Madras High Court
1345 cases · page 20 of 45
Showing 571–599Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop v.M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop, seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SRI MURUGAN IDLI SHOP.' The plaintiff claimed infringement of their registered trademark and copyright related to their business name and branding. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the defendant was not operating under the impugned name, leading the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V. Mahendran
This case involved a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement concerning 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' used on rice products. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and artistic works. However, despite multiple opportunities and court directions to file necessary affidavits and proceed with evidence, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the case management schedule. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit for default.
Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their device mark. The court found that when viewed as a whole—including the rooster image, stylized font, and corporate name—the mark was distinctive and did not fall under absolute grounds for refusal. Crucially, the prior registration of an identical mark in a related class bolstered the appellant's case, leading the court to set aside the objection and allow the application to proceed to registration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802) by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding Form-3 filing delay. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds for rejection were untenable and remanding the matter.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company
This case involved Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company suing S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company for trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off, concerning their snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of similar marks and designs, as well as recovery of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement on August 7, 2023, which was subsequently formalized by the Madras High Court.
Laticrete International, Inc. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural failures and misinterpretations, despite having addressed substantive objections raised in the Second Examination Report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application (No. 201947028978). The rejection was based on various objections, including lack of novelty and clarity in claims. The High Court found that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application. The Controller rejected the application citing various deficiencies, including improper numbering and lack of invention in certain claims. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that procedural errors did not justify the outright rejection, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Titan Company Ltd. v.Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Titan Company Ltd. against Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the trade mark in question, No. 925369 (Class 20), had not been renewed since May 17, 2010. Since the long stop date for renewal had expired, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978). The Controller rejected the application citing lack of clarity in method claims and unnecessary amendments. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the grounds for rejection were not based on merits, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing various objections, including issues with method claims and lack of clarity. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that procedural lapses did not justify the rejection when substantive changes had been made to address the SER objections.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
M/s.White House (Partnership Firm) v.White House Apparels Private Limited & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by M/s. White House seeking the removal of several registered trademarks belonging to its competitor, White House Apparels Private Limited. The petitioner argued they were a prior user of the 'WHITE HOUSE' mark since 1963, relying heavily on historical turnover and export documents. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous use or application of the mark to goods until much later (around 2015), concluding that the respondent's prior registration rights were valid.
M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.
Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. v.India G6 Hospitality Ip Llc
The Madras High Court set aside an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) that had removed a trademark belonging to Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner successfully argued that the IPAB's decision was ex parte, having been passed without affording them a proper hearing due to their inability to engage counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the matter be presented before an appropriate bench for fresh consideration.
Indoco Remedies Limited v.M/S.Micro Labs Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a dispute between Indoco Remedies Limited and M/S.Micro Labs Ltd regarding the trade mark 'CITALIFT'. The parties reached an agreement, leading the court to mandate the cancellation of the disputed registration (No. 1005556). Micro Labs agreed to change its mark to 'MICROLIFT' while being granted a six-month grace period to liquidate existing inventory bearing the old mark.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec, Inc. filed a miscellaneous petition seeking reinstatement of claim No. 32 in Patent Application No. 7133/CHENP/2009. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel was not pressing the petition and closed the matter at the SR stage.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.V.Senthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving trade mark infringement and rectification petitions between Aachi Spices and Foods and V.Senthil Kumar. The parties ultimately reached a comprehensive settlement, formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise dated August 31, 2023. Consequently, the court decreed the civil suit by granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of similar marks, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel and rectify the disputed registrations held by the respondent.
M/s.Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v.M/s.Prestige Estates Project Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of rectification petitions filed by M/s. Prestige Buildwell Private Limited against M/s. Prestige Estates Project Ltd. The petitions sought to rectify, revoke, or cancel several trademark registrations based on alleged non-use. However, the court noted that the petitioner had previously admitted in civil proceedings that the first respondent was the registered proprietor of the 'Prestige' mark and undertook only to use a specific trading style ('Prestige Buildwell Private Limited'). Based on this prior agreement, the court closed the rectification petitions.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited v.Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office
The Madras High Court overturned the Senior Examiner's objections against Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited's trade mark applications. The court found that the device mark was inherently distinctive and disregarded the examiner's narrow focus on the words alone. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the acceptance of the mark for advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over its constituent words when used individually.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v.La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd. and Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement of their Patent No. 224100, seeking an injunction, accounts, seizure, and Rs. 1 crore in damages. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit.
M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K K Academy (P) Ltd) v.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi and others
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'ALOHA' and copyrighted educational materials by using the similar mark 'ALAMA'. The suit also claimed damages for passing off related to mental arithmetic and abacus education programs. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear before the court despite repeated notices and previous dismissals for non-prosecution, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for default.
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.