Madras High Court
1365 cases · page 9 of 46
Showing 241–269Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran
V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
Lv Bhavani Sankar v.Gemini Edibles And Fats India Pvt Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a Transfer Review Petition filed by Lv Bhavani Sankar against a previous rectification order concerning Trademark 3830617. The petitioner sought to keep the trademark registered. However, the court noted that the arguments in the current petition were identical to another pending petition and closed (T)Rev.Pet(IPD)/2/2024 without issuing a specific ruling on costs.
Natco Pharma Ltd. v.M/s. Schering Corporation
Natco Pharma Ltd filed an Original Petition (Patents) seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No.202128 against M/s. Schering Corporation and the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The court observed that the term of the patent had expired on 06.10.2018, rendering the petition infructuous.
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to permit the filing of renewal applications for several registered trademarks. The petitioner argued that due to the failure of the Registrar to issue timely notice, they were entitled to renew the marks as a successor-in-interest. The Court held that while the lapse by the Registrar is noted, the petitioner must first register the assignment deed before applying for renewal.
Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthikeyan Manishekar
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'HANS VENBA' (No. 3917470) following a settlement reached between the petitioner, Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., and the first respondent, Karthikeyan Manishekar. The court confirmed that the registration would be cancelled as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed on August 7, 2024. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the new form exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in treating cataract symptoms, which was not adequately considered by the original examiner. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Mr. Prashant Philips v.M/s. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Indian Patent Application No. 1196/CHENP/2011, which related to using document length as a static relevance feature for ranking search results. The appellant argued that the invention provided a specific technical effect beyond general computing processes and was not merely an algorithm. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 202147005676 for a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the invention exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in reducing cataract symptoms in neonatal rabbits. The High Court found that the impugned order failed to properly consider the experimental data demonstrating pharmacodynamic studies and set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
The World Community Services Centre v.Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by The World Community Services Centre seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust. The dispute, which involved specific service descriptions within Trademark Registration No. 3654426, was resolved amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise signed by both parties. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to implement the terms of this compromise.
Mr.A.Salaudeen v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the invention was not merely a method of treatment but rather an in vitro method for selecting specific allogenic T-cell lines. The respondent had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, on this ground. The Madras High Court found that the respondent erroneously failed to appreciate the actual scope of the claim, which focused on the selection process rather than treatment itself.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had rejected it on the grounds that the invention was a method of treatment, making it unpatentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the claim described an in vitro method of selecting T-cell lines, not a direct method of treating a patient. The Madras High Court agreed with this distinction, finding that the rejection was based on an erroneous application of law to the facts. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application, which had been rejected by the Controller despite prior rulings from the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court found that the Controller disregarded established legal precedent and allowed the appeal.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201948026247) by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi. The appeal argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Syngenta Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal.
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748028185) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court agreed, finding the rejection contrary to established law.
M/s.Chaitanya Food Product v.M/s.Honey Food Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (TM) No.277 of 2023 after the petitioner, M/s.Chaitanya Food Product, sought permission to withdraw the case. The dispute concerning the registered service mark No.3091641 was reported as settled between the parties. This outcome highlights how parties can resolve trademark disputes outside of a full judicial ruling.
R. & D. S.R.L. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
R. & D. S.R.L. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application (No. 8850/CHENP/2012) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking, failing to provide reasons for rejecting the application or disallowing amended claims. The High Court agreed, finding the decision unsupported by adequate reasoning.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite having been provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked proper reasoning regarding both grounds. The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation regarding the amendments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The High Court found that the Controller failed to assign valid reasons for either rejection ground. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Sakata Seed Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sakata Seed Corporation appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'Eustoma having Cytoplasmic Male Sterility,' citing that it was essentially a biological process. The appellant argued that specific human interventions, such as screening and checking hybrid seeds, made the invention non-biological. The High Court agreed with this contention but found the Controller lacked sufficient reasoning on the matter.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The High Court found that the impugned order was unreasoned because the Controller failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite it being provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Makemytrip (India) Private Limited v.Tickmytrip Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions filed by Makemytrip seeking the rectification and cancellation of Tickmytrip's registered trademarks (Nos. 2801898 & 2801899). The court accepted a written undertaking from Tickmytrip stating that they do not intend to renew these trademark registrations once their current term expires on September 2, 2024. Since the marks will lapse, the court found no necessity for further orders regarding cancellation.
Just Lime My Child Foundation v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Just Lime My Child Foundation against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration of the word mark 'GIRL POWER PROJECT.' The court found that the Respondent erred by dissecting the composite mark and incorrectly deeming it descriptive. Crucially, the court emphasized that a composite mark must be evaluated as a whole, not in isolation, thereby upholding the distinctiveness of the foundation's brand.
Mr.A.S.Nagabhushana v.M/s.Shesha Matching
This Madras High Court judgment records the settlement of trademark disputes between Mr. A.S. Nagabhushana and M/s. Shesha Matching. The original petitions, which sought to expunge registered trademarks (SESHA) from the registry, were ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Both parties reached a compromise agreement on July 8, 2024, resolving the conflict without further litigation.
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Durgai Oil Stores
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Sri Durgai Oil Stores alleging infringement of its 'Gold Winner' trademark and copyright related to edible sunflower oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for using deceptively similar marks like 'Son Gold'. However, the court noted that this matter had already been decreed by a Division Bench in 2019 based on the defendant's affidavit agreeing to cease such activities. Consequently, the current suit was dismissed as nothing remained to be adjudicated.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
Rhodia Operations v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the rejection of its patent application for an esteramide compound by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The respondent rejected the claim as lacking inventive steps. The High Court found that the rejection was based on general observations and failed to address specific arguments made by the appellant regarding prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed.
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.