Madras High Court
1359 cases · page 6 of 46
Showing 151–179M/S.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India & Sakthi Sai Glass Traders (Appellants) v.Compagnie De Saint-Gobain & Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (Respondents/Plaintiffs)
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals challenging an interim injunction granted to Saint-Gobain against Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India. The court found that the appellants, despite their contract with Saint-Gobain expiring, were infringing the 'Saint-Gobain' trademark by using it in connection with toughened glass products. Given the prima facie evidence of consumer confusion and dilution, the balance of convenience favored the trademark owner, upholding the injunction while allowing the main suit to proceed.
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebille Educations Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Nikita Dubey Rai, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' and associated copyrights in the field of educational services. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'LEARNING EINSTEINS'. However, both parties amicably settled their dispute through a joint memorandum of compromise dated February 6, 2025.
V.T. Varghese v.Jose Jacob and The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by V.T. Varghese seeking rectification and removal of a registered trademark (No. 1334030). The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court on multiple scheduled dates despite being given opportunities.
Jupeng Bio (Hk) Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Jupeng Bio appealed an order rejecting its patent application for 'Control of Conductivity in Anaerobic Fermentation'. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the prior art cited did not explicitly disclose all claimed elements (conductivity and SCU relationship), and that the reasons for rejection under Section 3(d) were unreasoned. The High Court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding both novelty and Section 3(d) non-patentability.
The Good Stuff Private Ltd. v.Golden Chocolates Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of appeals between The Good Stuff Private Ltd. and Golden Chocolates Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark disputes over 'Luvit Dairy Rich' and 'Appeal Dairy Rich'. Key terms included the respondent modifying its product label, withdrawing specific trademark and copyright applications, and agreeing not to challenge the appellant's existing trademarks. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without further litigation.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting his patent application based on various grounds, including lack of enablement, ambiguity in claims, and non-patentability. The High Court examined these issues, concluding that the invention lacked a demonstrable technical effect and failed to meet statutory requirements.
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute concerns alleged copyright infringement related to 'behind the scenes (BTS)' footage from the film "NAANUM ROWDY DHAAN". The fifth defendant challenged the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit filed by Los Gatos Production Services India LLP, arguing lack of territorial nexus and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, it retained territorial jurisdiction, thus dismissing the challenges.
Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v.Wunderbar Films Private Limited
The dispute involved applications seeking rejection of plaint and revocation of leave to sue in a copyright infringement matter. The fifth defendant argued lack of territorial jurisdiction and non-compliance with pre-suit mediation. The Court held that since part of the cause of action arose within Chennai, it retained jurisdiction, thus dismissing both applications.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking execution of Letters Rogatory issued by a US District Court. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' related to VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner and setting up protocols for evidence collection.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Ethichem Biotech
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Ethichem Biotech and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA and for passing off. Despite the initial claims of trademark and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
M/s.Nico Quality Products v.M/s.N.C.Arya Snuff & Cigar Co.
This complex litigation before the Madras High Court revolves around the ownership and use of registered trademarks related to snuff and cigar products. M/s. Nico Quality Products sought permanent injunctions against alleged infringement and passing-off by M/s. N.C. Arya Snuff & Cigar Co., while other parties challenged the validity of an assignment deed. The court addressed multiple suits concerning trademark rights, including declarations regarding the legality of assignments.
Amazon Technologies Inc. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Amazon Technologies Inc. appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing to grant a patent for its invention (Application No. 5937/CHENP/2010). The appeal challenged the refusal on the ground that it lacked inventive step, arguing that the refusal order was non-speaking as it failed to provide reasons for how the cited prior art documents applied to the claimed invention.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac v.M/s.Selvee Indigenous Food Factory India Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex trademark dispute involving the brands 'AACHI' and 'PARAMPARIYA APPACHI RICE'. The litigation, which sought to cancel a rival mark and restrain infringement, concluded amicably. Both parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise (MoC) on January 7, 2025, leading the court to dispose of both the petition and the suit without awarding costs.
Abacus Montessori School v.Abacus International Montessori School; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Abacus Montessori School, a long-standing educational institution, by ordering the expungement of a conflicting trademark registration held by Abacus International Montessori School. The court found that despite geographical proximity and differences in scope (e.g., 'International'), the identical use of the mark 'ABACUS' for similar educational services created a likelihood of confusion. The judgment emphasized the importance of prior user rights and established goodwill over subsequent registrations.
