Madras High Court
1391 cases · page 3 of 47
Showing 61–89Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd. v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd., which sought to record its rights as a subsequent proprietor of the 'Dasaprakash' trademark. The court upheld the Trademark Registry's rejection, ruling that the transfer agreement was void ab initio because it was executed while the original proprietor, Balakrishna Rao, was legally incompetent due to insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the mark was a family mark jointly owned by legal heirs, no single proprietor could unilaterally transfer rights.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging a previous order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Application No.10810/CHENP/2012. The High Court examined whether the Original Side Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, considering the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the original matter involved a rejection of patent grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since an appeal mechanism already existed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Titan Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Titan Company Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Jewellery Assembly' by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The Controller rejected the application, stating that the claims fell under Section 3(l) and were suitable for design registration rather than a patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the appellant's technical submissions.
P.G.Purushan (A) P.G Purushan v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by P.G. Purushan against the Trademark Registry's decision to reject their trademark application, 'STIMULAID.' The core issue was whether the applicant had abandoned the mark after failing to comply with initial examination report directions. The Court found that since the appellant had submitted Form TM-M and attended subsequent hearings, there was no evidence of abandonment. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, compelling the Registrar to proceed with considering and potentially accepting the application.
Stove Kraft Limited v.The Registry of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Stove Kraft Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register the mark 'Pigeon'. The court found that the appellant had presented prima facie evidence of prior consent terms with Pigeon Corporation, which warranted further consideration rather than outright rejection. Consequently, the registry was directed to accept and advertise the trademark application, allowing any objections from third parties to be addressed later on their merits.
Ms Sapco Laboratories Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court heard an appeal challenging the refusal by the Trademark Registry to grant registration for 'BREMONT-L' due to opposition from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ('GLEMONT'). The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding common industry usage (e.g., the suffix 'MONT') but refrained from making a final decision on the merits of similarity. Instead, the High Court set aside the Registry's order and remitted the matter back for fresh examination, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence while ensuring the opponent gets a chance to respond.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Frame Assembly' due to lack of inventive step and other objections. The appellant argued that their design, which mounts a utility box on gusset plates instead of cross members, provides surprising technical effects like enhanced strength and optimized space utilization. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Mir Mahamood Ali & Ors. v.Mir Mukkaram Ali
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the expungement of the respondent’s name from the Copyright Register. The dispute centered on a conflict where the respondent was incorrectly listed as the owner of the artistic features of the 'Sagar Homeo Stores' trademark, despite the petitioners being the rightful owners. By establishing their prior and valid registration with the Trademark authority, the court found the opposing copyright entry to be illegal and concocted.
M/S. Sudhakar Pvc Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahendra Pratap Singh
The Madras High Court closed Original Petition (Trade Marks) No. 58 of 2025 after both parties reached a settlement. The petitioner, M/S. Sudhakar PVC Products Pvt. Ltd., sought to remove or rectify the registration of trademark no. 6322916 in Class 17. The first respondent, Mahendra Pratap Singh, agreed to the removal via an undertaking submitted to the court. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to make the necessary corrections within four weeks.
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited v.P.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.
Mr.Suraj Sharma v.Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd.
This matter involved a trademark dispute between Mr. Suraj Sharma and Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd., which was initially litigated before the Madras High Court. Following a compromise reached between both parties, formalized by an agreement dated 12.08.2025 and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court, the pending appeals were listed for compliance. Consequently, the court dismissed the intra-court appeals as withdrawn.
M/s.Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Office
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of its post-grant opposition against Patent No. 311984, which covered an anti-stick coating. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order because it failed to provide reasons for rejecting material grounds of opposition. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by a different officer.
Ms.Nischitha S Katta, Proprietor of SatvaDaily v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions filed by Ms. Nischitha S Katta seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to recognize her as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'SATVADAILY'. The petitioner sought the completion of assignments across various classes (29, 30, and 31) based on an Assignment Deed dated December 9, 2024. After considering the respondent's submission that they had already initiated the process, the Court closed the petitions but issued a clear directive to the Registrar to finalize the assignment exercise within eight weeks.
Sysvine Technologies Private Limited v.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a Writ Petition filed by Sysvine Technologies seeking action against another party for alleged trademark violation. Although the court noted that the petition was not maintainable as a direct request for an FIR registration, it issued a crucial direction. The court mandated that the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cell must consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 and take appropriate legal action within eight weeks.
Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd., seeking a Mandamus order to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to issue their trademark. The petitioner's application was pending due to an opposition filed by a third party. The court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner instead to file an expedite application directly with the Registrar, who must then process it as quickly as possible.
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'THILTH'. The core issue was that despite the mark expiring, the petitioner could not renew it because the Registry failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court emphasized the Registrar's duty to inform proprietors about approaching expiration, thereby enabling timely renewal or restoration.
M/s.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP. v.M/s.Sangeetham House of Veg
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a conflicting trademark. The petitioner, M/s.Sangeetha Caterers, successfully argued that the respondent's mark, 'SANGEETHAM HOUSE OF VEG,' was registered in bad faith after a court decree had already mandated the respondent to change their business name to 'Hotel Raagam - House of Veg.' The Court held that the registration was voidable because it suppressed prior litigation and compromise terms, ordering the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the conflicting mark forthwith.
M/s.Aston Packaging Solution v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry
M/s.Aston Packaging Solution approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against delays in its trademark opposition proceedings. The petitioner, who owns the 'ASTON' device trade mark application, noted that despite completing all pleadings and evidence in Opposition No.1011897, no hearing had been fixed by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court intervened, directing the Respondent to promptly consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation seeking an early hearing within a specified timeframe.
TRANS UNION, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application (No. 4268/CHE/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, which rejected it primarily on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the system and method for matching database records was inherently technical, providing a solution to data quality issues in emerging markets. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the invention involved technical considerations implemented by hardware, but remanded the matter to refine the claims' scope and ensure adequate enablement.
Trans Union, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding its application for a database matching system. The core issue was whether the invention constituted a non-patentable 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the invention involved technical considerations and achieved a technical effect by optimizing data retrieval. However, due to overly broad claims, the court remanded the matter for further examination to narrow the scope and ensure enablement.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using graphical representations.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using metadata management systems.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Ashique Exports, setting aside an adverse abandonment order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner argued that they were never properly served with the Notice of Opposition regarding their 'Vi-Wash' trademark application. The court found that since the official records lacked reference to the petitioner's registered email ID, the statutory requirement for deemed service under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act was not met. Consequently, the case has been restored for a fresh hearing after proper notice is issued.
Mohanlal U.Jain Trading As M/s.Master Marketing v.M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Mohanlal U.Jain, setting aside the Trademark Registry's decision to abandon his applications for 'Rallison APPLIANCES.' The core issue was whether the opposition notice served by M/S.Lkb Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had been properly served on the appellant as required under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court found that despite evidence of communication from the respondent, there was no proof presented by the Registry confirming service upon the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Registry was directed to grant a fresh opportunity for the matter.
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a government tender and direct the respondents to conduct technical analysis based on the petitioner's patent grant for single source procurement. However, the petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw the petition.
Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark rectification petition filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute, which sought to cancel the 'Udhaiyam' trademark registration in Class 30, was resolved amicably between the parties. Both sides entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, leading the petitioner to withdraw the original petition.
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.