Mixed Decisions
254 cases | Page 2 of 9
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary challenged the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," which occurred because he failed to file a response to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The court found that the negligence and lack of communication from the appointed Patent Agent constituted professional misconduct. Consequently, while the petition was disposed of, the court directed the CGPDTM office to initiate an enquiry against the defaulting Patent Agent and mandated the creation of a formal Code of Conduct for IP agents.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr
The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited v.Jindal Steel And Power Limited
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim protection against Jindal Steel And Power Limited regarding an ad film campaign titled 'Steel of India'. The petitioner claimed authorship and copyright over the creative works, arguing that the respondent terminated the contract without fulfilling payment obligations. The court addressed the dispute under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, while acknowledging the IP nature of the claim. The judgment mandated a deposit of Rs. 59 lakhs by the respondent and granted an interim injunction against distribution if the deposit was not made within two weeks.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Ericsson against Lava International. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents, while simultaneously determining the scope of infringement and the quantum of damages owed. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the validity of seven specific patents while directing the revocation process for another patent, alongside awarding substantial damages to Ericsson.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Mehboob Ahmad v.Muneer Ahmad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the rejection of a device mark application for painting brushes. While the court upheld the finding that the mark was registrable (i.e., it had distinctive character), it noted that the initial Examiner's order failed to address objections under Section 11(1) regarding similarity with earlier marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Examiner, directing them to proceed only on the grounds of Section 11(1) and allowing the registration process to continue.
Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr., Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd, Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims by interpreting product-by-process claims as limited only to the specific manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed this significant issue, clarifying that the scope of a patent claim cannot be unduly narrowed merely because it is described using a 'product-by-process' format. The court emphasized that claim construction must define the full scope of protection granted by the patent, allowing the suit proceedings to continue based on this clarified legal position.
Apex Europe B.V. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge raised by Apex Europe B.V. regarding the refusal of the Trademarks Registry to consider a prior Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order while processing its trademark application for 'GTT'. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to take the IPAB's order into account, provided that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking and indemnity against any liability arising from that order. This resolution allows the matter to proceed based on the historical decision.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Union Of India
This judgment addresses a batch of suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (IMBRUVICA). The writ petition filed by Laurus Labs challenged the earlier decision of the IPAB. The Delhi High Court decided applications for interim relief in these cases. While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits, allowing them only to exhaust existing stock under strict conditions.
Pharmacyclics, Llc & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of patent infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Natco Pharma Limited. The core dispute revolves around the unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug covered by Indian Patent 262968. The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug while the suits are pending. However, it allowed them to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited
This judgment addresses a batch of suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC concerning the alleged infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib (marketed as IMBRUVICA). The court heard applications for interim relief in these patent infringement cases. While dismissing one writ petition, the Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint order preventing defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending final disposal of the suits. However, it allowed defendants to exhaust existing stock under specific conditions.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr.
This judgment addresses a batch of six infringement suits filed by Pharmacyclics LLC and its affiliates against various pharmaceutical companies, including Shilpa Medicare Limited. The core dispute revolves around the alleged unauthorized manufacturing and marketing of Ibrutinib, a drug protected by Indian Patent 262968 (IN'968). The court granted interim restraint orders preventing the defendants from further manufacturing or marketing the drug pending the final disposal of the suits.
Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. v.Hetero Labs Limited & Ors. / Natco Pharma Limited / Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd / Shilpa Medicare Limited & Anr. / Alkem Laboratories Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a batch of six suits alleging infringement of Indian Patent 262968, which covers the drug Ibrutinib. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants who were launching or had launched the generic version of the patented drug. While the court dismissed one related writ petition, it granted interim relief restraining all defendants from manufacturing and marketing Ibrutinib pending the final disposal of the suits. Furthermore, the court allowed defendants to exhaust their existing stock, provided they file an affidavit detailing the batch numbers and expiry dates.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
Rishabh Jain v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Rishabh Jain against The Registrar of Trade Marks. Despite multiple notices and previous hearings, key procedural steps remained incomplete, notably the service report and the required affidavit from the Respondent regarding notice of opposition. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner's counsel to inform the opponent of the orders and scheduled the matter for July 5, 2022, pending the filing of the necessary affidavit.
