Outcome Category

Interim Order

at Madras High Court

12 interim order decisions from Madras High Court.

Interim Order Decisions

12 cases | Page 1 of 1

patent interim order · Dec 18, 2025

Kannan Gopalakrishnan v.Controller of Patents

Madras High Court · Writ Petition (IPD) No.36 of 2025

Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenged the proceedings of the Controller of Patents, arguing that his patent application for 'Solar Supplemental Power Source' was rejected and subsequently his review petition was dismissed without giving him a fair hearing opportunity. The petitioner sought to demonstrate the working prototype before the Patent Office.

trademark interim order · Jun 10, 2025

The Sun Products v.The Controller, Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks

Madras High Court · W.P(MD)No.7950 of 2024

The Sun Products filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Controller and Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to reject the application for registration of the trade mark 'Alagumayil' by Sri Hari Agency, citing similarity with the petitioner's existing trade mark 'Mayiil Oma Water'. The court disposed of the petition by directing the official respondents to consider the objection and conduct an enquiry within eight weeks.

patent interim order · Jan 28, 2025

United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited

Madras High Court · O.P. (PT) Nos.5 and 6 of 2024

The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.

patent interim order · Jan 28, 2025

United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited

Madras High Court · O.P. (PT) Nos.5 and 6 of 2024

The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking execution of Letters Rogatory issued by a US District Court. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' related to VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications. The court passed an order appointing a Local Commissioner and setting up protocols for evidence collection.

trademark interim order · Aug 13, 2024

Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · W.P.(IPD) Nos.4 to 14 of 2024

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.

design interim order · Feb 26, 2019

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown

Madras High Court · O.A.Nos.41 & 42 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm. Div) No.14 of 2022

The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not new and had been in use for decades. The Court ultimately disposed of the Original Applications on terms requiring the Respondent to maintain and submit quarterly accounts related to the sale of similar products.

design interim order · Feb 26, 2019

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown

Madras High Court · O.A.Nos.41 & 42 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm. Div) No.14 of 2022

The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not novel and had been in public use for decades. The Court found that while the balance of convenience was not clearly in favor of granting injunctive relief immediately, it directed the Respondent to maintain detailed quarterly accounts regarding sales and profits of similar products.

patent interim order · Jul 6, 2012

A.R. Safiullah v.A. Sowkath Ali

Madras High Court · O.A.Nos.304 to 306 of 2009 in C.S.No.282 of 2009

The petitioner sought ad-interim injunctions against the respondents regarding infringement of his registered patent (No. 198079) and registered design (No. 182931), as well as passing off related to artificial laminated banana leaves. The court found that while the claim for restraining patent infringement was not grantable, interim injunctions were allowed for design infringement and passing off.

patent interim order · Nov 25, 2009

The v.Milap Chand & Co

Madras High Court · A.Nos.5833 to 5835 of 2009 and O.A.Nos.948 to 950 of 2009 in C.S.No.803 of 2009

The plaintiff, a company manufacturing 'Rubber Track Combine Harvester', filed suit and applications alleging infringement of its copyrights (in drawings/parts) and registered designs by the defendant. The dispute centered on whether the defendant's similar harvester machine violated the plaintiff's IP rights.

copyright interim order · Nov 3, 2009

Compendiously And Concisely v.For A Decree Of Permanent And ...

Madras High Court · A.Nos.5776 and 5777 of 2009 & O.A.No.1111 of 2009 in C.S.No.963 of 2009

The plaintiffs filed a civil suit and an application for interim injunction, alleging that the defendants were illegally tapping/receiving/recording signals of various TV channels (Sun TV, K TV, etc.) and infringing their Broadcast Reproduction Rights and Copyright. The first defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court based on the TRAI Act, but the court dismissed these applications.

patent interim order · Oct 23, 2009

Compendiously And Concisely v.For A Permanent Injunction Restraining ...

Madras High Court · OA.Nos.650, 651 and 652 of 2009 and A.Nos.2772 and 2773 of 2009 in C.S.No.546 of 2009

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and destruction of infringing goods against the defendants for violating their Patent No. 230421 (RTIB) and several associated designs. The dispute centered on whether the defendants' imported stainless steel vacuum bottles were deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' patented product. The court disposed of the applications by granting specific injunctions while dismissing the general injunction pending final disposal of the suit.

trademark interim order · Jul 25, 1990

Lakshmi Pvc Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakshmi Polymers

Madras High Court · null

The plaintiff filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from issuing circulars or notices threatening legal action for passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the trade mark 'Lakshmi' for PVC pipe fittings by both parties, with the defendant claiming prior use and having applied for registration.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →