Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
56 cases · page 2 of 2
Showing 31–55Kanishk Sinha & Anr v.Union Of India & Anr
The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petition, which sought linkage between their software and the 'VAHAN' vehicle registration system. The core issue raised was entitlement to compensation under Section 102(3) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India
The petitioner, the patentee/assignee of Patent No. 254875, challenged an order by the Secretary, Government of India, regarding their request for a patent linkage to the VAHAN e-Module. The core dispute was whether the patent holder could mandate that electric vehicle registration (specifically e-Rickshaws) be subject to NOC issuance based on the patent before official registration.
Mahindra And Mahindra Limited v.Kanishk Sinha & Ors.
The case involved a suit alleging violation of Patent Rights. The petitioner sought modification/variation of an existing ad interim injunction, citing financial losses and delay in the disposal of interlocutory applications. The court directed the lower court to ensure these pending applications are disposed of expeditiously within six weeks.
Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited v.The State Of West Bengal
The application sought to recall and clarify a prior order passed in WPA 2070 of 2022. The Court found that the writ petition failed to disclose crucial previous orders, including those related to injunctions and infringement suits.
Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v.The Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioners challenged an impugned order regarding their patent rights related to electronic eco-friendly battery-operated vehicles. The court addressed arguments concerning the necessity of adding other manufacturers and states as parties, ultimately finding that the limited scope of the petition did not require such additions.
ABP Private Limited & Anr. v.Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata & Ors.
The petitioners challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks for allegedly treating several trade mark applications as 'abandoned' without following the prescribed statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court found that the procedure laid down in Section 132 and Rule 38(4) and (5) was not followed, despite the petitioner sending a reply to the objection.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by Kanishk Sinha against the Union of India. The court noted that the petitioner's patent application had been accepted online, substantially addressing his grievance.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the validity of a patent by questioning the vires of Section 64 of the Patents Act. The Union of India admitted the stand taken by the petitioner in its affidavit-in-opposition, leading the Calcutta High Court to dispose of the writ petition.
Kanishk Sinha v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a title suit seeking accounts, delivery of products, and permanent/mandatory injunction against defendants for infringing his patent rights related to eco-friendly e-rikshaws. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction and failure to comply with Section 80(2) CPC. This appeal challenged the impugned order.
Prashant Properties Limited v.Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd
The petitioner, an operational creditor, entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with the respondent to use a family of marks in lieu of securing an outstanding debt. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from suspending this PUA. The appellate court stayed this injunction, arguing that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the IBC and Companies Act. The High Court set aside the stay order, finding that the suit was maintainable as a collateral security agreement.
Oramed Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Oramed Ltd. challenged a decision dated February 25, 2019, made under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority erred by proceeding on Section 3(d) instead of Section 3(e), and that the order was based on conjectures rather than conclusive findings. The court found infirmities in the impugned order.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged the actions of the Controller regarding a pending patent application (No. 3865/KOLNP/2007). The petitioner argued that since the Controller had reserved judgment without deciding on their request for cross-examination, they would be seriously prejudiced if the patent was granted without hearing their objections fully. The Court ruled that in adversarial proceedings before the Controller, the right to cross-examine is an indefeasible right under natural justice.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The petitioner argued that the appeal mechanism was practically unavailable due to the absence of a technical member, and further contended that the rejection of their patent application, which followed a voluntary divisional filing, was erroneous as it failed to consider curative measures.
Sri Bishnupada Biring v.Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Biring
The Calcutta High Court noted a prima facie case raised by the petitioner concerning procedural flaws and patent discrepancies in the commissioner's report. Consequently, the matter was directed to be heard as a contested application. An interim order granting a stay on the impugned order and related proceedings was issued.
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals v.Union Of India
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals challenged an order passed by the Controller of Patents, arguing that the authority failed to consider superior data regarding their improved product version. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the impugned order was statutorily appealable, the petitioner must utilize the available statutory remedy.
Kanishk Sinha v.State of West Bengal
The petitioner, a patentee, challenged actions of the State regarding e-rickshaws, asserting that defendants were infringing his patent on echo friendly vehicles. The court affirmed the petitioner's status as a patent holder and held that any license granted by the State in violation of the existing injunction would be void ab initio.
Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.
Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.
Nacto Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Nacto Pharma Limited challenged the actions of a respondent authority regarding the grant of a patent to another party. The petitioner alleged that the authority proceeded with merit-based objections without first addressing preliminary objections concerning a breach of Patent Rule 55 (4).
Reckitt Benckiser Health Care (India) Pvt. v.Emami Ltd & Ors.
The appeal challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court, which restrained the defendant from displaying an advertisement for 'MOOV' that compared it to the plaintiff's product, ZANDU BALM. The High Court examined whether such comparative advertising amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
Kanishk Sinha challenged the implementation of an amended notification under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which brought 'E-rickshaws' within its ambit. The petitioner also claimed infringement of his patent related to technology for battery operated e-rickshaws.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union of India & Ors.
The writ petitioner challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had revoked his patent for a 'Sealing Device' due to lack of novelty based on US prior art. The petitioner argued that his device possessed novel features, such as a transparent body and ribbed wire. The Calcutta High Court set aside the IPAB's order, finding that the Board erred in its assessment and reliance on expert opinion.
N. V. Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) order which allowed the registration of the trade mark 'HERO' for cigarettes. The petitioner argued that the IPAB erred by interfering with the Registrar's discretionary decision and misinterpreting legal principles regarding trademark priority and special circumstances. The High Court ultimately set aside the IPAB's order, confirming the Registrar's refusal to register the mark.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that revoked a patent granted to him. The sixth respondent sought revocation under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging lack of novelty based on prior art. The High Court admitted the petition but declined to grant any interim stay.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its application seeking specific information from the Controller of Patents. The court admitted the petition after hearing counsel for both parties, noting that no interim order was sought at that stage.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs which allowed the patentee to submit a reply statement after missing the statutory deadline. The petitioner argued this contravened the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court admitted the petition and stayed further proceedings pending its final hearing.
Besco Limited (Foundry & Rubber Division) v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Government of India
Besco Limited filed a petition alleging that its application under Section 11B of the Patents Act, 1970 had not been processed by the Controller General of Patents as required by Rule 24B. The petitioner argued that the statutory duty was neglected. The Court admitted the petition but clarified that pendency would not prevent the respondents from taking necessary steps.
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.