Dismissed Decisions
316 cases | Page 4 of 11
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
M/s.Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited v.M/s.Indianpasand Inc.
M/s. Mohamed Aboobacker Chank Lungi Limited filed a civil suit against M/s. Indianpasand Inc. and other defendants, alleging trademark infringement (SANGU vs. SHIPPY), copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of their registered marks and artistic designs by the defendants. However, due to the current non-sale status of the disputed products, the plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the suit against the first defendant while retaining the liberty to file a fresh case if infringement occurs in the future.
Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited v.V.K.R.Venkatesan
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited seeking rectification and cancellation of a trade mark entry. The court noted that despite attempts to serve notice, the petitioner's address was insufficient, and their counsel confirmed they had no instructions to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Meenambigai Products v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Meenambigai Products against The Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought rectification of a trade mark registration entry (No. 1524417 in Class 30). However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite receiving proper court notice, the High Court dismissed the case without making any substantive order regarding costs.
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the refusal of their trademark application by The Registrar of Trademarks. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant chose to withdraw the case. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed (T)CMA(TM).No.56 of 2023 as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
Kurlon Limited v.M/S.Peps Industries Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trade Marks) filed by Kurlon Limited against M/S.Peps Industries Private Limited. The petition sought to rectify the trademark register by removing the mark 'NO TURN' held by the respondent. This dismissal was not based on merits but followed a settlement agreement reached between the parties, requiring the petitioner to withdraw the rectification request.
Ganesh Grains Limited v.K.R.Nagendra And K.N.Shoba; The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ganesh Grains Limited filed two Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the cancellation and expungement of specific registered trade marks (No. 460314 and No. 2000889). The petitions aimed to challenge the validity or registration of these marks. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw both Original Petitions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the proceedings as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop v.M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop
M/s.Murugan Idli Shop filed a civil suit against M/s.Sri Murugan Idli Shop, seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SRI MURUGAN IDLI SHOP.' The plaintiff claimed infringement of their registered trademark and copyright related to their business name and branding. However, during the proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel informed the court that the defendant was not operating under the impugned name, leading the plaintiff to withdraw the suit.
Titan Company Ltd. v.Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Titan Company Ltd. against Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the trade mark in question, No. 925369 (Class 20), had not been renewed since May 17, 2010. Since the long stop date for renewal had expired, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec, Inc. filed a miscellaneous petition seeking reinstatement of claim No. 32 in Patent Application No. 7133/CHENP/2009. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel was not pressing the petition and closed the matter at the SR stage.
M/s.Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v.M/s.Prestige Estates Project Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of rectification petitions filed by M/s. Prestige Buildwell Private Limited against M/s. Prestige Estates Project Ltd. The petitions sought to rectify, revoke, or cancel several trademark registrations based on alleged non-use. However, the court noted that the petitioner had previously admitted in civil proceedings that the first respondent was the registered proprietor of the 'Prestige' mark and undertook only to use a specific trading style ('Prestige Buildwell Private Limited'). Based on this prior agreement, the court closed the rectification petitions.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v.La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against La Renon Health Care Pvt.Ltd. and Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement of their Patent No. 224100, seeking an injunction, accounts, seizure, and Rs. 1 crore in damages. However, the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the suit.
M/s.Aloha India (A Division of K K Academy (P) Ltd) v.J.V.Vasantha Laxmi and others
M/s. Aloha India filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'ALOHA' and copyrighted educational materials by using the similar mark 'ALAMA'. The suit also claimed damages for passing off related to mental arithmetic and abacus education programs. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to appear before the court despite repeated notices and previous dismissals for non-prosecution, the Madras High Court dismissed the case for default.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation) v.Sharp Tools; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha against a trademark registration order. The core issue was whether to set aside the Deputy Registrar's decision that rejected Sharp's opposition to the mark 'SHARP.' However, the court found the appeal moot because the challenged trademark (No. 1185252) had lapsed and not been renewed since March 2013. Consequently, the legal challenge became infructuous.
Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust v.Samina Mahmood
The Madras High Court dismissed four original petitions filed by Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust seeking the revocation of several 'Headstart' trademark applications. The dismissal was based on a prior decree from Bengaluru, which included a memorandum of compromise. Under this agreement, the petitioner had undertaken not to infringe upon or pass off educational services using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. Given this binding commitment, the court found that the petitioner could no longer prosecute the revocation petitions.
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the registration of the mark “NANO CUR”. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because the appellant could not be served notice due to having vacated the specified office address.
Perennial Health Care India Private Limited v.Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court case involving Perennial Health Care India Private Limited and Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain was concluded when the petitioner chose to withdraw their original petitions. The petitions, which sought various remedies under the Trademarks Act, 1999, including removal of specific trademark entries in Class 5, were formally dismissed as withdrawn by the court on August 23, 2023.
Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier decision regarding its patent application. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.4 Square Pharmaceuticals Of ... and The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking the removal of Trademark No. 1803072 (XYDI). The court noted that the last registration for this trademark had expired on April 6, 2019. Since the underlying issue—the status of the mark's validity—had changed, the petition was deemed infructuous. Mankind Pharma was granted leave to re-apply should the trademark be restored.
M/s.Navketan Enterprises v.Sandeep A. Jain and The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Navketan Enterprises seeking the removal of an impugned trade mark from the register. The court noted that the petitioner had been instructed to withdraw the petition, citing a deed of assignment dated July 3, 2019, which transferred ownership of the mark to them. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed as withdrawn.
Dxn Holdings Bhd v.Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by Dxn Holdings Bhd seeking the removal of specific trademarks from the register. The court noted that the last registration date of the marks was in 2021, and crucially, the first respondent (Daehsan Trading) was found to be under liquidation. Given these developments, the petitions were deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps for mark removal.
Adhya Kumar v.Mulligan Concept Teachers Association
The petitioner, Adhya Kumar, filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and restore opposition proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3010257 in Classes 16 and 41. The appeal was ultimately closed after the court noted the prior decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Novozymes A/S v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Novozymes A/S filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) seeking to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No.1691/CHENP/2010. However, the learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed the court to withdraw the appeal.
Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. v.Narendra Kumar Gupta
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'KENNOL.' The court noted that the mark had been deemed abandoned because the first respondent failed to file a counter statement in response to the petitioner's opposition notice. Consequently, the original legal challenge became moot.
Mr. Syedmohideen v.Ms.B.SulochanaBai
The Madras High Court addressed the petition filed by Mr. Syedmohideen seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, IRUTTUKADAI. The petitioner had sought to challenge the registration of this mark held by Ms. B. Sulochana Bai. However, before any substantive hearing took place, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he intended to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed (T)OP(TM).No.118 of 2023 as withdrawn.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888. The petition, which sought to challenge the patent's validity, was contingent on its active status. However, upon submission of a document from the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, it was revealed that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
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.