Madras High Court
1345 cases · page 15 of 45
Showing 421–449M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath v.M/s.Hotel Swagath, Dhanturi Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath against M/s.Hotel Swagath and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought to remove or cancel the trademark 'HOTEL SWAGATH' (Device) registered in Class-43. The court noted that the proprietors of the petitioner hotel had passed away, leading to the withdrawal of a related infringement suit by the first respondent. Consequently, the Transfer Original Petition was dismissed as abated, though it can be revived by legal heirs.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a subcutaneous anti-HER2 antibody formulation. The rejection was based on the product lacking inventive step and being known in the market. The court allowed the appeal, noting that the original decision failed to address 11 out of 12 claims independently.
Regenesance B.V. v.Union of India
Regenesance B.V. challenged the Patent Office's order that deemed its patent application abandoned because it failed to reply to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The petitioner argued that the timeline should not be treated as inflexible, especially when procedural delays are common in the patent office process. The Madras High Court agreed, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must promote and preserve scientific temper, allowing for a reasonable view of the matter.
Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology Corporation Limited v.G.Parthasarathi
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology. The petition sought to remove or rectify the registration of Trade Mark No. 1958762, specifically requesting that the applicant be recognized as the proprietor via assignment. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on the scheduled date, the petition was dismissed for default.
Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Sew-Eurodrive, setting aside the Trademark Registry's order that declared their marks 'SEW' and 'SEW-EURODRIVE' abandoned. The court criticized the Registry for failing to provide timely alerts regarding procedural changes posted only on its website, noting that applicants cannot be expected to monitor the site 24/7. Consequently, the applications were restored to the file of the Trademarks Registry to proceed based on their merits.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Rathinasamy Gomathy and Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. against an existing trade mark registration. The petitioner sought the removal of the impugned device mark, arguing deceptive similarity to its 'GOLD WINNER' brand. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for maintaining the suit. Specifically, the court held that the non-use period prescribed under Section 47(1)(b) had not lapsed following the withdrawal of an earlier petition, and the cause of action under Section 47(1)(a) was barred by prior litigation.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Scales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Scales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petition sought the removal and expungement of two trademark registrations ('Tintometer') based on grounds including wrongful registration and non-use. However, due to the petitioner's counsel failing to provide instructions, the court dismissed the entire petition for default.
M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Sivakumar G.Nalli
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Sivakumar G.Nalli and others regarding the 'Nalli' brand. Despite extensive evidence presented by the plaintiff, including proof of long-standing reputation and registration, the court dismissed the core prayers seeking permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages. The judgment highlights the high burden required for a successful infringement claim in civil court.
Mimozax Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, Patent Office Chennai
Mimozax Co. appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-obesity composition derived from Acacia, which was refused based on several grounds including reliance on undisclosed prior art. The High Court found that the Controller failed to provide all relevant materials to the appellant and emphasized the doctrine of fairness in patent proceedings.
Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Living Seed Technologies Llp. v.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.
Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Sangeeta Jaiswal
The Madras High Court closed two Original Petitions filed by Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd against Sangeeta Jaiswal regarding the rectification/cancellation of registered trademarks (Nos. 3207838 and 3207840). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the petitioner's agreement that the respondent would proceed with separate applications to cancel the marks. The Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite the cancellation process.
Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited v.M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity
In a trademark rectification case, Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited sought to register its mark against an existing registration held by M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity. Initially, the respondent opposed the petition based on deceptive similarity and infringement concerns. However, during the proceedings, the first respondent withdrew its objection regarding the petitioner's use of the mark under clause 2. Consequently, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar to consider the petitioner's application anew (de novo), effectively clearing the path for registration.
H. Lundbeck A/S Through its Authorized Representative v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order holding that their invention lacked inventive step. The core contention was that the Controller improperly relied on certain prior art documents that had been given up or never properly contested during the examination process. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions.
Monsanto Technology, LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Monsanto Technology appealed the order of the Assistant Controller which refused to patent two independent claims related to transgenic soybean plants. The appellant argued that if objections were raised, at least the remaining eleven claims should have been patented. The High Court found the respondent had not applied its mind wholly to all claims.
Onco Therapy Science, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Onco Therapy Science appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its application for a patent covering novel peptides used as vaccines against cancers. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and supporting materials when issuing the rejection order. The High Court allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.
Robert Bosch Limitada v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limitada appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application. The rejection was allegedly based on insufficient description, which the appellant argued was not properly communicated during the examination process. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, citing technical objections and procedural issues. The High Court found that the significant delay between the hearing and the issuance of the refusal order was arbitrary and lacked confidence.
University Health Network v.Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
University Health Network filed a Writ Petition challenging the grant of Patent No.439474 to Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step. The appeal before the Madras High Court focused on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the patent application originated in Delhi.
Biofarma v.Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Biofarma seeking the removal of a registered trademark (No. 3599190) held by Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default.
Tirupati Foam Limited v.Shri Vignesware Fibres Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by Tirupati Foam Limited against the entry 'SLEEP LIKE A DREAM' (No.2064365) in Class 20. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default. This highlights the importance of diligent representation in trademark litigation.
Dhama Innovations Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Dhama Innovations Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No. 628/CHE/2012, which related to a heat dissipation device. The appellant argued that the Controller erred by dissecting the combination into individual components for obviousness testing and failing to address their submissions on inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the dissection impermissible in law.
Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd v.Rakesh P.Jain
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Guangzhou Liwei Electronics Co.Ltd against Rakesh P.Jain and the Trade Marks Registry. The petition sought the rectification and cancellation of the trade mark 'BLUEDIO' registered under No.2245731 in Class 09. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo instructing the court to withdraw the entire petition, leading to its dismissal without any order as to costs.
Enercon India Ltd. v.M/S. Wobben Properties GmbH
Enercon India Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220033 granted by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. Both parties submitted that the term of the said patent had expired on November 7, 2023.
M/s. Ramcides CropScience Pvt. Ltd. v.Kingdao Agrochem (India) Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (No. 299036) concerning 'ZINC HEDP -17%' by the defendant's product, 'Legion Zinc: Zn HEDP 17.0%'. The dispute was settled when the defendant submitted an Undertaking Affidavit agreeing to cease all infringing activities and pay compensation.
M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited v.Selvam Hardwares
In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
Priya Randolph v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision rejecting their patent application (201641026786) on the grounds that the invention was a 'business method' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The court examined the claims, which related to concealing physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software and hardware. The High Court held that the monopoly claim was on a technical solution for data privacy, not merely a business method.
ABBVIE Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
ABBVIE Inc. appealed the refusal by the Deputy Controller of Patents to grant a patent for two polymorphic forms (Forms A and B) of the compound RTA-408. The appellant argued that these forms exhibited superior stability and properties, and that Section 3(d) did not apply because RTA-408 was not considered a known substance in this context. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the patent to proceed for grant on claims 1-6.
Tvs Electronics Limited v.Jitender Kumar
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Tvs Electronics Limited against a lower court's refusal to grant an interim injunction. The plaintiff, owner of the 'TVS Electronics' mark, sought restraint against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to CCTV cameras. However, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised regarding the balance of convenience, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark subject to maintaining accounts.
NEC Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
NEC Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its Patent Application No.7830/CHENP/2014, which was based on the alleged violation of Section 7(2) of the Patents Act due to the date of declaration by an inventor. The court held that there is a distinction between the date of assignment and the date of declaration, finding the impugned order unsustainable.
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.