Madras High Court
1391 cases · page 17 of 47
Showing 481–509Onco 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Martinswerk 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.