Defendant Favorable
270 defendant favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
270 cases | Page 4 of 9
Abdulla A Olia (Director of M/s Imex Industries (I) Pvt.Ltd.) v.M/s. Shri Ashapura Hardware & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Abdulla A Olia seeking rectification or removal of the registered trademark 'STAR IMEX DEVICE' (No. 1625661). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear at multiple scheduled hearings despite receiving proper notice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
M/s.Aquasub Engineering v.M.Mandal Trading as Aqua Tech Enterprises
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by M/s.Aquasub Engineering seeking to rectify or cancel the registration of the trademark AQUATECH (No. 1925332). The court found that the trade mark had lapsed because its last valid registration expired on February 22, 2020, and was not renewed within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register.
Lotte India Corporation Ltd. v.Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation; Ajanthaa K.T.K Products
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Lotte India Corporation against Phan Nguyen Confectionery Corporation and Ajanthaa K.T.K Products regarding the 'CHOCO PIE' mark. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical use of the mark, the court found that the plaintiff failed to adequately prove the infringement by the defendants. Consequently, the suit was largely dismissed on the core claims of trademark violation and damages.
M/S. Tradall S.A. v.The Learned Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by M/S. Tradall S.A. against the Learned Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant had sought to revoke a previous refusal order and allow the registration of the mark 'HALLMARK' in Class 33. However, due to repeated non-appearance of the appellant's counsel during scheduled hearings, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution.
M/S. Malar Publications Ltd. v.M/s.Malar Network Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal concerning Trademark No. 1066201. The court noted that the registration for this trademark had lapsed and was only renewed up to December 11, 2011. Furthermore, it was established that M/s. Malar Network Private Limited, one of the parties involved, had been struck off and dissolved from the corporate register. Consequently, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the lapsed trademark entry from the register.
M/s. Wockhardt Limited v.Apex Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging a trademark registration refusal. The appellant argued that the lower court's review was improperly exercised as an appeal, citing strict limitations on review jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the original decision failed to address key submissions made by the respondent regarding prior use and lack of evidence from the appellant. Consequently, the Court held that these omissions constituted 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' allowing the review order to stand.
Suresh Steel Tubes Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Suresh Steel Tubes Pvt Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal of Trademark Registration No. 1973721, arguing that its validity had lapsed. The Madras High Court reviewed the status provided by the Trademarks Registry and found that the long stop date for renewal and restoration had expired. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous, effectively upholding the existing registration.
M/S.Verizon Trademarks Services Llc v.M/s. Verinon Technology Solutions Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking rectification and cancellation of Trademark No. 2110042 due to non-renewal. The court noted that since the trademark registration had lapsed (last renewed up to March 4, 2021), no further adjudication was required on the merits of the dispute. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take necessary steps within four weeks to rectify the register and cancel the mark.
M/S. Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.H.Omar Farook and The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/S. Hatsun Agro Product Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 2555577 in Class 25, arguing its invalidity or non-use. However, upon receiving an affidavit from the first respondent, H.Omar Farook, which confirmed that the trademark had expired on June 27, 2023, and that he would not renew it, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. This outcome highlights how a simple change in registration status can immediately resolve complex IP disputes.
Novartis AG v.Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. IN/PCT/2001/00016/CHE) to proceed to grant. However, the appellant failed to note that Patent No. 223313 had already expired on May 16, 2023. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
K.P.D.Rajendran v.Mr.G.Sundarapandian
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petitions filed by K.P.D.Rajendran seeking the removal of trademarks 'SOLO' and 'BOVONTO.' The court noted that the impugned trademark registrations (Nos. 929435, 929437, and 929438) had not been renewed by the mark owner. Consequently, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
Rasila Jain v.Sh.J.Pradeep
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Rasila Jain seeking to remove or rectify the trademark entry 'TULASI LABEL' (No. 1783252). The court noted that documentation presented indicated the trademark was valid only until February 10, 2019. Consequently, since the mark had expired, no further adjudication was required, and the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Cadbury India Limited v.Gomathi Suresh
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Cadbury India Limited seeking to expunge Trademark No. 1050347 from the register. The court noted that the primary respondent, Gomathi Suresh, submitted that the trademark in question had already expired on October 8, 2021. Consequently, since the mark was no longer active, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without further adjudication.
Solera Holdings, Inc. v.Solera Networks Inc.
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Solera Holdings, Inc. seeking the cancellation of Trademark No. 1795016 registered in the name of Solera Networks Inc. The court noted that the trademark registration had already expired on March 13, 2019. Consequently, since the mark was no longer valid, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without any order regarding costs.
World Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network v.Daystar Television Network India Pvt. Ltd.; Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal and rectification of the trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK' from the register. The petitioners argued that the first respondent company had been struck off the Register of Companies and that the impugned trademark ceased to be valid after June 25, 2017. Given these developments, the court found the petition to be infructuous.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. v.Suresh K.K.
Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. filed an appeal challenging a lower court's judgment regarding trademark infringement and passing off related to its 'Super Wash – 555' washing soap. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using identical wrappers to deceive the public. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal, primarily finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove prior use due to the inadmissibility of photocopied documents. Furthermore, the court held that the suit lacked territorial jurisdiction as the defendants' business was not within the court's limits.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust v.M/s.Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust filed two Original Petitions seeking the revocation and removal of Patents No. 207233 and 234103, both held by M/s. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., in the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to transfer these matters for adjudication regarding patent invalidity. However, the court noted that both patents had already expired on March 24, 2019. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros. v.Mr.Om Prakash
The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark infringement suit filed by M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros against Mr. Om Prakash. The court found that despite both parties operating in the silver jewelry trade, the defendant's use of 'D.R.R.' alongside descriptive words ('Shri Mahalakshmi Velli Maligai') did not constitute infringement or passing off of the plaintiff's registered marks like 'D.R.RAANKA'. The judgment emphasized that a marked difference in trading style prevents consumer confusion.
Applicant/Plaintiff (Name not specified) v.M/S.Knoll Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to initiate fresh trademark rectification proceedings against a registered mark held by the respondent. The court noted that multiple rectification actions were already pending before the Registrar and other forums initiated by both parties. Consequently, the court rejected the plaintiff's request for leave, emphasizing that existing legal processes must be allowed to run their course to prevent conflicting judgments.
P.Periyasamy v.M/S.Jaya Jeya Agro Mills
The plaintiff filed civil suits alleging that the defendants infringed his registered copyright concerning the artistic and literary work detailing a precast concrete chimney. The court addressed multiple suits, ultimately dismissing C.S.No.102/2018 as not pressed for against one defendant, while granting relief in C.S.No.96/2018.
P.Ponnuchamy v.M/s.UTV Motion Pictures
This appeal challenged an order that disallowed the plaintiff from amending his plaint to include claims for royalty and account of profits related to the movie 'Thandavam'. The court dismissed the appeal, finding merit in the respondent's argument regarding the significant delay (nine years) in seeking these amendments. The judgment emphasized that courts must consider all facts and circumstances when exercising discretion on amendment applications.
The Managing Director and Appellate Authority, Tasmac v.M.Loganathan
Tasmac appealed an interim order from the Single Judge, which directed them to provide certain commercially sensitive information regarding liquor purchasing rates in a sealed cover. Tasmac argued that this information constituted trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a challenge by Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against an order directing it to change its corporate name. The dispute centered on the use of 'Raymond,' which was claimed by another entity (Respondent 3) to be protected under trademark rights and prior incorporation dates. The court upheld the administrative decision, finding no illegality in requiring the petitioner to alter its name.
M/s.Micro Labs Limited v.Mr.A.Santhosh
M/s. Micro Labs Limited filed a civil suit against Mr. A. Santhosh alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AVAS' and copyright in its label by the use of the deceptively similar mark 'AVASLIP'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits. However, the Madras High Court rejected the plaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement stipulated under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Vimala Parmar v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Vimala Parmar against The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the Trademark Registry to accept evidence in an opposition proceeding concerning trademark application No. 812224. However, due to non-prosecution—the failure of the petitioner to file a new counsel or appear before the court—the High Court dismissed the petition.
Dr.S.Chandralekha / M/s.Iswarya Fertility Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Aravind Chander
The Madras High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant, Dr. Aravind Chander, challenging the jurisdiction and maintainability of a trademark infringement suit brought by Dr. S. Chandralekha and M/s. Iswarya Fertility Services Pvt. Ltd. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff could establish personal work for gain in Chennai under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Furthermore, the court ruled that the non-joinder of a related entity was not fatal to the suit's maintainability.
M/s.24 Am Studious Private Limited v.Divya M.Jain
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendants for releasing the film 'Production No.5 (Colour) – Ayalan' without consent, alleging infringement of Tamil Satellite Television Rights in India. The dispute centered on the validity of the finance agreement where the plaintiff pledged the exclusive copyright to the first defendant.
Leeds Hr Solution v.The Controller General of Patents
Leeds Hr Solution challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on December 2, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further action was necessary from the respondents.
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, geographical Indications, Designs
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on November 30, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further judicial consideration was necessary regarding the refund claim.
Arumugam Rajendra Babu v.Ashok Leyland Limited
Arumugam Rajendra Babu appealed an order dated September 1, 2021, passed in a commercial suit. The appellant sought a direction from the trial court to have the Controller of Patents provide evidence regarding his products and patent distinctions. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
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.