Calcutta High Court
425 cases · page 12 of 15
Showing 331–359Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to uphold the registration of several toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked novelty and were merely trade variants. The court found that certain registered designs were not original or new, particularly when compared to earlier published designs, leading to the setting aside of the Controller's order.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancellation of a registered design. The appellant argued that the design was prior published, evidenced by sales and advertisements from 2003-2005. The High Court set aside the Controller's order due to non-appreciation of material evidence and remanded the matter back to the Controller for consideration of merits.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents, challenging the decision that its registered design could not be cancelled. The appellant argued that the design had been prior published and that the Controller failed to consider crucial evidence from a suit filed in Ludhiana. The High Court set aside the Controller's order due to non-appreciation of materials and remanded the matter for further consideration.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created during the employment of Mr. Chandresh Santosh Kumar Saraswat, who later joined the respondent company. The High Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that the prior publication ground was not properly considered.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application for their registered design. The core issue was whether the design, which was created while Mr. Saraswat (a director) was employed with the appellant company, could be considered prior publication when he later used it for his respondent company.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created while its director, Mr. Saraswat, was employed with them, making the subsequent use by his new company improper.
K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.K. C. Dass
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd., finding that the respondent, K. C. Dass, was engaging in passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar stylized mark. Although the defendant's business (readymade garments) was different from the plaintiff's (sweetmeats), the court held that adopting the same unique artistic style and font created sufficient confusion in the market. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted an injunction preventing the respondent from using the plaintiff's distinctive stylistic presentation of its trade name.
M/S.Avanti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Arjan Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
M/S. Avanti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. appealed against an order passed by a learned single Judge refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for restoration of an appeal under Section 36 of the Designs Act, 2000. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned order was not appealable before the Division Bench.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd challenged the order dated June 30, 2010, which sought to cancel a registered design due to alleged prior publication. The court found that the basis for this finding was questionable.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. challenged the order dated 30th June, 2010, which cancelled their registered design citing prior publication. The court found prima facie grounds to warrant a stay of this cancellation order.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. challenged the cancellation of its registered design by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr., which was based on alleged prior publication. The High Court found the basis for this finding questionable and granted a stay on the impugned order.
Jyoti Jiten Bhatt Trading as Personal Care Systems v.Controller Of Patents And Design & Ors.
The appellant challenged the cancellation of their registered design, which had been cancelled based on a finding of prior publication. The respondents argued that the design was not new or original as it existed in the public domain since 1990. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that no evidence of prior publication regarding the pattern on the underside of the product was produced before the adjudicating Authority.
Jyoti Jiten Bhatt Trading As Personal Care Systems v.Controller Of Patents And Design & Ors.
The appellant challenged the cancellation order of their registered design (No. 191896) passed by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute revolved around whether prior publications invalidated the design's originality. The court found that the registered design was at variance with the evidence produced regarding prior publication, thus upholding its validity.
ITC Limited v.Godfrey Phillips India Limited & Anr
ITC Limited filed a Rectification Petition seeking the removal of the 'SUN FLAKE' trademark registration held by Godfrey Phillips India Limited. The petition, which also involved striking off certain paragraphs and documents from affidavits, was listed before the Delhi High Court on November 10, 2023. The court accepted notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 21, 2023.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancellation of a design registration (Coaster Brake Hub). The appellant argued that the respondent's design was not novel because advertisements were published publicly before the registration date. The court found merit in this argument, noting the prior public disclosures.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancelling a design registration held by respondents. The core issue was whether the registered design, Coaster Brake Hub, was novel, considering advertisements published prior to the registration date. The court found that the prior advertisements proved disclosure before the application date.
Marico Limited v.J.K. Enterprises & Others
The dispute centered on whether J.K. Enterprises was passing off its coconut oil, sold under the name "Nihal," as that of Marico Limited (or its predecessor). The court examined the similarity between the two packaging designs and marks, concluding that the defendant's use was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'Nihar'.
