Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
66 cases · page 3 of 3
Showing 61–65Sri 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.