1428 cases · page 4 of 48

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jul 10, 2025

M/s. K.A.S.Zainulabdin And Co. v.K.G.Subramaniam and The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)No.247 of 2023

The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark '399 BRAND K.G.S. SUBRAMANI AND CO' in Class 25. The court granted the relief after both parties reached an agreement: the contesting respondent agreed to change its trade mark, and the petitioner consented to this change. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the disputed entry from the register within 30 days.

patent remanded · Jul 8, 2025

Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Madras High Court · C.M.A.No.2115 of 2021

TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 784/CHE/2012 for an 'Accelerator Safety Control Device'. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1-D3, which were primarily related to four-wheeler vehicles. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 1, 2025

YKK Corporation v.Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl

Madras High Court · OP(TM) No.22 of 2025

YKK Corporation successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a conflicting trademark entry, '4 KK', registered under Kalpesh Kumar Gowanl. The court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the specified registration within 30 days. This ruling reinforces the rights of established brand owners against potentially confusing or infringing marks.

patent remanded · Jul 1, 2025

Srinivas Jegannathan v.The Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · T(CMA(PT))/38/2023

The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting Patent Application No. 122/CHE/2006 for a novel antibiotic formulation (Ceftazidime, Tazobactum, and Linezolid). The appellant argued that the combination was not obvious from prior art. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the original claims.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Jun 26, 2025

M/s. The Sen Knitting Company v.K.S.Shenthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · OP(TM)No.9 of 2025

The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition filed by M/s. The Sen Knitting Company seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SEN SPIN,' and was used for identical goods (garments). Given the petitioner's established history as the prior adopter and user, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expunge the conflicting entry.

trademark mixed · Jun 26, 2025

M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. v.M/s Pachala Murali Krishna

Madras High Court · 2025:MHC:1473 (T)OP(TM) Nos. 368 to 370, 460, 461 & 464/2023

This Madras High Court case involves multiple rectification petitions filed by M/s Media Monks Multimedia Holding B.V. against the registration of several 'MEDIA MONK' trademarks held by M/s Pachala Murali Krishna. The petitioner seeks to remove these marks, asserting its global reputation and prior use since 2001. Conversely, the respondent claims he coined and used the mark honestly in January 2009, preceding the petitioner's Indian application. The court has framed several key issues, including deceptive similarity, bad faith, and priority of adoption.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 26, 2025

M/s.Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD)No.7 of 2025

The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning the delay in processing an opposition petition against a trade mark application. M/s. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite the disposal of Opposition No. 1176324 related to Trade Mark Application No. 4853565. The Court, noting the prolonged delay despite complete pleadings, issued a directive mandating the Registrar of Trade Marks to resolve the matter within three months, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity to be heard.

patent dismissed · Jun 26, 2025

Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani v.Deputy Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · CMA(PT) No.11 of 2025

The appellant, Nandamuri Sri Lakshmi Bhavani, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents on January 20, 2025, seeking to allow her Indian Patent Application Number 201941026810. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel informed the court that she would withdraw this appeal and file a new appeal against an earlier order dated February 2, 2023.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 19, 2025

R.V.Vinoth Kumar v.M/s.Kallal Hospitalities Private Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD)No.26 of 2025

The Madras High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning 'MANJAL RESTAURANT' by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite proceedings. The petitioner, R.V.Vinoth Kumar, sought judicial intervention due to the prolonged delay in disposing of Opposition No.1350081 and Trade Mark Application No.5982440. The Court allowed the writ petition, mandating that the Registrar dispose of both matters within three months from the date of the order.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 19, 2025

R.V.Vinoth Kumar v.M/s.Kallal Hospitalities Private Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD)No.26 of 2025

The Madras High Court intervened in a trademark dispute concerning 'MANJAL RESTAURANT' by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite proceedings. The petitioner, R.V.Vinoth Kumar, sought judicial intervention due to the prolonged delay in disposing of Opposition No.1350081 and Trade Mark Application No.5982440. The Court allowed the writ petition, mandating that the Registrar dispose of both matters within three months from the date of the order.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 19, 2025

Mr.Sampath G.V. v.The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD)No.11 of 2025

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. Sampath G.V., allowing him to renew his trademark 'THE VELLORE KITCHEN DEVICE' despite alleged failures in notification by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court held that since the mark had not been formally removed from the register, the petitioner was entitled to renewal subject to fees. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to facilitate the renewal process within 30 days.

trademark defendant favorable · Jun 17, 2025

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.K.Venkateshwara Rao

Madras High Court · (T)OP(TM)No.173 of 2023

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought the rectification and removal of a trademark registration ('NICSON PHARMA') held by K.Venkateshwara Rao, arguing that it was deceptively similar to its own established mark 'SUN PHARMA'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition. The court found that when comparing the two marks as a whole, there was no likelihood of confusion or deception among the average consumer, thereby upholding the validity of the rival registration.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 16, 2025

M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation v.M/s.TKP Pictures

Madras High Court · OSA (CAD) No.56 of 2023

The Madras High Court heard an appeal regarding the ownership and infringement of copyrights related to the film 'MALLU VETTY MINOR'. The court found that the petitioner, M/s. Sreedevi Video Corporation, was the absolute owner of the copyrights. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted against Respondent No.1 (TKP Pictures) for infringing these rights.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 12, 2025

M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD)No.8 of 2025

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Dr.J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to accept and process a renewal application for the mark 'NATURE'S WEALTH RESTORES HEALTH.' The court held that as long as the trade mark has not been formally removed from the register, the proprietor is entitled to seek renewal, setting aside the rejection order issued by the Registry. This decision provides crucial protection against administrative hurdles preventing legitimate trademark renewals.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 12, 2025

