Madras High Court
1391 cases · page 13 of 47
Showing 361–389Apollo 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 Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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.
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The appeal challenged the Patent Controller's decision, arguing that the Controller failed to properly address objections related to amendments and fell back on earlier claims without due process.
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)).
Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The rejection was based on various objections including lack of novelty and insufficiency of disclosure. The High Court found that the Controller erred by falling back on earlier claims after the applicant had made amendments, without issuing a proper hearing notice regarding the new objection (Sec. 59).
Waycool Food Products Private Limited v.Cheedalla Gopinath, Aditya Rice Enterprises, Sree KVR Industries
Waycool Food Products Private Limited filed a civil suit against several defendants alleging passing off, copyright infringement, and misuse of its distinctive trade dress and logo in the packed rice market. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged violations. Ultimately, both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on February 17, 2024, leading to the court decreeing the suit while noting that the plaintiff had waived the claim for monetary damages.
BASF SE v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
BASF SE appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application for an 'Auxiliary spring having axially running contour elements'. The rejection was based on various objections, including procedural and technical ones. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the cosmetic objection should not deny the applicant their rights, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Puma Se v.K.Srinivasan Trading as K.Srinivasan Mills & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Puma Se's petition for rectification, directing the removal of a conflicting trade mark registration (No. 2892343) held by K.Srinivasan Mills. The court found that the leaping cat depicted in the respondent's label bore a strong resemblance to Puma's registered 'leaping puma' logo. This ruling reinforces the principle that established trademark proprietors are entitled to protect their distinctive logos against confusingly similar marks, even if those marks operate in related classes.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, arguing that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh board. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the independent duty to assess its merit.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
International pharmaceutical companies (Petitioners) challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent. They argued that the Board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by them under Rule 60, due to inaction by the Patent Controller.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Union of India, The Controller of Patents & Designs, Zydus Healthcare Limited
The petitioners, international pharmaceutical companies, challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent (IN340060). They argued that the board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the petitioners. The court found that the Controller's failure to pass orders on procedural applications led to an incomplete scrutiny, thus vitiating the recommendations.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, alleging that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh Opposition Board. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the duty to make an independent decision.
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Voicemonk Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Voicemonk Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a system and method related to content recommendation using Augmented Reality. The Controller had raised objections regarding lack of clarity, subject matter eligibility (Section 3(k)), and novelty/inventiveness (Sections 2(1)(j) and 10(4)).
GenSquare LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, Patent Office
GenSquare LLC appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing its divisional patent application. The refusal was primarily based on the ground that the divisional claims did not flow from the original parent application. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller's reliance on an overruled judgment was flawed.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Majji Suresh
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to strike off a confusingly similar trademark, 'PEPPS,' registered by Majji Suresh. The court found that the mark PEPPS bears striking phonetic and visual resemblance to PepsiCo's globally recognized mark, PEPSI. Given PepsiCo's established reputation and well-known status of its brand, the court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Alpha Foundation for Education and Research v.Akara Education Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed multiple appeals filed by Alpha Foundation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to treat their opposition as abandoned. The court ruled that the failure of the Registrar to provide proof of service of the counter statement was fatal, overriding procedural delays in filing evidence. Consequently, the opposition has been restored, and the challenged trademark registrations have been held in abeyance pending a full hearing on the merits.
Hygieia, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Hygieia appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10225/CHENP/2013) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on various grounds, including Section 59, which alleged that the amended claims exceeded the original specification. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that a patent specification must be read as a whole.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Business Objects Software Limited appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its invention, titled 'Transparent Distribution and Module Decoupling Through Asynchronous Communication and Scopes', under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patent Act. The High Court found that the Controller's order lacked quality and failed to consider the appellant's amended claims during the hearing.
Diageo North America, Inc v.Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd.
Diageo North America filed a petition seeking rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BULLET MALTED WHISKY' registered by Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd., alleging that it is deceptively similar to Diageo's well-known mark 'BULLEIT'. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioner had established a case for cancellation.
Martinswerk Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk Gmbh appealed the rejection of its product patent application for novel aluminum hydroxide flame retardants. The appeal argued that the Patent Controller repeatedly shifted and reverted between different limbs of Section 3(d) without providing a consistent or fair hearing process. The High Court found merit in these submissions.
Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application based on objections under Section 3(k) and Section 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the Controller's order was not adequately reasoned and failed to consider the inventor's submissions regarding both sections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
A.L.M.Holding Company v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
A.L.M.Holding Company appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a cold-in-place recycling method, which was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core dispute centered on whether prior art citing heat-based processes could invalidate an invention that specifically operates without heat in key stages.
M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Mirshad C.E.502
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the opposition proceedings. The core issue was the Registrar's decision to dismiss the opposition as abandoned due to non-production of evidence. The court ruled that for an opposition to be validly initiated, the applicant must prove service of the counter statement on the opponent, and a mere assertion of email service without proof is insufficient under the Trade Marks Act.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.P.Krishnam Raju; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the cancellation of the trade mark 'SPICE' (Registration No. 1091801). The court noted that despite being served with the Registry notice, the petitioner failed to appear and prosecute the matter before the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for default.
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.