Harbans Lal Wadhwa Trading As Uttam Chemicals v.Subhash Chand Trading As Subhash Chand And Sons & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings regarding the cancellation of a registered trademark ('UTTAM') held by the Respondent. The Petitioner, claiming prior use since 1999 for various cleaning products, sought cancellation based on their earlier market presence. Recognizing that the dispute required detailed proof of goodwill and sales figures beyond mere pleadings, the court framed specific issues and directed both parties to file lists of witnesses and lead evidence.
Procter And Gamble Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Procter & Gamble challenged the Controller's order refusing its 'Detergent Compositions' patent application due to lack of inventive step. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary, citing a four-year delay in processing and the Patent Office failing to grant adequate time for responding to objections raised under Section 8(2) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court agreed with the appellant, finding the process contrary to natural justice and statutory timelines.
Havells India Limited v.Polycab India Limited
Havells India Limited filed a suit alleging design piracy against Polycab India Limited concerning three registered designs for ceiling fans. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's ELANZA and ELEGANZ PLUS ranges infringed the plaintiff's 2016, 2021, and 2022 designs. The court examined the specific features of each design, particularly focusing on surface patterns and overall configuration. The judgment found that while the injunction against Polycab's ELANZA range regarding the 2016 design was maintained, the claims concerning the 2021 and 2022 designs were dismissed. The court concluded that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of piracy for these latter two designs due to marked differences in their surface patterns.
Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited v.Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex dispute involving the cancellation of a trademark registration (No. 1523434) held by Himachal Helicopter Skiing Pty Ltd, which was sought by Himalayan Heli Services Private Limited. Given the extensive overlap between the ongoing cancellation petition and an older passing-off suit, the court directed that both cases be consolidated for trial. This strategic move aims to streamline the litigation process, ensuring a unified determination of who holds the rightful rights in the 'Himalayan Heli Services' mark.
M/S Malhotra Book Depot v.M/S Mbd Industries And Anr.
Malhotra Book Depot filed a suit against Mbd Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off due to the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'MBD' for non-metallic building materials. The Plaintiff held multiple registrations for 'MBD' across various classes related to publishing. During mediation, the parties agreed that the Defendants would change their mark to 'JMVD'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending interim injunction applications, allowing the Defendants to continue operating under the new mark.
Ischemix Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Ischemix LLC appealed a refusal of its patent application, which covered an isomer used to treat ischemia. The refusal was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, requiring demonstration of 'enhanced therapeutic efficacy.' The court acknowledged the strict interpretation required by law but noted that the Patent Office had failed to consider various supporting data provided by the applicant. Consequently, the High Court directed the record back to the Patent Office for re-examination and final adjudication within a stipulated timeframe.
Bennett, Coleman And Company Limited v.E1 Entertainment Television , Llc Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the respondent's applications seeking to introduce a specific YouTube video into the rectification proceedings. The respondent argued that this video was crucial evidence supporting their claim of continuous use of the mark since the early 1990s, which directly counters the petitioner's request for trademark cancellation/rectification. The court ruled that since the link had been previously cited in the written statement, the video clip was not an 'additional document,' thereby allowing its admission to ensure a fair trial.
Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v.Meta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.
M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited v.M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Infinity Infoway Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interlocutory injunctions regarding trademark infringement in the travel industry. While the court found prima facie evidence that Defendants 3 and 4 were infringing the plaintiff's registered marks by using deceptively similar spellings ('SHREENATH' vs 'SHRINATH'), it rejected the request to restrain Defendant 5 due to insufficient factual basis. The court issued a mixed order, granting injunctions against specific words and domain names while mandating removal of infringing marks and disclosure of earnings from Defendants 3 and 4.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. v.Rps Infrastructure Limited
The Delhi High Court issued interim directions against Rps Infrastructure Limited after a petition alleging trademark infringement concerning the 'World Trade Centre' brand in Faridabad. The court temporarily restrained the respondent from using the disputed trademarks on its projects, requiring immediate removal of the marks from all public materials and mandating disclosure to unit buyers that the developer holds no rights to the brands. While granting these protective measures, the Court deferred the adjudication of significant monetary claims (over Rs 31 crore) to the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
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.