Madras High Court
1345 cases · page 16 of 45
Showing 451–479Martinswerk GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748011754) by The Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the application qualified as a divisional application containing separate inventive concepts, while the respondent maintained it did not meet Section 16 requirements. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to lack of reasoning and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. v.Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. successfully pursued a trademark infringement case against Richworld Industries Pvt. Ltd., alleging deceptive similarity with its registered mark 'EASYBUY'. Although the initial prayer sought extensive injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits, both parties ultimately reached a settlement via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this agreement, specifically directing the defendant to transfer the disputed domain name www.eazybuy.com to the plaintiff within two weeks.
Til Healthcare Private Limited v.M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited
Til Healthcare Private Limited filed a suit against M/s.Antop Pharma India Limited and others, alleging multiple infringements related to the brand 'APETAMIN'. The claims included trademark infringement, passing off, trade dress misuse, and copyright violation concerning its product label. Although the initial prayer sought permanent injunctions and damages, the parties ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement.
Manohar Singh v.Shyam Singh
Manohar Singh filed a civil suit against Shyam Singh and others, alleging infringement of his registered trade marks ('Singh') and associated copyrights in connection with mehandi products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'Raju Singh' and 'Ram Singh'. However, due to the plaintiff's lack of cooperation in recording oral evidence over the years, the court ultimately dismissed the suit for non-prosecution.
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. v.M/S.Supreme Tile Works
M/S.Ramson Tile Works (Pvt) Ltd. filed two Original Petitions seeking the expungement and removal of registered trademarks belonging to M/S.Supreme Tile Works from the register. The petitions targeted marks like 'SUPREME TILE WORKS' and 'AMARJYOTHI' in Class 19, alleging grounds for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, before any substantive hearing could take place, the petitioner chose to withdraw both Original Petitions.
Arkema France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Arkema France appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a 'Heat Transfer Method'. The appellant argued that the rejection relied heavily on a new prior art document (D5) introduced only at the hearing stage. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing potential amendments under Section 59 if disclosure is deemed inadequate.
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, IPR Building, SIDCO Plot, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to quash an earlier order and direct the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No.395/CHENP/2012. However, the appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Contitech USA Inc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Contitech USA Inc against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'TORQFLEX'. The court found that there was an arguable case suggesting the goods associated with TORQFLEX (power transmission belts) were not similar enough to the cited conflicting mark (TORSIFLEX, used for couplings). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that protection is only granted if identical or similar marks are used on identical or similar goods, thereby directing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application for an 'IMAGE CONSTRUCTION APPARATUS'. The appellant challenged the refusal order on grounds that the conclusions regarding obviousness and patent eligibility (Section 3(k)) were unreasoned. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sujatha Manthri trading as Herald Healthcare
The Madras High Court allowed Corona Remedies' petition to rectify the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'B9' (No. 3281514) registered by Sujatha Manthri. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established mark 'B29', especially considering both marks were used for pharmaceutical products. Given Corona Remedies' long history of use, significant sales turnover, and reputation, the court ruled in favor of removing the conflicting registration.
Optimus Drugs Private Limited v.Union of India
Optimus Drugs Private Limited challenged the hearing notice issued during the post-grant opposition proceedings against Patent No. 281489 for 'An improved process for the preparation of Linezolid'. The petitioner argued that since both parties filed additional evidence after the initial Opposition Board recommendations, a fresh board should be constituted to consider all facts and amended claims. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention, directing the Controller of Patents to reconstitute the Opposition Board and examine the entire record expeditiously.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
Vennila Clothing Company filed a suit against M/s.Arrs Silks alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('RAMRAJ'/'RAJARAM') and copyright over its trade dress in the textile industry. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar labels by the defendants, leading to claims for injunction, damages, and account of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement via a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) v.Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions filed by KSRTC seeking rectification of trade mark entries held by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The court found that despite KSRTC's claim of prior use dating back to 1965, the respondent was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act due to 'other special circumstances.' Given both entities operate in the transportation sector and utilize distinct regional scripts (Malayalam vs. Telugu), the court ruled that peaceful coexistence is possible, thus upholding the existing registrations.
