, which was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core dispute centered on whether prior art citing heat-based processes could invalidate an invention that specifically operates without heat in key stages.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, appealed against orders charging TDS and interest on annual payments made to international education boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held that these payments constituted royalty for the use of trademarks and services provided by the overseas institutions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for further clarification regarding the nature of the lump sum fees.
M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Mirshad C.E.502
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the opposition proceedings. The core issue was the Registrar's decision to dismiss the opposition as abandoned due to non-production of evidence. The court ruled that for an opposition to be validly initiated, the applicant must prove service of the counter statement on the opponent, and a mere assertion of email service without proof is insufficient under the Trade Marks Act.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.P.Krishnam Raju; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the cancellation of the trade mark 'SPICE' (Registration No. 1091801). The court noted that despite being served with the Registry notice, the petitioner failed to appear and prosecute the matter before the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for default.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.
The Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to suspend limitation periods under the Trade Marks Act, citing severe disruptions in accessing the Trademark Registry's online portal. The petitioner highlighted persistent technical difficulties, including non-functional e-filing services and payment gateway issues, which were causing stakeholders to lose valuable IP rights. The Court acknowledged the urgency of the matter, directing the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to appear on the next date to provide detailed solutions and status updates regarding the systemic failures.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
This order addresses an application seeking five corrections to a previous judgment dated March 1, 2024. The plaintiffs sought corrections primarily regarding the timeline of Natco's revocation filing relative to Kudos' infringement suit, and technical errors in referencing patent numbers and claim descriptions.
M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant, M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar, appealed against an order where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of imported shoes bearing the United Colors of Benetton (UCB) logo and imposed penalties. The Tribunal found that the goods were counterfeit, infringed UCB's trademark rights, and therefore constituted prohibited goods liable for absolute confiscation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
The plaintiffs filed a suit for patent infringement regarding Sitagliptin (Patent No. 209816). An ex-parte ad interim injunction was previously granted restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing products. The court noted that the patent has since lapsed, making the injunction infructuous, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek relief of costs and damages.