Outcome Category

Remanded

at Bombay High Court

4 remanded decisions from Bombay High Court.

Remanded Decisions

4 cases | Page 1 of 1

patent remanded · Oct 18, 2019

M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Sai Agrotech, F.M.D. (Farm Machinery Division)

Bombay High Court · CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 1088 OF 2018 AND CIVIL APPLICATION (O) ST. NO.8281 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6324 OF 2016

M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. filed applications for review against a previous judgment that had allowed a license request for Light Trap Equipment to be rejected by NCIPM. The court reviewed the matter, considering the involvement of the review applicant in an earlier agreement with ICAR regarding the licensed technology.

trademark remanded · Feb 6, 2012

Shree Siayaram Fab Private Limited v.Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Appeal (Lodging) No.71 of 2012 / Appeal (Lodging) No.72 of 2012

The appeals challenged the Single Judge's orders regarding a suit for infringement and passing off. The core issue was whether the plaintiff could file an infringement suit despite the defendant having a registered trademark, which the appellant argued barred the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

patent remanded · Feb 26, 2010

Camino De Vera S/N v.Union Of India Through The Secretary

Bombay High Court · WRIT PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2007

The petitioner challenged the order by the Patent Office (Respondent No.3) that deemed its patent application abandoned and subsequently rejected a review petition. The petitioner argued that the Controller failed to provide adequate opportunities for being heard, especially when exercising quasi-judicial powers. The Bombay High Court found both orders without jurisdiction.

design remanded · Sep 25, 1935

The Calico Printers Association v.Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited

Bombay High Court · null

The Calico Printers Association sued Gosho Kabushiki Kaisha Limited for importing and selling goods bearing a registered design that was identical to or imitated their protected design without license. The core legal issue revolved around whether the plaintiffs were bound by the statute (Indian Patents and Designs Act, II of 1911) to elect between specific remedies: account of profits, damages, or a fixed sum of Rs. 1,000.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a similar IP matter?

Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.

Consult our team →