R.Nagarajan @ K.R.Nagarajan v.S.Ravichandran
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by R.Nagarajan against S.Ravichandran concerning Trade Mark No. 3102490 (RAVIRAM'S). The decision was based on a joint memorandum of compromise where the defendant agreed to withdraw and cancel the registered trademark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
Ashok Oswal v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Ashok Oswal appealed the rejection of his patent application (No. 201811029748), which covered a system and method for determining textile raw material quality attributes. The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claims under Section 3(k) and Section 2(1)(ja).
Te Bios Co. Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Te Bios Co. Ltd filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order issued by The Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing its counsel to withdraw the appeal.
M/s.Indian Immunologicals Ltd. v.Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order, allowing M/s. Indian Immunologicals Ltd. (the appellant) to register the trade mark 'INIMOX'. The dispute centered on whether 'INIMOX' was deceptively similar to the prior registered mark 'IMOX' held by Ipca Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Court found that despite the similarity, there was no likelihood of confusion because the marks were used in distinct channels—one for veterinary injections and the other for human capsules—and mandated that registration be conditional on its use only for animal health products.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s. PGR E-Commerce Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited against M/s. PGR E-Commerce Private Limited. The petitioner had sought the rectification and cancellation of Trade Mark No. 3848331 from the Register of Trade Marks. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on scheduled dates despite proper notice, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Helix Biomedix Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helix Biomedix Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Short Bio-Active Peptides for Cellular and Immunological Modulation'. The rejection was based on Section 3(c) because the claimed peptides were derived from Hyalophora cecropia (Cecropia moth). The High Court set aside the order, finding that the respondent failed to address the appellant's submissions regarding the chemical synthesis of the peptides.
Dsm Ip Assets B.V. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Dsm Ip Assets B.V. filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to overturn an order refusing to grant a patent on Application No. 3957/CHENP/2011. The appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court because the appellant failed to appear in court at the hearing, despite being served notice.
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.M/s.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
M/s. Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and an Appeal before the Madras High Court challenging orders related to patent matters. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and relief regarding the impugned order dated December 12, 2019. The court dismissed the TCMP(PT)/3/2023, consequently dismissing the appeal at the SR stage.
Laser Shaving (India) Private Limited v.Carborundum Universal Ltd.
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Laser Shaving (India) Private Limited against Carborundum Universal Ltd. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration for the mark 'LASER' in Class 3, citing the first respondent's admission that they were not using the impugned trade mark. This decision reinforces the principle that non-use can lead to the removal of a registered trademark.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahmud Trading as VKD Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries seeking the removal of the trade mark 'PPL Light' from the register. The case was resolved because the respondent, Mahmud Trading as VKD Industries, provided an affidavit undertaking not to use the impugned mark and committed to filing an application for its cancellation with the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the petition on its merits.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a 'Washing Machine' due to lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked detailed reasoning and cited foreign grants. The High Court found that the impugned order merely extracted prior art without engaging with the appellant's submissions, thus lacking reasons.
M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses and Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt.Ltd seeking removal of a trademark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to repeated difficulties in serving notice and locating the petitioner at the specified address. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Icahn School Of Medicine at Mount Sinai v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No.3414/CHENP/2008) for a chimeric NDV vaccine targeting two viruses, specifically Newcastle disease virus and influenza virus. The court reviewed the original rejection based on obviousness and allowed the application to proceed to grant after accepting the amended claims submitted by the appellant.
Manipal Holdings Private Limited v.Manipal Academy Of Higher Education Deemed University, Registrar of Trade Marks, MEMG International India Private Limited, Manipal Global Education Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of Trade Mark Rectification petitions filed by Manipal Holdings Private Limited against various entities. The court noted that the contesting parties had reached an amicable settlement and executed a compromise decree on November 4, 2023. Consequently, the petitioner requested that all rectification petitions be closed as withdrawn in line with the terms of the settlement.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited v.Appollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited filed a civil suit against Apollo Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, alleging infringement of its registered design and trademark, as well as passing off their beer products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, accounting of profits, destruction of infringing goods, and damages amounting to Rs. 2 Crores. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed by the court upon the request of the plaintiff's counsel.
India International Technical Institute v.Terala Educational Society
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by India International Technical Institute seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'SANSKRITI,' held by Terala Educational Society. The court noted that the mark's last registration was valid only up to March 23, 2020, and its renewal had long expired. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register within one month.
Kuraray Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Kuraray Co. Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process involving PVA film for plant cultivation. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the specific properties (birefringence and swelling degree) of the PVA film provided unexpected excellent results.
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.