Madras High Court
1359 cases · page 11 of 46
Showing 301–329Cosmetic Warriors Limited v.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Cosmetic Warriors Limited against Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding the trademark 'BIOMIC SCIENCE'. The court accepted the argument that despite registering the mark in 2012, the first respondent had failed to put it to substantial use in commerce. Consequently, the registration entry was rectified and removed.
Baskar v.G. Raghu Babu
The plaintiff, who holds a registered industrial design for a 'Forklift Vehicle,' sought an injunction against the respondent, alleging imitation and infringement. The respondents contended that the design was not unique, as it involved attaching a forklift to a conventional tractor already used in agriculture, and their activities were merely assisting farmers. The High Court set aside the ad-interim injunction.
V.K.R.Venkatesan Trading as V.K.R. Prakash Modern Rice Mill v.M.Selvanambi Trading as Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mills
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against M. Selvanambi, alleging infringement of his 'SIVAJI BRAND' trademark and copyright violation concerning rice packaging. The original prayer sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of similar marks and labels. However, on April 16, 2024, the court noted that the plaintiff's counsel had requested withdrawal of the suit, leading to its dismissal.
V.Lakshminarayanasamy & Suguna Lakshminarayanasamy v.Siva Bhaskaren & The Deputy Registrar, Trademark Registry, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal or cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1191299, which was registered in Siva Bhaskaren's name for goods like pressure cookers and fans. The court noted that the trademark's validity expired on April 10, 2023, as no renewal request had been filed within the ten-year period. Consequently, the petition seeking rectification became infructuous, leading to its closure.
V.K.R. Venkatesan v.S.Athiappan
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against S.Athiappan, Proprietor of Chitra Enterprises, alleging infringement of his registered trademarks ('SIVAJI' and 'V.K.R. SIVAJI BRAND') and copyright over artistic works. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SIVAJI GOLD'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The appeal addressed objections concerning lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and ambiguity in claim language. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, allowing the patent to proceed subject to specific amendments and deletions.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure, despite multiple pre-grant oppositions citing prior art. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order, directing that the patent proceed to grant after specific amendments were made to address clarity issues.
Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited v.Jona'S Cafe
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited, finding that Jona'S Cafe was infringing upon its registered trademark 'JONAH'S' and engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'JONA'S,' despite a minor alteration, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, especially given their proximity and identical business sector (food chain). Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions and directed the defendant to pay damages based on profits earned.
Soremartec S.A v.M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited
The Madras High Court closed rectification petitions filed by Soremartec S.A against M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited after both parties executed a comprehensive Memorandum of Compromise. The settlement allows Cavinkare to continue using the disputed marks ('MOMENTS') but strictly limits their application to specific, non-conflicting goods (e.g., coffee and tea). Crucially, Cavinkare agrees not to use these marks for confectionery or chocolate products, thereby protecting Soremartec's superior rights in 'FERRERO MOMENTS'.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited appealed against an order dismissing its writ petition, which challenged the post-grant opposition proceedings against its patent IN387429. The dispute centered on whether the original Opposition Board had adequately considered expert evidence before submitting its recommendation to revoke the patent.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order that his patent application was deemed abandoned due to a four-day delay in responding to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to a clerical error. The High Court found the reasons acceptable, noting the minimal delay and the Controller's failure to properly address the Rule 137 application.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order that deemed his patent application abandoned due to a four-day delay in filing the response to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to clerical error, and that the Controller had sufficient power to condone such irregularities. The High Court found the reasons acceptable and condoned the delay.
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited's appeal, setting aside the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its 'BONUS' trademark application. The court accepted the appellant's plea of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, despite a phonetic conflict with an existing mark ('BONUSS'). The judgment emphasized that prior usage, even in different classes, can establish bona fides, allowing for registration.
Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Vibrant Concepts And Designs
Maya Appliances Private Limited filed suits alleging that Vibrant Concepts And Designs infringed upon its intellectual property rights, specifically concerning its patented technology and registered designs for frameless gas cooktops. The plaintiff claimed their products were world's first and featured unique design elements and a patentable internal piping system providing visual leak feedback. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement, it dismissed the interim injunction applications, directing both parties to proceed to trial.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the edible oil market. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'SATHYAM GOLD' on products mimicking the plaintiff's registered brand 'Gold Winner'. Both parties ultimately agreed to settle the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading the court to decree the suit.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, directions for destruction of infringing materials, and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual agreement and settled the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (JMC).
Genentech, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Genentech appealed the rejection of its patent application for a medicinal compound, 'Inhibitors of IAP', by the Controller. The Controller rejected the claims citing lack of novelty and inventive step under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Controller's objections farfetched.
Ollos Biotech Private Limited v.Omega Ecotech Products India Limited
Ollos Biotech Private Limited filed an Original Petition to revoke Patent No.411774 granted to Omega Ecotech Products India Limited. The petitioner contended that the invention lacked novelty, inventive step, and was patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that both the product claim and method claim lacked an inventive step or novelty based on prior art and non-patent literature.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8954/CHENP/2014) concerning an ARC-Welding method and apparatus. The appeal challenged the Controller's decision, arguing that the rejection based on lack of inventive step was not adequately reasoned or explained in the impugned order.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trade Mark and Geographical Indications
Malikie Innovations Limited appealed against the Patent Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its file system software. The Controller had raised objections primarily under Section 3(k), arguing it was pure software lacking hardware limitations. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, concluding that since the invention relates only to software and is permissible under existing guidelines, the refusal should be set aside.
M/s.Star Plastics v.Chandrasekhar
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.
Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Apex Laboratories P.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd against Apex Laboratories P.Ltd. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 343270) in Class 5, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal confirms that the parties had reached a compromise in an earlier case (C.S.No.614 of 1998), and the terms of that settlement remain binding.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register its trademark 'VAPOR PLUS'. The appeal sought to set aside the refusal order dated July 24, 2018. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant voluntarily withdrew the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
M/s.Zeenath's Leather Planet v.Mr.M.Abdul Rasheed
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s. Zeenath's Leather Planet seeking the removal of Trade Mark No. 1623248 from the Register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the petition for default. This highlights the critical importance of timely representation and adherence to court schedules in IP litigation.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Office's decision to reject its patent application concerning a gene sequence designed to increase plant biomass. The appellant argued that the rejections were based on misconceptions regarding claim scope, subject matter eligibility (3j), and inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Nripendra Kashyap v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting his patent application for a reference signal design in cellular communication systems, citing objections under Sections 10(4) and 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the amendments were merely cosmetic substitutions and criticized the Controller's cryptic rejection, ultimately allowing the appeal.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's issuance of a pre-grant hearing notice, arguing that it had not been provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opposers. The court found this procedural lapse and set aside the notice.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's hearing notice regarding its patent application, arguing that it was not provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opponents. The court found that the procedure was flawed due to this omission.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Qualcomm appealed the Controller General's order rejecting its patent application for an invention related to pilot transmission in wireless communication systems. The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of hardware support (Section 3(k)) and lack of novelty/inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)).
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.