Plaintiff Favorable
122 plaintiff favorable decisions from Calcutta High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
122 cases | Page 2 of 5
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'NOVEL FORMS Of CDDO METHYL ESTER' on grounds of non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The appellant argued that the rejection failed to consider crucial clinical trial data demonstrating enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the authority must deal with all submitted evidence and provide reasoned orders.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademark And Anr.
Andreas Gutzeit appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which rejected his patent application, "Blood Flow Control System and Method for In-vivo Imaging and Other Application," primarily on grounds of non-compliance with Section 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether the amendment—specifically changing the claim from a method to a system—was permissible under the law. The Calcutta High Court found serious infirmities in the Controller's order, noting that it failed to properly assess if the amendments broadened the scope beyond the original specification. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on the merits.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors, Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The court found the rejection order unsustainable due to misinterpretation of previous orders and noted an exceptional delay in the process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing fresh adjudication by another Controller.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The appeal challenged the rejection order, citing exceptional delays in the patent process. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Designs & Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel chemical-based nicotine aerosol delivery device. The Controller had rejected the application, citing public health concerns related to nicotine and referencing various statutes. ITC argued that since the device operates purely through a chemical reaction without electrical components, it should not be classified as an ENDS or e-cigarette. The Calcutta High Court ultimately ruled in favor of ITC Limited, emphasizing international IP principles (TRIPS and Paris Convention) which mandate that patentability cannot be denied merely because commercial exploitation is restricted by domestic law.
Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Takeda Pharmaceutical appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application for Novel Protein Kinase Inhibitors (Brigatinib). The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to consider crucial supplementary data demonstrating Brigatinib's superior selectivity and therapeutic efficacy.
Neoculi Pty Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Neoculi Pty Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, Kolkata, which rejected its application for an antibacterial pharmaceutical composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, unpatentability under Section 3(e), and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter.
Bionorica Se v.Union Of India And Ors
Bionorica Se appealed against a rejection order passed by the Patent Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was perverse and lacked reasoned application of mind. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it cryptic and unreasoned, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on merits.
BASF SE v.JOINT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS
BASF SE appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application for 'CRYSTALLINE MODIFICATIONS TO PYRACLOSTROBIN' (Form IV modification). The appellant argued that the 18-year delay in disposal violated natural justice and that the rejection was erroneous on merits. The court set aside the impugned order, primarily due to the egregious delay.
Jansen Pharmaceutica Nv v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Jansen Pharmaceutica appealed the rejection of its patent application for a dry, intravenously administrable formulation of tipifarnib. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive steps and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court found that the impugned order was vague, lacked reasoning, and failed to apply established principles for determining inventive steps.
Vennootschap v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application, which was based on a lack of inventive steps. The petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanically passed and violated natural justice because new prior art (D-2) was introduced at the hearing stage without being mentioned in the initial examination report. The Court agreed, finding no reasons in the impugned order.
UPL Limited v.Astec Lifeciences Limited And Anr
The appeal challenged an earlier pre-grant objection order passed under Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that the impugned order suffered from a gross violation of natural justice due to its mechanical and verbatim reproduction of the private respondent's submissions without independent application of mind. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter.
M/S. SONA BEVERAGES PVT LTD v.THE COCA-COLA COMPANY AND ANR
The Calcutta High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S. Sona Beverages Pvt Ltd seeking the removal of the mark 'SIMBA' registered in favor of The Coca-Cola Company. The court found that the trademark, which had lapsed on February 24, 2020, was never renewed despite receiving official notices from the Registry. Consequently, the court directed the expunging of the expired registration.
Super Smelters Ltd. v.Rekha Tayal &Anr.
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Super Smelters Ltd., a leading manufacturer of TMT Bars, in its application to rectify a trademark registration. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively identical and phonetically similar to the petitioner's established 'SUPER SHAKTI' brand. Crucially, the court noted a glaring error by the registrar who failed to consider the petitioner's prior registrations during the examination process. Consequently, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the impugned registration, affirming the petitioner's strong prima facie case and preventing consumer confusion.
