Madras High Court
1391 cases · page 12 of 47
Showing 331–359Sebile Educations Private Limited v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebile Educations Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Nikita Dubey Rai and others for infringing its registered trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINS', and violating copyright laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'LEARNING EINSTEINS' in educational services. However, despite previous court directions to file proof affidavits and documents before the Master, the plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit for default.
M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries
The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar v.G.Saravanan
The Madras High Court closed an Original Petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration after both parties entered into a joint compromise memo. The petitioner, M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar, successfully secured commitments from G.Saravanan to cease using the disputed mark and take steps within 30 days to cancel Registration No. 3814752 in Class 29. This settlement provides a definitive resolution to the trademark dispute.
Richi Mathew v.Muthoot Finance Ltd; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court addressed two Original Petitions concerning the rectification and expungement of specific trademarks registered under Trademark Nos. 1880132 and 1248199 in Class 36. However, before any substantive ruling could be made on the merits of the trademark entries, the petitioner filed an endorsement stating that they no longer wished to pursue these petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Original Petitions as withdrawn.
M.Anees Ahmed (M/s.Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by M.Anees Ahmed concerning the alleged misuse of his trade name, "Ambur Star Briyani," by the defendant, "Star Briyani." The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing-off, as well as a declaration that his mark is a 'well-known mark.' The court examined the long history and extensive public recognition of the plaintiff's brand, which traces its origins back to 1890. While the judgment details the claims for relief, it appears to be an interim or procedural order given the lack of detailed findings on merits in the provided excerpt, setting the stage for further litigation.
Optimedica Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Optimedica Corporation appealed a rejection order dated 12.09.2012 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that the subject matter did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of The Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal to proceed by remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the amended claims.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P v.M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L.P seeking to remove an alleged infringing trademark, 'CLUB LINE BY CLASSIC POLO,' registered under No. 1236106 in Class 25. However, the court noted that the first respondent (M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited) had already filed a formal application (TM-P dated 22.04.2024) to cancel this specific trademark registration. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition, confirming that the objective of the petitioner was achieved through the action taken by the respondent.
Cosmetic 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.
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.
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 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 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).
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.
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.
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.