R.R. Proteins And Agro Limited v.Hari Shankar Singhania & Another
The plaintiff asserted exclusivity over its word mark 'Arati' in edible oil against the defendant's use of 'Sandhya Arati'. The court found that despite the addition of 'Sandhya', the prominent feature 'Arati' was incorporated, leading to infringement and passing-off. Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Britannia Industries Ltd appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered biscuit packet design. The appellant argued that the design lacked novelty due to prior publication in magazines and a textbook, which the Deputy Controller failed to consider during the initial proceedings.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Britannia Industries Ltd appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered biscuit packet design. The appellant argued that the design lacked novelty due to prior publication in magazines and a textbook, which the Deputy Controller failed to consider.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited
Hindustan Unilever Limited challenged Procter & Gamble Home Products Limited for allegedly disparaging its fairness cream products through television advertisements. The court examined whether the advertising constituted defamation or disparagement, considering settled legal principles regarding comparative advertising and puffing.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Procter And Gamble Home Products Limited
The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Limited, filed a suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against Procter And Gamble Home Products Limited for telecasting television commercials that allegedly disparaged its 'Fairness Cream'. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent's advertisement, which compared its product to others using phrases like 'Does your fairness cream work only on the surface?', amounted to actionable slander of goods. The court ultimately found that while comparison and puffing up are permissible, no actual disparagement or economic loss was established at the interim stage.
Tata Motors Limited v.State Of West Bengal
Tata Motors challenged an order from the State Chief Information Commissioner which mandated the disclosure of commercially confidential information contained in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Government of West Bengal regarding the manufacturing of its Nano car. The High Court, while noting that the initial proceedings were flawed due to the non-valid constitution of the SIC, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the State Information Commission.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a petition against Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd regarding infringement of its patent, No. 231453. Since the defendant failed to appear despite repeated opportunities, the court confirmed the earlier interim order restraining infringement and granted relief in terms of the plaintiff's prayer.
Eveready Industries India Ltd. v.Anil Gupta Trading As M/S. Shiva Lamps Industries
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute between two trademark holders, Eveready Industries and Shiva Lamps, concerning the use of the mark 'EVEREADY'. While both parties held registrations, the court found that the defendant was restrained from using the plaintiff's stylized form of the word mark. Furthermore, the court restricted the defendant's sales to their five registered states, while directing the transfer of pending rectification applications to ensure a speedy resolution of the underlying trademark disputes.
Vipul Amrutlal Shah v.Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd.
Vipul Amrutlal Shah filed a suit alleging that the Bengali film 'Poran Jaey Joliya Re' infringed his copyright in the successful Hindi film 'Namastey London'. The core dispute centered on whether copying the storyline and plot amounted to infringement, despite the legal principle that there is no copyright in an idea. The court found substantial similarity and granted interim relief.
Anglo Properties & Traders Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
This order from the Calcutta High Court addresses a petition filed by Anglo Properties & Traders Pvt. Ltd. against The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks. The court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks and subsequently file any reply thereto within one week. Furthermore, the matter was scheduled for further hearing to consider the petitioner's request for interim relief.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd, alleging that the latter was infringing Tega's patented improved screen panel and fixing arrangement. The court granted an interim order restraining the respondent from infringing patent no. 231453 until May 13, 2009.
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd. v.Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.
RTB challenged IPRS's claim that it held exclusive rights to grant licenses and demand payment for the broadcast of sound recordings. RTB argued that its business was being threatened by IPRS, which claimed copyright over underlying works. The court ultimately granted a quia timet injunction restraining IPRS from initiating proceedings against RTB.
Magma Fincorp Limited v.Babu Murty Filley & Another
Magma Fincorp Limited filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking various reliefs. The court granted an interim order restraining the respondents from dealing with or changing the identity of the specified equipment for three months, while allowing them to use it in their usual course of business.
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.