SRMB Srijan Private Limited v.Grihashakti Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of SRMB Srijan Private Limited against Grihashakti Private Limited. The court found that the respondent was grossly violating the terms of a franchise agreement by misusing the petitioner's 'SRMB' trademark and brand, logo, and trade dress while manufacturing TMT Steel Bars without adhering to required standards. Given the urgency and apprehension of further misuse, the court restrained the respondent from using the marks or selling related products until November 30, 2024.
Enterabio Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.
Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Baynee Industries v.Rajiv Rosha
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking substantial damages against the defendant, alleging wrongful interference with business due to the defendant's patented product. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing lack of cause of action and correlation between the patent and the alleged business loss. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaint, when read as a whole, disclosed sufficient cause of action.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vifor (International) Ag filed an appeal against an order dated November 1, 2023, along with an application seeking condonation of a 32-day delay. The appellant argued the delay was due to technical difficulties in obtaining and stamping a Power of Attorney received from Switzerland. The court found that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay and allowed the application.
Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier rejection of its opposition against a competing trademark application. The court found that the respondent's mark, which featured an elephant device and the word 'Haathi,' was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered 'JUMBO' mark for tea and spices. Given that both parties operate in the same market and consumers associate the elephant motif with the goods, the court ruled that the similarity would inevitably lead to consumer confusion.
ATLAS COPCO AIRPOWER NAAMLOZE VENNOOTSCHAP v.THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR
The petitioner company filed an appeal (IPDPTA/12/2022) which was dismissed for default. The petitioner sought condonation of a 330-day delay, citing being based in Belgium and unaware of the transfer of IPAB matters to the High Court due to legal changes and COVID-19. The court found sufficient cause and allowed the delay, restoring the appeal.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller cancelling his registered design for an Air Cooler (No. 233559) based on alleged prior publication in China. The appeal contended that the cancellation relied only on insufficient evidence from the CNIPA website and ignored previous rejections of similar claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
UPL Limited v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Ors
UPL Limited appealed a decision by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to proceed with its patent application (No. 1378/KOL/2013). The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural flaws, specifically the failure to address expert affidavits and critical technical submissions. The Court set aside the impugned order based on admissions made by the authorities in their affidavit in opposition.
Nababuddin Ahmed v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Kolkata And Anr
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Nababuddin Ahmed, setting aside the unauthorized removal of his registered trademark. The court held that merely uploading a notice on an official website does not constitute valid service under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the petitioner was not given individual notice and opportunity to rectify defects, the administrative action taken by the Registrar was deemed vitiated.
Biotron Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents & Designs & Anr
Biotron Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application concerning novel antiviral compounds. The initial rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, insufficient disclosure, and non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Shyam Sel And Power Limited v.Atibir Industries Company Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Shyam Sel And Power Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Atibir Industries Company Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'ISEL' on TMT bars constituted passing off, as it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'SEL'. Relying on the principles of trade law and the lack of defense from the respondent, the court expedited the judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Bidisha Ghoshal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Bidisha Ghoshal appealed the rejection of her trademark application '42 orchids' by The Registrar of Trade Marks, arguing that the Examiner's refusal was mechanical and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and devoid of substantive discussion regarding similarity or likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a fresh examination, ensuring due process.
The Raring Corporation And Anr v.Neogie Engineering Works Pvt Ltd
The petitioners sought interim protection against the respondent for copying their registered design, 'Sonic Nozzle', which is an essential component of their dust suppression system. The dispute centered on whether the respondent's product infringed the petitioner's protected shape and configuration, or if the design was purely functional and therefore unprotectable.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Oppo Mobile appealed the rejection of its patent application for a novel charging system and power adapter. The appellant contended that the rejection lacked reasons, failed to appreciate the requirements for novelty/inventiveness, and violated procedural rules by not issuing a Second Examination Report after amendments. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
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.