Defendant Favorable
277 defendant favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Defendant Favorable Decisions
277 cases | Page 6 of 10
Sahaya Sujith Kumar v.A.Jordan
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the Patents Act because the respondent's patent rights were pending. The respondent argued the suit was an injunction based on breach of trust and non-disclosure agreement, not infringement.
A.S. Hameed v.P. Maharajan
The dispute centered on a registered trade mark ('No.10 A.S. PHOTO BEEDI') used for beedies and tobacco products, with the plaintiff seeking an injunction against alleged infringement by the defendant. However, the case progressed to an application by the defendant seeking revocation of the 'leave to sue' initially granted to the plaintiff. The court ultimately held that neither party resided nor conducted business within its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the successful revocation of the leave and the dismissal of the main suit.
M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates v.M/s.Very Good Foods
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.P.S.Arumugam Associates against M/s.Very Good Foods, upholding the original finding that no infringement occurred. The court found insufficient evidence to establish deceptive similarity between the labels 'Chakra' and 'VG', noting differences in product descriptions and names. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to adequately prove specific financial loss caused by the defendant's marketing.
M/s.Geege Paints v.M/s.Agsar Match Industries
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s.Geege Paints challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Geege Paints had sought to uphold the validity of its trademark 'STAG' against rectification initiated by M/s.Agsar Match Industries. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court despite being duly served with notice, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.
This appeal involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a registered design for a mixer grinder base unit. The appellant, M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., challenged an order that had granted an injunction against them based on copyright infringement. The court examined both designs side-by-side and found no substantial similarities, noting distinct differences in shape and configuration between the two tripod bases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous interim orders.
M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Registrar, Trademarks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg challenging the Registrar's decision to treat its trademark applications as abandoned. The court held that since the impugned orders were passed by the Trademark Registrar, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was not a Writ Petition under Article 226, but rather an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
M/s.Lyca Productions v.J.Manimaran
M/s. Lyca Productions filed an appeal seeking an injunction against J. Manimaran (and others) for allegedly infringing on their film title 'KARU', which they claimed to have registered with a Film Producers Guild in 2011. The core dispute revolved around whether this guild registration conferred exclusive rights over the title, especially when the opposing party had also invested heavily and was readying its release. The Madras High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, ruling that such guild registration does not grant exclusive use of the title without statutory backing.
Mohammed Mohideen (representing M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece) v.M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade
The Madras High Court dismissed the interim injunction applications filed by M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece against M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade, despite allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted a significant delay in filing the suit after receiving cease and desist notices from the defendant. Consequently, the judge found it inappropriate to grant an interim injunction at that stage, allowing the main suit to proceed for trial.
A.Rajendran v.Thenandal Studios Limited
The appeal was filed by A.Rajendran against an order dismissing his application for injunction, which sought to restrain respondents from using the title 'Mersal' (an adopted version of 'Merrasalaitan'). The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove that the subject title had acquired any goodwill or reputation.
K.Manivannan v.The Chairman Intellectual Property Appellate Board, The Controller of Patent & Designs, M.Mani
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 204322, granted to M.Mani (the third respondent), arguing that the invention was already publicly available or anticipated by his own earlier work. The petitioner sought revocation of the patent before the High Court.
AVMH Corporation v.Subu Trade Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected a plea to dismiss a trademark suit. The respondent sought injunctions regarding their 'SACHA MOTI' trademark for food products, while the petitioners argued the suit should be dismissed due to parallel proceedings in the Delhi High Court and before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The High Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no illegality in allowing the suit to proceed.
M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.
M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited filed applications seeking temporary injunction against Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd., alleging infringement of a registered design and passing off. The Madras High Court examined the claims under the Designs Act, 2000, and found that the petitioner's design did not satisfy the necessary legal tests in this context. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications for temporary injunction but directed both parties to file relevant documents and monthly sales statements as part of the ongoing suit.
Novartis Ag v.Atoz Pharmaceuticals Pvtltd
Novartis Ag filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Atoz Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and Zota Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for alleged infringement of its Indian Patent No. 212815 concerning Vildagliptin API/formulations. The court noted that the defendant had cancelled the product 'VILDAPIN-50' as requested by them, leading to the plaintiffs withdrawing most reliefs.
R. Muralidharan v.The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice; The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs; The Controller General of Patent and Designs and Trademark
This writ petition challenged a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding PCT National Phase Applications in India. The petitioner argued that this notice restricted applicants from amending their specifications before entering the national phase, thereby denying rights granted under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act. The core dispute centered on whether procedural restrictions related to filing fees should be subject to judicial review. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was a procedural issue best left to the experts and the Central Government's power regarding fee determination.
Controller Of Patents & Designs v.Deputy Registrar, Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Controller of Patents & Designs challenged an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had allowed the appeal of respondents against the rejection of a patent application. The dispute centered on whether the Controller failed to exercise proper discretion, specifically concerning the insufficient fee paid for all claims in the application.
M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The suit was filed by M/s.Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. seeking a declaration that its cosmetic composition did not infringe Patent No.169917 and requesting a permanent injunction against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The court found that the subject patent had already expired in 2009, rendering the claims of infringement and the request for an injunction moot.
Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited v.Sulthana Restaurant
The plaintiff, Paulsons Beauty and Fashion Private Limited, filed Original Applications seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Sulthana Restaurant, from passing off or infringing its registered trade mark 'SULTHAN'S BIRIYANI'. The defendant argued that the names were not deceptively similar, that they cater to different customer classes, and that the name 'SULTANA' is a common universal term. The Court dismissed the applications, finding no deceptive similarity and ruling in favor of the respondent.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Jagdale Industries Private Limited
Sanofi-Aventis challenged the registration of Jagdale Industries' trademark 'CALDALE,' arguing that it was deceptively similar to their own mark 'CARDACE.' The Madras High Court examined the phonetic similarity and potential for consumer confusion, especially given that both products are prescription medicines. Ultimately, the court found no remote possibility or slightest chance of confusion, dismissing Sanofi-Aventis' appeal and upholding the trademark registration.
Novartis AG v.Union of India
Novartis AG challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which allowed a Miscellaneous Petition filed by Wockhardt Limited. Novartis argued that the IPAB exceeded its jurisdiction and violated procedural rules by permitting additional grounds and documents in the patent revocation case. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding it within its powers to regulate procedure based on principles of natural justice.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.
Wipro Enterprises Limited sought an interim injunction against Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark and tag line infringement regarding their glucose-based energy products. Wipro claimed that the defendant's use of 'VOLT' and similar tag lines was a deliberate attempt to trade on its goodwill associated with 'BOLTS.' However, the Madras High Court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, finding that Wipro had not established a prima facie case at this stage. The court held that the issue of protecting descriptive taglines like 'ANYTIME ANYWHERE' requires extensive evidence and must be decided during the full trial.
Mr.Veeramani Kannan v.M/s Super Audio (Madras) Private Limited
The singer (plaintiff) sued the music company (defendant) alleging that the defendant commercially exploited and streamed songs from the album 'Shiva Murugan Paamalai' without permission or royalties, violating the performer's rights under Section 38A of the Copyright Act. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had assigned all his performance rights for a lump sum consideration in an agreement dated 15.04.2015.
K.R. Ravi Rathinam v.The Director General Of Police and others
The petitioner, K.R. Ravi Rathinam, filed a Writ Petition seeking a detailed inquiry by police authorities into the alleged theft and unauthorized use of his story ('Mullai Vanam 999') in another film ('Linga'). The court dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute was private and that the appropriate remedy for intellectual property claims is through a Civil Suit or Criminal Law proceedings, not under Article 226.
Standard Corporation India Ltd. v.Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.
The appeal challenged an order that rejected a claim filed by Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. against Standard Corporation India Ltd. The suit involved allegations of copyright infringement and passing off related to tractor drawings. The appellant argued the suit was barred because the design had been used more than 50 times without registration under the Designs Act, 1911.
M/s.Shiva Tobacco Company v.Md.Zaheeruddin
The Madras High Court dismissed a review petition filed by M/s. Shiva Tobacco Company challenging the cancellation of their trademark registration (No. 1330146). The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) overlooked evidence of prior adoption and use dating back to 1962, citing Supreme Court precedents. However, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record, noting that the IPAB had already concluded there was insufficient material to prove continuous user since 1962, thereby upholding the cancellation decision.
Venkatraman Das v.M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited
This civil suit was filed by Venkatraman Das seeking permanent injunction against M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited for allegedly infringing his registered patent on a 'Disposable Armpit Perspiration Pad' (Patent No. 181248). The defendants challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the product was old and lacked novelty or inventive step. After examining the prior art, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any genuine innovation over existing knowledge. Consequently, the suit for infringement and rendition of accounts was dismissed.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.Aachi Aappakadai Chettinad A/c Restaurant
The Madras High Court dismissed the applicants' requests for an interim injunction, ruling that the trademark 'AACHI' is a common Tamil word associated with Chettinad cuisine. The court held that since the mark was deemed common, the applicants could not prevent others from using it in their restaurant business unless they could prove secondary meaning through evidence during trial. While the respondent was allowed to use the name 'AACHI', they were prohibited from adopting the applicant's registered oval-shaped label mark.
Kamat Hotels (India) Limited v.Royal Orchid Hotels Limited
Kamat Hotels challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to dismiss its rectification application, arguing that the rival mark 'Royal Orchid' infringed upon its well-known trademark 'The Orchid'. The Madras High Court upheld the IPAB's finding, concluding that the respondent had established prior use of their mark. The court emphasized that proceedings before a higher court are liable to be stayed during pending appellate proceedings under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act.
M.C.Jayasingh v.Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (Midhani)
M.C. Jayasingh filed a suit alleging infringement of his registered Patents and Designs concerning 'Custom Mega Prosthesis' (CMP), specialized medical implants used in limb salvage surgery. The plaintiff claimed unique features, such as pivotal hinge mechanisms and thrust bearing pads, provided superior articulation and durability to the prostheses. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish actual infringement against the defendants, concluding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove similarity in shape or configuration.
M/S. Nico Quality Products v.M/S. N.C. Arya Snuff And Cigar Co.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's applications for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The core issue revolved around an assignment deed transferring trademarks from the respondent firm to the petitioner. However, the court ruled that because this crucial assignment deed was insufficiently stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, it could not be admitted as evidence in the suit. Consequently, the injunctions were vacated, allowing the respondent to continue its operations.
M/s.La Renon Health Care Pvt. v.Union of India
M/s. La Renon Health Care Pvt. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its application to revoke Indian Patent No. 224100, which covered compositions for augmenting kidney function. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the IPAB order and direct the Controller General of Patents to cancel the patent granted to Kibow Biotech Inc. The Madras High Court examined the matter under supervisory jurisdiction, focusing on procedural fairness rather than substituting its own technical findings.
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.