M/S. Nichino Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · CMA(TM).No.23 of 2024

The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Registry's refusal to register the word mark 'METAMORPH' in Class 5 (pesticides/herbicides). The court found that the Registrar erred by assuming prior long-term use of a cited mark, especially since that application was initially filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The judgment mandates the Registry to re-examine the case, considering the appellant's claims regarding non-similarity and potential entitlement under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act.

patent settled · Jun 11, 2025

S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd v.H.R.Marketing

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.104 of 2025

S.G.R. (777) Foods Pvt Ltd successfully secured a judgment against H.R.Marketing in the Madras High Court regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to their product label and trade dress. Although the suit involved claims under both Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act, the parties reached a memorandum of compromise. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, granting permanent injunctions and ordering the destruction of all infringing materials.

copyright defendant favorable · Jun 10, 2025

Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy v.Mr.P.Moorthy

Madras High Court · OP(CR) No.1 of 2024

Petitioners sought to rectify/expunge a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic work photograph of a pump assembly, arguing that Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act renders it invalid because the article was already registered as a design. The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Pump Assembly itself, not the photograph, was registered as a design and that the photograph did not meet the requirements of a design.

copyright defendant favorable · Jun 10, 2025

Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work; Mr.R.Logenthiran, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work v.Mr.P.Moorthy; The Registrar of Copyrights

Madras High Court · OP(CR) No.1 of 2024

Petitioners sought rectification and expungement of a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic photograph of a pump assembly. Petitioners argued that since the article was also registered as a design earlier, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act should apply. However, the Court found that the work registered was the Pump Assembly itself (as a design), not the photograph/artistic work, and therefore dismissed the petition.

trademark interim order · Jun 10, 2025

The Sun Products v.The Controller, Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks

Madras High Court · W.P(MD)No.7950 of 2024

The Sun Products filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Controller and Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to reject the application for registration of the trade mark 'Alagumayil' by Sri Hari Agency, citing similarity with the petitioner's existing trade mark 'Mayiil Oma Water'. The court disposed of the petition by directing the official respondents to consider the objection and conduct an enquiry within eight weeks.

patent remanded · Jun 5, 2025

Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · C.M.A.(PT).No.42 of 2024

TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.798/CHE/2011) for an invention related to a bearing structure in an internal combustion engine. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art D1 and D2. The High Court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing that a proper obviousness analysis must be conducted before rejecting the application.

trademark remanded · Jun 5, 2025

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v.West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(GI)No.2 of 2023

The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

patent mixed · Apr 30, 2025

M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.182 of 2023 & (T) OP(TM) No.10 of 2024

The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.

patent mixed · Apr 30, 2025

M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)

Madras High Court · C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.182 of 2023 & (T) OP(TM) No.10 of 2024

The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.

patent remanded · Apr 29, 2025

M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs

Madras High Court · CMA(PT) No.5 of 2025

The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order revoking Patent No. 452008, which covered an Intelligent Cooking Stove System. The revocation was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

patent remanded · Apr 24, 2025

Annikki Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office

Madras High Court · (T)CMA(PT) No.70 of 2023

Annikki Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process for producing xylitol from lignocellulosic material. The rejection was based on alleged lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(d) due to prior art citations (D1-D5). The High Court found errors in the respondent's reasoning, particularly regarding the non-fermentative nature of the claimed process versus the cited prior art.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 24, 2025

Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association v.The Government of India

Madras High Court · W.P.No.14635 of 2025

This writ petition was filed by the Puducherry Body Builders & Fitness Association seeking to prevent private associations from conducting bodybuilding competitions using names like 'Mr. India' and 'Open Mr. South India'. The petitioner argued that such usage violated Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that these titles are common terminology specific to bodybuilding competitions and do not constitute an improper use of national emblems or names for trade purposes.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 17, 2025

Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti v.MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · O.A.Nos.778 to 780 of 2024

Dr. Jitendra Das Maganti filed three Original Applications seeking an interim injunction against MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SEVEN HILLS' brand, which is registered by the plaintiff. The dispute arose in the context of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) where the corporate debtor was undergoing restructuring. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the applications, finding that the resolution plan sanctioned by the NCLT prima facie granted permission to use 'Seven Hills,' thus balancing convenience in favor of the defendant.

patent dismissed · Apr 17, 2025

Thyssenkrupp Rothe Erde Germany Gmbh v.IMO Holding Gmbh

Madras High Court · (T)OP(PT)/66/2023 (ORA.SR/22/2021/PT/CHN)

The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition (Patents) challenging the validity of Patent IN254458, arguing that it lacked novelty and did not comply with relevant provisions of the Patents Act. However, the counsel for the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they had reached a settlement with the contesting respondent.

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 3, 2025

R.Dilip Kumar v.The Registrar of Trademarks, M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD)No.9 of 2025

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by R.Dilip Kumar against the Registrar of Trademarks, quashing an order that deemed his trademark application 'PIRALEX' abandoned. The court emphasized that the statutory right of the applicant is at stake and ruled that service of opposition via email alone, without proof of receipt, does not satisfy the legal requirement for initiating the response period. Consequently, both the trademark application and the opposition were restored to the file, allowing the petitioner a fresh opportunity to respond on merits.

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 3, 2025

Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD)No.3 of 2025

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Vignesh Kumar Sivakumar against the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. The court quashed the order that deemed his word mark application 'LABAPEN' abandoned due to failure to respond to an opposition notice. Citing previous precedent, the court held that service via email alone is insufficient when the applicant cannot prove receipt, thereby protecting the substantive rights of trademark applicants. Consequently, both the application and the opposition were restored for fresh consideration.

1 •••345•••48
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →