Madras High Court
1359 cases · page 14 of 46
Showing 391–419Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a previous rejection by the Trade Marks Registry. The core issue was the similarity between the appellant's registered word mark 'ORKID' and the respondent's applied-for word mark 'ORZID' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products). The Court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were visually similar and capable of causing confusion, thereby directing the rectification of the trademark register.
Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Chirec Public School's petition seeking to expunge a registered trademark (CHIREC) belonging to Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited. The court held that since the petitioner had not obtained prior leave from the trial court, and was reserving its right to file a fresh rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the current filing was legally unsustainable. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for challenging trademark registrations.
M/s.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. v.Antony Adams
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing and passing off their trademarks 'Kalyan' and 'Kalyanjewellers' through the domain name <kalyanjewellers.com>. The court also issued a mandatory order directing the cancellation and subsequent transfer of the disputed domain name to the plaintiff, affirming the principles of cybersquatting remedies.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Methods and Apparatus for Estimating Departure Time'. The rejection was based on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned proceedings too cryptic and lacking in reasoning, leading it to allow the appeal.
R.K.Steel Industries Partnership Firm v.R.K.Impex India Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by R.K.Steel Industries seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by R.K.Impex India Private Limited. The court found that there was considerable visual similarity between the two marks, specifically due to the shared 'R.K.' letters and the display of screw sizes on the label. Given this striking resemblance, the court ruled that the mark registered in 2019 could confuse consumers and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories, setting aside an order by the Trade Mark Registry that had declared its opposition to a rival mark ('LIBOSE') as abandoned. The core issue was whether the Registry properly served the counter statement to the appellant. The court held that since the Registry failed to provide concrete proof of service—relying only on a website notification—the principle of natural justice was violated, necessitating the remand of the matter.
Amit R Gowda v.C.Kiran Trading As A And A Fitness Training Center; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Amit R Gowda seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 3065086 in Class 41. The court noted that the Registry's notice to the petitioner was returned as undeliverable, making it difficult for the court to proceed with the matter. Although the petition is closed, the petitioner retains the right to revive it upon receiving proper notification.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for a soluble foaming composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the Patent Controller failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the appellants regarding the distinction between their protein-free invention and the cited prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed and the matter remanded.
M/s.Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its computer-related invention, 'Delegating Instant Messaging Sessions'. The core dispute centered on whether the software met the criteria for patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, emphasizing that an invention based on a computer program is not automatically excluded if it demonstrates a clear technical effect or contribution, aligning with international jurisprudence and revised Patent Office guidelines.
The Bull Hospitality v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed The Bull Hospitality's appeal, setting aside the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its mark 'THE BULL' (Device). The court held that while the word 'Bull' alone lacks distinctiveness, the accompanying device provided sufficient distinctiveness for registration under Class 43. The Registrar was directed to complete the registration process promptly.
The Hyderabad Public School v.Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding trademark rights, the Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by The Hyderabad Public School. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the mark registered by Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd., following the latter's statement that it had ceased using the mark in India. This ruling clarifies the implications of non-use and voluntary abandonment on trademark registration.
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltda v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller, which cited lack of inventive step and objected to an amendment under Section 59. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider the explanations regarding prior art and misinterpreted the substance of the amended claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Gunakar Private Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, The Patent Office
Gunakar Private Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order dated 22nd February, 2019, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design regarding patent application no. 201621033630. The appeal sought to quash the rejection and allow the claims.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the refusal by The Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its invention concerning a pull starter mechanism for a scooter. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive steps. The High Court allowed the appeal, allowing the appellant to consider amended claims, and remanded the matter to another Patent Controller.
Mansoor Ahamed v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Mansoor Ahamed's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register his trademark 'ATTITUDE' under Class 25. The court found that the appellant's mark was inherently distinctive, possessed a unique graphical representation, and had established international recognition and market presence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's observations.
M/s.D.R.Raanka Bros v.Mr.Sumti A.Challani & M/s.Challani Ranka Jewellery
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/s. D.R. Raanka Bros seeking rectification of registered trademarks held by Mr. Sumti A. Challani and M/s. Challani Ranka Jewellery. The court found a 'striking similarity' between the petitioner's established marks (D.R./D.R.Raanka Bros) and the respondent's newly registered marks (C.R.J., C.R.), which were obtained after 2003. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify the register within three weeks.
M/S. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Elder Projects Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Elder Projects Limited alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINCODER for pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, the parties successfully reached an amicable resolution through mediation.
Novozymes A/S v.The Controller of Patents
Novozymes A/S appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on 'Enzyme Dehairing of Skins and Hides'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and being contrary to public order (harm to animals).
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & M/s.Aachi Masala Foods Private Limited, M/s.Flora Foods v.Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, Zomato Limited, Swiggy India
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and associated entities alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, alongside online platforms Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar names like 'KARAIKUDI AACHI BRIYANI MANDI' and mandatory orders to remove these listings from digital platforms. While the judgment details the extensive claims for injunctions and removal, it does not provide a final conclusive ruling on all reliefs in this excerpt.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Seales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Seales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petitioner had sought to remove and expunge the trademark registration 'TINTOMETER' from the register, citing grounds of wrongful registration or non-use. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on two successive occasions, the petition was dismissed for default.
Sfp Sons India Private Limited v.Mr. Jitender Singh
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by Sfp Sons India Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'JASS' by Mr. Jitender Singh, trading as M/s. Sri Vidhiya Agencies. The court found that the defendant was liable for infringing the plaintiff's rights through the use of deceptively similar marks like 'JAAS'. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further misuse and directed the payment of suit costs to the plaintiff.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, allowing its appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its opposition. The core issue was the strict adherence to timelines regarding evidence submission. The court held that while deadlines are necessary for discipline, they should not extinguish a party's substantial rights, especially when those rights face imminent threat from registration. Consequently, the opposition has been restored and the matter is directed to be disposed of according to law.
M/s.Shambhunath & Bros v.Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions seeking rectification of trade mark registrations 'THUFAN' in Tamil and Telugu. The petitioner, M/s. Shambhunath & Bros, claimed prior use of the similar mark 'TOOFAN' since 1987, but the court found evidence suggesting that the predecessors-in-title of the respondent were the prior adopter and user. Consequently, the court held that the technical contraventions cited by the petitioner (such as lack of translation or failure to state period of use) were not sufficient grounds for cancelling the existing registrations.
Gala Industries, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Gala Industries appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Centrifugal Pellet Dryer Screen With Integral Embossed Deflector Strips'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, relying on prior arts D1 and D3. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting that the invention improved upon D1 by using embossing instead of nut-bolting.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
P.Sathish Kumar v.Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by P.Sathish Kumar seeking rectification of a trademark entry (No. 4074848 in Class 3). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Transfer Original Petition for default.
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Paratek Pharmaceuticals challenged an order rejecting its patent application for a tetracycline compound. The High Court found the rejection order bad in law because it failed to consider the appellant's responses and submissions, and because it introduced new objections (claims 9-24) not raised during the hearing notice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter.
M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses & Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd., which sought the removal of a trade mark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because the Registry's attempt to serve notice on the petitioner failed due to an incorrect address. Crucially, the Court allowed the petitioner to revive the petition since the failure was attributable to the Registry's inability to effect service.
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.