M/s.TTK Prestige Limited v.Sarvodaya Industries
M/s. TTK Prestige Limited filed a suit against Sarvodaya Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'PROTEIN' to infringe upon the registered trademarks and artistic logo of 'PRESTIGE'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, which the court subsequently recorded and decreed.
Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. v.Kuppanna Foods
Junior Kuppanna Kitchens Pvt. Ltd filed suit against Kuppanna Foods, among others, alleging multiple infringements across trademarks and copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'KUPPANNA FOODS' and 'Kuppanna', as well as damages for dilution and tarnishment. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the Memorandum of Compromise.
Tube Investments Of India Ltd. v.BSA-Regal Group Ltd.
This case involved disputes between Tube Investments Of India Ltd. and the BSA-Regal Group Ltd. concerning the use of the 'BSA' trademark on motorcycles, parts, and accessories. Both parties filed suits alleging infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, during the proceedings before the Madras High Court, both plaintiffs successfully endorsed that their respective suits had been settled out of court.
Thermo Electrics Madras Manufacturing v.P.R.Gopalakrishnan
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for committing piracy through fraudulent imitation of four registered designs (No. 193288, 193289, 193290, 193291) related to Extraction and Heating Mantles. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had access to their trade secrets and designs during his employment with the second plaintiff, leading to unauthorized imitation.
M/s.Haldor Topsoe A/S v.Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.03.2021 rejecting/abandoning their patent application (No. 297/CHE/2012). The petitioner argued that the rejection violated natural justice and was based on non-application of mind, as no proper second examination report was conducted. The Court found the order unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd. v.Mr.Tallam Uma Shankar Gupta
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'GYPLOCK' (No. 3536418). The petitioner, Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd., successfully argued that its established trademark 'GYPROC' was similar to the impugned mark and used on identical goods—building materials. Despite arguments regarding common trade terms ('GYP'), the court found the overall similarity between 'GYPROC' and 'GYPLOCK' likely to cause confusion, thereby protecting the purity of the register.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method involving iron (III) caseinsuccinylate. The Deputy Controller rejected the grant on the grounds that the claimed invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court upheld the respondent's decision.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent opposition board recommendation related to Indian Patent No.319927, arguing that the process violated The Patents Act, 1970 by not allowing them to present evidence. The Court quashed the impugned notices and recommendations.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent recommendation made by the Patent Office in a post-grant opposition application filed by Low Cost Standard Therapeutics. The petitioner argued that the process violated the Patents Act, 1970, specifically by denying them an opportunity to present evidence. The High Court quashed the impugned notice and the Board's earlier recommendations.
Mr. M. Anees Ahmed (M/s Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Ambur Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. M. Anees Ahmed, granting a permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'STAR AMBUR BRIYANI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AMBUR STAR BRIYANI,' which is associated with his restaurant business. While the claim for destruction of infringing stock was rejected due to lack of evidence, the suit was partly decreed.
Thales v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Thales appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant patent for its application No. 8821/CHENP/2012, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on total non-application of mind, relying on copy-pasted reasoning and irrelevant prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The High Court quashed the impugned order, finding violations of natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
M/s.Sri Modern Weigh Systems v.Nipro MACHOI P. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed appeals concerning the alleged deceptive similarity between the trademarks 'MACHOI' and 'MAKHOI'. The court accepted an undertaking from the appellants not to use 'MACHOI' or any remotely similar name in the future. Furthermore, the opposing party was directed to immediately apply for the cancellation of their registered trademark, which was deemed deceptively similar. This judgment provides a practical resolution through undertakings and administrative action rather than a definitive finding on infringement.
Disys India Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to grant registration for the mark 'DISYS'. The appeal argued that the refusal, based solely on phonetic similarity to another mark ('DISYSO'), failed to consider evidence of the appellant's long-standing use and acquired distinctiveness. The court found the original order was a non-speaking order, necessitating a remand back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application on its merits.
Innovative Health Care v.Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an Original Application filed by Innovative Health Care seeking to restrain Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. from using a deceptively similar trademark for medicinal preparations. The court decided to close the current application while granting the applicant full liberty to raise all its contentions in the main suit. This procedural step moves the dispute forward into the substantive litigation phase.
Vellaisamy Thavamani Pandi v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged an order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs, which refused to grant a patent for 'System for construction of composite U shaped reinforced girders bridge deck' under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellants argued that the refusal was arbitrary because the respondent failed to consider their foreign patents and made contradictory findings regarding inventive step.
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.