Dismissed Decisions
9 cases | Page 1 of 1
Staar Surgical Company v.Jagrat Natvar Dave Trading As Polymer Technologies International & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a rectification application filed by Staar Surgical Company against the trademark 'IPC L' under No. 2511431. The court noted that despite multiple attempts by the Registry to serve notice, the applicant failed to appear or ensure proper service of process. Consequently, the application was disposed of for want of prosecution, though the petitioner retains the liberty to revive the case if difficulties are overcome.
Sanofi India Limited v.Bullford Wold Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Sanofi India Limited, accepting its request to withdraw it. This withdrawal was based on a favorable judgment previously delivered by the Delhi High Court in a related infringement suit. The Delhi court had decreed the case, mandating that Bullford Wold cease manufacturing and selling products under the impugned trademark 'CANIFLAM' and take steps to surrender the trademark registration.
Pfizer Products Inv. v.Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Pfizer Products Inv. against Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. The court noted that the respondents had withdrawn their trademark registration application, rendering the original dispute moot and infructuous. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Consitex S.A. v.Sharad Rampal Jain And Sudeep Gautamchand Dhing Trading As Siesta Pharmaceuticals & 1 other(s)
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the Rectification Application (C/RA/50/2022) filed by Consitex S.A. The application sought action regarding a trademark, but the petitioner subsequently informed the court that the trademark in question had already been removed by the Registry. Consequently, the court allowed the withdrawal of the application.
Desai Haribhai Jeshangbhai v.Ministry Of Power - Govt Of India
The petitioner, who is a retired Assistant Agriculture Engineer and holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking assistance with his pending patent application related to electrical power production engineering. The Central Electricity Authority requested details of a working model for the innovation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner must take further steps to submit a prototype/working model.
Arif Abdul Kader Fazlani v.Hitesh Raojibhai Patel & Co & 1
The plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 1 of 2012. The court granted this permission, disposing of the main suit as withdrawn. However, the defendants' counterclaim, which sought the revocation of Patent No. 226534 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, was held to survive for adjudication.
PACS CHEMICALS THRO. DIRECTOR, ANJU S BHATT v.UNION OF INDIA & 4
The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated 17/05/2010, which dismissed their opposition and granted registration in favour of Respondent No. 5 for a trademark application (No. 1641653/1641655). The court held that since an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners, the writ petitions could not be entertained.
Symphony Comforts Systems Ltd. v.Pradip Nandlal Dhoot
Symphony Comforts Systems Ltd. filed a petition seeking cancellation of a design (Registration No. 174601) held by Pradip Nandlal Dhoot, alleging lack of novelty and prior use. The respondent challenged the petitioner's jurisdiction, arguing that since the infringement suit was filed in Hyderabad, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had jurisdiction, or alternatively, Calcutta High Court due to the registration location.
Somabhai Ishwarbhai Bhagat v.Natwerlal Chhanalal And Co. And Ors.
The petitioner filed a civil suit alleging infringement of Patent No. 124131, which covered a roasting apparatus. The respondent counterclaimed seeking revocation of the patent. The court examined whether the suits and counterclaims were premature because they were filed before the official sealing date of the patent.
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.