India IP Litigation
7,068 annotated decisions
Page 99 of 295 · 7,068 total
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The court heard matters concerning various parties, including T-Mobile Usa Inc vs Controller Of Patents. The hearing focused on issues related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.
The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.
Colgate-Palmolive Company v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Colgate-Palmolive Company appealed the refusal of its national phase patent application (4411/DELNP/2007) for 'An Oral Composition'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). However, due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite repeated notices, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused their patent application (201717017554) due to a lack of novelty. The court directed the respondent to file a reply, specifically addressing the inconsistency of the claims cited by the Controller.
Freebit As v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS filed a suit seeking an injunction against Exotic Mile Private Limited regarding its granted patent, IN 276748, for an 'Improved Earpiece'. The Defendant challenged the validity of this patent by presenting evidence that corresponding foreign patents had been invalidated or refused in several jurisdictions, including based on lack of novelty.
Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. v.Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark cancellation petition filed by Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. against Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd. The dispute centered on the conflicting marks 'DROTIN' and 'DROTAGAN' in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to Respondent No.1 agreeing to surrender its registration for 'DROTAGAN' and acknowledging the Petitioners' rights in 'DROTIN'. The court accepted this agreement, effectively resolving the dispute.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc & Anr v.Varshaben Kantilal Talreja & Anr
In this trademark dispute, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in Delhi High Court, arguing they only operate in Gujarat. The court permitted the defendants time to file their written statement and replication. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on both the injunction application and the issue of maintainability.
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. v.M/S.Supreme Tile Works
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. filed two Original Petitions seeking the expungement and removal of registered trademarks belonging to M/S.Supreme Tile Works from the register. The petitions targeted marks like 'SUPREME TILE WORKS' and 'AMARJYOTHI' in Class 19, alleging grounds for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, before any substantive hearing could take place, the petitioner chose to withdraw both Original Petitions.
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Jogaram Sirvi And Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement. Crucially, the court affirmed that the 'ATOMBERG' brand qualifies as a well-known trademark across all classes of goods and services. This landmark decision reinforces the high level of protection afforded to coined and inherently distinctive marks with established national reputation.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant, Manya Vejju, from publishing statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent, Sapna Bhog. The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism between their respective romance genre literary works. The core legal question was whether the threat of infringement action fell under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The High Court found that the trial court's inquiry into the merits of the copyright claim exceeded its remit and consequently quashed the impugned order, remitting the matter back for a fresh determination.
Quantum University v.International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc
This case involved a challenge by Quantum University against an arbitration award that directed the cancellation of its domain name (www.quantumuniversity.edu.in). The respondent, International Quantum University For Integrative Medicine Inc., had successfully argued that the petitioner's domain was confusingly similar to their prior formative domain names (e.g., quantumuniversity.com). The Delhi High Court examined this challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ultimately upholding the original award.
Arkema France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Arkema France appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a 'Heat Transfer Method'. The appellant argued that the rejection relied heavily on a new prior art document (D5) introduced only at the hearing stage. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing potential amendments under Section 59 if disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant (Manya Vejju) from making statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent (Sapna Bhog). The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism and unauthorized copying between their respective literary works in the romance genre. The court held that determining whether actual infringement exists is beyond the scope of a suit under Section 60, as it risks prejudging an action for infringement. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the District Judge for fresh determination after considering the underlying infringement suit.
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, IPR Building, SIDCO Plot, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to quash an earlier order and direct the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No.395/CHENP/2012. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for an 'IMAGE CONSTRUCTION APPARATUS'. The appellant challenged the refusal order on grounds that the conclusions regarding obviousness and patent eligibility (Section 3(k)) were unreasoned. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sujatha Manthri trading as Herald Healthcare
The Madras High Court allowed Corona Remedies' petition to rectify the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'B9' (No. 3281514) registered by Sujatha Manthri. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established mark 'B29', especially considering both marks were used for pharmaceutical products. Given Corona Remedies' long history of use, significant sales turnover, and reputation, the court ruled in favor of removing the conflicting registration.
Contitech USA Inc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Contitech USA Inc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'TORQFLEX'. The court found that there was an arguable case suggesting the goods associated with TORQFLEX (power transmission belts) were not similar enough to the cited conflicting mark (TORSIFLEX, used for couplings). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that protection is only granted if identical or similar marks are used on identical or similar goods, thereby directing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Shri Dhruv Gupta v.M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Shri Dhruv Gupta against M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited concerning the trademark 'UJALA'. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions for alleged infringement, passing off, and dilution. Given that the original owner of the mark is under insolvency proceedings (NCLT), the court deemed it necessary to issue notice to the Resolution Professional (RP) to ascertain their position before proceeding with the case.
Rishabh Jain v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Rishabh Jain against The Registrar of Trade Marks. Despite multiple notices and previous hearings, key procedural steps remained incomplete, notably the service report and the required affidavit from the Respondent regarding notice of opposition. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner's counsel to inform the opponent of the orders and scheduled the matter for July 5, 2022, pending the filing of the necessary affidavit.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
Vennila Clothing Company filed a suit against M/s.Arrs Silks alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('RAMRAJ'/'RAJARAM') and copyright over its trade dress in the textile industry. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar labels by the defendants, leading to claims for injunction, damages, and account of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement via a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
Optimus Drugs Private Limited v.Union of India
Optimus Drugs Private Limited challenged the hearing notice issued during the post-grant opposition proceedings against Patent No. 281489 for 'An improved process for the preparation of Linezolid'. The petitioner argued that since both parties filed additional evidence after the initial Opposition Board recommendations, a fresh board should be constituted to consider all facts and amended claims. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention, directing the Controller of Patents to reconstitute the Opposition Board and examine the entire record expeditiously.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors
The plaintiffs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland, sought an interim injunction regarding their patented anti-cancer molecule 'dasatinib' (SPRYCEL). The court disposed of the application for interim injunction as the patent term had expired. However, the court allowed amendments to the plaint to include new manufacturers and directed further proceedings.
Joseph Taheny v.Tektronix Inc.
Joseph Taheny challenged an arbitral award that directed him to transfer the domain name 'tek.in' to Tektronix Inc., arguing that his registration predated the respondent's trademark filing. The petitioner contended that the domain was registered as a generic Turkish term and not in bad faith. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the arbitral award. The court upheld the transfer, emphasizing that the complainant only needed to be a registered proprietor of the mark for the INDRP rules to apply.
R.Nagarajan @ K.R.Nagarajan v.S.Ravichandran
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by R.Nagarajan against S.Ravichandran concerning Trade Mark No. 3102490 (RAVIRAM'S). The decision was based on a joint memorandum of compromise where the defendant agreed to withdraw and cancel the registered trademark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.