Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
66 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59Jayshree & Company v.The State Of West Bengal & Ors
Jayshree & Company challenged a notice issued by respondents restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws. The restriction was based on an order in a Title Suit where a fuel cell battery manufacturer alleged patent infringement. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing authorities to grant registration provided the vehicles are distinct from those in the ongoing suit.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union of India & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a review application challenging the order of a Single Judge regarding the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the review application, holding that the petitioner had not adequately argued or pleaded the issue of constitutional validity in the original writ petition.
Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a review application challenging an earlier order. The core issue was whether his implicit challenge to the constitutional validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, had been overlooked during the original proceedings.
Kalpesh Manubhai Ramoliya v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application seeking direction for the expeditious disposal of proceedings for cancellation of a registered design (No. 324986-017). The petitioner contended that despite filing the cancellation application in November 2021, the Controller had failed to proceed with the hearing, causing undue prejudice and loss.
Kalpesh Manubhai Ramoliya v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application seeking a direction from the Calcutta High Court for the expeditious disposal of proceedings related to the cancellation of registered design no. 324986-016. The petitioner contended that despite filing the cancellation request in November 2021, the Controller had failed to proceed with the hearing, causing undue prejudice and loss.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy & Ors. v.State (Government of West Bengal)
The petitioners challenged a notice restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws due to an earlier title suit concerning patent infringement related to fuel cell batteries. The court held that since the petitioner's battery is distinct (lead cell) from the subject matter of the Title Suit, the Transport Directorate must grant registration, provided all other formalities are met.
Dys Impex Private Limited v.State Of West Bengal
The petitioners, manufacturers of battery operated electric cycle rickshaws, challenged the refusal by authorities to register their vehicles based on a patent injunction. The court examined whether the subsequent modification and vacation of the original injunction made the private respondent's restraint valid. The court held that the initial injunction was modified and found the patent invalid, thus directing the authorities to proceed with registration.
Hooghly Motors Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
The petitioners challenged a notice restricting the registration of their echo friendly e-rickshaws due to an earlier court order concerning a patent infringement suit. The core issue was whether the petitioner's lead cell battery technology was distinct from the patented fuel cell battery in the Title Suit. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Transport Directorate to grant registration, provided the vehicles were distinct and complied with relevant rules.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Anr.
The appellant challenged the denial of his plea for extending the validity/tenure of his Patent due to seven-year delays by authorities. He also questioned the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that no provision allows for automatic extension as a penalty and noting that the issue of constitutional validity was not properly argued.
Kanishka Sinha & Anr v.The Union Of India & Ors
The petitioners sought a direction to the Deputy Director General (VAHAN), National Informatics Centre, to grant linkage of their patented software with the Vehicle Registration and Homogation System. The matter was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the writ petition.
Kanishk 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.
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.