Madras High Court
1365 cases · page 8 of 46
Showing 211–239Psyco Remedies Ltd. v.Micro Labs Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment concerns a petition filed by Psyco Remedies Ltd. seeking rectification of a trademark held by Micro Labs Ltd. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the rectification request, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Both sides agreed to withdraw related litigation and mutually refrained from taking further action against each other concerning the subject trademarks. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) (Through her son) Trading as Nalli Weaving Center v.N.Kuppuswami Chettiar
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) against a rectification order concerning her trademark. The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to appear or prosecute the case. Consequently, the original registration was allowed to continue without challenge from the appellant's side.
Idemia Identity & Security France v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Idemia Identity & Security France challenged a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents, which denied patent protection for its invention related to 'Cryptography on a simplified elliptical curve'. The respondents argued that the invention was merely a mathematical formula or business method, thus falling under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. However, the Madras High Court quashed the rejection order, finding it arbitrary and non-speaking because the respondents failed to address key contentions raised by the appellant regarding its technical contribution.
Neetha Madala (Proprietor of M/s.Harsha Hospitals) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Neetha Madala's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting aside an earlier refusal to register her device mark 'HARSHA HOSPITALS'. The court found that the Registrar had issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without clearly explaining how the mark infringed Sections 9 or 11 of the Act. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant had subsequently registered other marks, strengthening her claim for distinctiveness in her specific class (Class 44). Consequently, the application was restored and directed to proceed with the trademark registration process.
Samsudeen A v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Salama Eye Hospital Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Samsudeen A against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to abandon a trademark application. The core issue was whether service via email, as per TM Rules, was sufficient when the applicant claimed non-receipt of the opposition notice. Applying a purposive interpretation in the interest of justice, the court ruled that since the appellant could not prove receipt, he was deemed not to have received the notice, thereby quashing the abandonment order and allowing him a chance to file his counter-statement.
Monster Energy Company v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Monster Energy Company's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'SUPER FUEL.' The court found that the Registrar erred by comparing 'SUPER FUEL' (for non-alcoholic beverages) with a similar existing mark ('FUEL') used for different products. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be allowed to publish the trademark in the journal, allowing any third parties to file opposition petitions on merits.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs' order refusing to grant a patent application (No. 201947017337). The appellant subsequently sought permission from the High Court to withdraw the appeal.
Beerco Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Beerco Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar's refusal to register its trademark 'BeerCo' under Class 32. The court found that the initial rejection was based on a non-speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's existing registrations for similar marks. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing the Registrar to allow publication of BeerCo in the Trademark Journal so that third parties could raise any objections.
K. Ramu (Deceased) & Lavanya Ramu v.Adyar Ananda Bhavan
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Adyar Ananda Bhavan for infringing two patents (process and product) related to sweets made with fructose/levulose. The court ultimately dismissed the suit because the relevant patents had expired, rendering the main relief infructuous.
France Telecom v.Union of India
France Telecom filed a Writ Petition challenging orders from the Patent Office which returned its patent application because the request for examination was made beyond the statutory 48-month limit. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to an error by their Indian agent, constituting exceptional circumstances. The Court accepted this argument and set aside the impugned orders.
Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited v.Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd., Utracon Management Pte Ltd., and Utracon Engineering Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple arbitration applications seeking various interim injunctions against Utracon entities. The applicants, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, sought protection against client/employee poaching and the use of the 'UTRACON' name and logo. However, the court found that the non-compete and non-solicitation clause in the underlying Sale of Shares Agreement had expired after 10 years. Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, leading to the dismissal of all interim relief requests.
V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited v.Jayashree
In a dispute over the 'MANAPURAM' trademark, V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited successfully reached a settlement with Jayashree before the Madras High Court. The parties agreed that the Petitioner has prior rights to the mark and that the Respondent will cancel her existing registration (No. 5109630) and transfer associated domain names within ten days. This compromise resolves the petition seeking removal of the infringing trademark entry.
Mr.Rahul Bagga v.The Controller of Patent
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on two grounds: that the amendment sought changed the scope of invention (violating Section 59), and that the subject matter lacked substantial benefit to mankind (Section 3(b)).
M/s.Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited v.Union of India
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited, upholding an earlier order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The core dispute involved the use of the identical trade name 'Shaktiman' by both parties. The court affirmed that since the respondent company held extensive and long-standing trademark rights for 'Shaktiman,' its continued use by the petitioner was contrary to corporate incorporation rules, regardless of differences in product categories.
S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27) v.The Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)
The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited
The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
M/s. Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Private Limited v.M/s. Narasu'S Saarathy Enterprises Private limited
This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order by the Commercial District Court, Salem, which allowed the respondent to file a written statement beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner argued that since the suit was filed under the Trademarks Act and designated as commercial, the limitation period should not apply. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that because the specified value of the suit was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, the Commercial Courts Act did not grant jurisdiction to the court in the first place. Consequently, the Trial Court's decision to accept the written statement was upheld on the ground of lack of commercial jurisdiction.
Embio Limited v.Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Embio Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 249376 granted to Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., alleging that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step. The court examined the arguments regarding prior art and technical advancement but found no illegality or perversity in the grant.
Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning a system for selectively operating regenerative braking in a vehicle. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure regarding essential vehicle parameters. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
Aachi Spices and Condiments Private Limited (and others) v.Aachiamman Chit Funds Private Limited
This appeal before the Madras High Court Commercial Appellate Division challenged a summary judgment that dismissed a suit for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, owners of registered trademarks related to 'AACHI', argued that the judgment was flawed because it was rendered without hearing their arguments. The court found that the impugned judgment proceeded solely on perusal of the plaint and failed to consider the plaintiffs' submissions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Division for a fresh legal drill.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
Somalogic Operating Co., INC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Somalogic Operating Co. appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'CARDIOVASCULAR RISK EVENT PREDICTION AND USES THEREOF'. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed invention qualified as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to argue against the classification and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Patent Controller regarding its patent application for a live scene recognition system that filters objectionable content before recording. The Controller rejected the claim based on lack of inventive step, citing two pieces of prior art (D1 and D2).
Hendrickson USA, L.L.C. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 2621/CHENP/2015) by the Controller, which had previously found that shot peening in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) was obvious from prior art. The appellant argued that its invention specifically claimed peening beyond the stress concentration boundary and asserted technical advantages for this extension. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to allow a fresh examination of the claim's novelty and non-obviousness based on peening beyond the HAZ.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited v.Massey Ferguson Corp.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) filed a suit against Massey Ferguson Corp. (MFC) seeking declarations regarding trademark abandonment and injunctive relief concerning their respective trademarks. The original Commercial Court returned the plaint, directing TAFE to file it in the Commercial Division of the High Court, citing maintainability issues. TAFE appealed this order, arguing for the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. However, the Madras High Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that allowing such suits in the Commercial Court could lead to forum shopping and undermine the philosophy of the Commercial Courts Act.
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.