Madras High Court
1359 cases · page 19 of 46
Showing 541–569The University of Houston v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The University of Houston filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. 379/CHENP/2008) to proceed for grant. The petitioner subsequently endorsed that it did not intend to prosecute the appeal, leading the court to dismiss the petition.
Shyam Enterprises Private Limited v.Hotel Amaravati
The Madras High Court partially decreed a suit filed by Shyam Enterprises Private Limited against Hotel Amaravati concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully proven its claim regarding the use of the registered trademark AMARAVATHI in the hotel and hospitality sector. Consequently, the defendant was granted permanent injunctions restraining them from using the mark or suggesting a connection to the plaintiff's services. However, since the plaintiff did not press for claims related to damages or accounting of profits, those specific reliefs were dismissed.
M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons v.M/s.S.Jaffer Mohideen Alias Noushad
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons against the rejection of their opposition to a trademark application (No.676174). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of prior use of 'S', the respondent's mark, which prominently features 'FILTER BEEDI,' was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. However, the judgment imposed strict conditions on the respondent, requiring them to use their label in combination with two other specific labels and formally undertake not to use the 'SS' logo independently.
Nalli Sambbasivam Trading as M/s.Nalli's Silks Sari Centre v.M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty & Ors.
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Nalli Sambbasivam against M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty regarding the trade mark 'Nalli'. The core issue was whether a rectification petition could proceed when an earlier infringement suit concerning the same marks was pending before the Bombay High Court. The court held that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, a party must first convince the civil court to frame a triable issue on the validity of the registration before seeking rectification.
Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh v.Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed three trademark rectification petitions filed by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh against Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited. The original petitions, which sought to expunge specific trademarks from the register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were withdrawn by the petitioner before a final ruling could be made. This outcome highlights that procedural decisions, such as withdrawal, can conclude IP litigation without substantive judgment on the merits.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION'. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the specific submissions made by the appellant.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs
Huawei appealed an order rejecting its patent application (IN 4561) for a radio communication system. The appeal argued that the Patent Office failed to consider detailed arguments against obviousness and rejected amendments without proper justification. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of reasoned consideration and set it aside, remanding the matter.
USV Private Limited v.Symed Labs Limited
USV Private Limited filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 229267. The court observed that the patent's term had expired on October 16, 2023, rendering the petition infructuous.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION' by the Assistant Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 to D6. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the appellant's specific arguments and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
Flamagas S.A. v.Ashok Bafna and Bafna Agencies
Flamagas S.A. filed a civil suit against Ashok Bafna and Bafna Agencies, alleging infringement of its registered designs and trademarks concerning cigarette lighters. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and an accounting of profits due to the sale of similar 'BAIDE/TOYO' lighters. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff moved to withdraw the suit.
Ufo Moviez India Ltd v.M/s.Real Image Media Technologies Private Limited
Ufo Moviez India Ltd filed a petition to revoke Patent No. 202969 before the Madras High Court. The court observed that the term of the said patent expired on 18.10.2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
Starpharma Pty Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Starpharma Pty Ltd appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 10044/CHENP/2013, which covered a method and gel formulation for treating bacterial vaginosis. The appellant argued that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and complete specification. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Chinese University Of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4812/CHENP/2012), which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed invention—a process for fetal genomic analysis from maternal samples—was an unpatentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that determining foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not 'diagnostic' in the statutory sense, allowing the patent application to proceed to grant.
T.V.Nagarajan v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4863), which was refused by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed in vitro method, used to measure sequence imbalance in biological samples from pregnant women, qualified as a non-patentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
M/s.Jupiter Drugs v.Mrs.M.Sarojini
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. Jupiter Drugs' petition seeking to expunge or limit the trade mark 'ZIPROVIT.' The court noted that the last registration was valid only until December 14, 2017, suggesting the petitioner might no longer be an aggrieved party. Furthermore, due to the absence of a current address for service on the petitioner, the court found it impossible to proceed with the matter.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.Milka Nutriments Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Pioneer Bakeries, directing the removal of two specific trade marks (No. 821974 and No. 691534) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that both marks had long expired because their renewal periods had lapsed, making them liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision underscores the importance of timely maintenance and renewal of intellectual property rights.
M.Viyan Aarman v.Etecetra Entertainment
M.Viyan Aarman filed a suit for copyright infringement concerning the title of the film 'Saamaniyan'. The appeal challenged an order rejecting the application for injunction, arguing that the appellant had registered the title and faced breach of trust by the first respondent. However, the court found that the appellant was only alleging infringement qua title, which is not maintainable under existing legal precedents.
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited v.Rt Diagnostics
M/s. Aarthi Scans Private Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark and passing off against Rt Diagnostics, which was using a similar trade name. The appellant sought temporary injunctions, which were previously rejected. This appeal challenged those rejection orders before the Madras High Court.
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v.The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd filed an appeal challenging the order of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which dismissed a Post-grant Opposition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 312437. The opposition contended that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, or was not patentable under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court examined the technical aspects and found no infirmity in the impugned order.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited filed a civil suit against M/s. Indianpasand Inc. and other defendants, alleging trademark infringement (SANGU vs. SHIPPY), copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of their registered marks and artistic designs by the defendants. However, due to the current non-sale status of the disputed products, the plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the suit against the first defendant while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case if infringement occurs in the future.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2072/CHENP/2011) because the current set of amended claims were deemed beyond the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined whether the amendments expanded or narrowed the original claim scope and found that the specificity incorporated in the amended claims curtailed rather than expanded the original scope.
Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited v.V.K.R.Venkatesan
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited seeking rectification and cancellation of a trade mark entry. The court noted that despite attempts to serve notice, the petitioner's address was insufficient, and their counsel confirmed they had no instructions to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries for infringing the registered trade mark 'DHEEPAM' and engaging in passing-off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'V RICH DEEPAM OIL' and its deceptively similar packaging material constituted infringement, despite the defendant failing to appear in court. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known trademarks against confusingly similar marks.
Avtar Singh And Mr.Harkirat Singh Trading as M/s.Aero Club v.Chiranjeelal Bihani and The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a Trade Marks Original Petition filed by Avtar Singh and Mr. Harkirat Singh against Chiranjeelal Bihani. The core issue was the validity of Trade Mark No. 963781, which had expired on October 16, 2010, due to non-renewal. Since the statutory period for renewal had long passed, the court found the petition to be infructuous and dismissed it without further order.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by MGM Healthcare, the registered trademark owner of 'VARAM', against an interlocutory injunction order. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the respondent, Varamm Healthcare, had presented prima facie evidence suggesting prior and continuous usage of its mark 'VARAMM'. While noting the burden of proof lies with the prior user, the appellate bench was reluctant to interfere with the lower court's discretionary findings on initial evidence, allowing the main suit to proceed based on full evidence.
Meenambigai Products v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Meenambigai Products against The Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought rectification of a trade mark registration entry (No. 1524417 in Class 30). However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite receiving proper court notice, the High Court dismissed the case without making any substantive order regarding costs.
Rigo Trading S.A.Societe Anonyme v.Unigum Gida Maddeleri Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rigo Trading S.A.Societe Anonyme seeking to expunge the device mark 'BLOX' (Registration No. 1706420) from the register. The court noted that the trade mark's last registration was valid only until July 3, 2018. Since the statutory long stop date for renewal had expired, the petition was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
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.