Mixed Decisions
106 cases | Page 2 of 4
Idemia Identity & Security France v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Idemia Identity & Security France challenged a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents, which denied patent protection for its invention related to 'Cryptography on a simplified elliptical curve'. The respondents argued that the invention was merely a mathematical formula or business method, thus falling under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. However, the Madras High Court quashed the rejection order, finding it arbitrary and non-speaking because the respondents failed to address key contentions raised by the appellant regarding its technical contribution.
S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27) v.The Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)
The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited
The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited
The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Aachi Spices and Condiments Private Limited (and others) v.Aachiamman Chit Funds Private Limited
This appeal before the Madras High Court Commercial Appellate Division challenged a summary judgment that dismissed a suit for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, owners of registered trademarks related to 'AACHI', argued that the judgment was flawed because it was rendered without hearing their arguments. The court found that the impugned judgment proceeded solely on perusal of the plaint and failed to consider the plaintiffs' submissions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Division for a fresh legal drill.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
Geoscope Exim Private Limited v.Snj Distillers Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal filed by Geoscope Exim Private Limited challenging an interlocutory order regarding passing off. The court noted that the main suit was at an advanced stage and, based on mutual agreement between counsel, decided to dispose of the appeal without expressing a definitive view on the merits. This decision allows the Commercial Division to proceed with the final arguments in the original infringement and passing-off case.
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.
V.Sundaresan & Ors. v.Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.
The Madras High Court addressed multiple appeals and petitions concerning a trademark infringement dispute over the 'Varalakshmi' brand name used for sago/sabudana products. Recognizing the overlap between the appellate issues and the main suit, the Court directed the Commercial Court to expedite the original trademark suit within 16 weeks. Crucially, while vacating previous stays on proceedings, the High Court ensured that the existing interim order from the lower court would remain in effect until the final judgment of the main suit.
Naveel Danish v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Madras High Court judgment, the court addressed a writ petition seeking direction for the re-examination of Trademark Application No. 55070330. The petitioner sought intervention to compel the Registrar to act on previous representations requesting fresh examination and criminal proceedings. While the initial prayer was broad, the court ultimately directed the Registrar to proceed with fresh orders in accordance with law, ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity during the process.
Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd v.M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited
The Madras High Court partially decreed the suit filed by Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd against M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using or passing off the identical mark 'TINTOMETER' in relation to colorimeter products, and ordered the surrender of infringing materials for destruction. While rejecting the claim for specific damages, the court passed a preliminary decree compelling the defendants to render true accounts of profits made through the use of the disputed trademark.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.The Advertising Standards Council of India
Reckitt Benckiser challenged an order passed by the learned Judge which rejected its application for an interim injunction against The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Reckitt, a manufacturer of consumer health products like MORTEIN mosquito repellent, sought to prevent ASCI from adjudicating complaints against its new product advertisements. The Madras High Court ultimately found that the suit did possess cause of action and jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, setting aside the initial order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
M.Anees Ahmed (M/s.Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by M.Anees Ahmed concerning the alleged misuse of his trade name, "Ambur Star Briyani," by the defendant, "Star Briyani." The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing-off, as well as a declaration that his mark is a 'well-known mark.' The court examined the long history and extensive public recognition of the plaintiff's brand, which traces its origins back to 1890. While the judgment details the claims for relief, it appears to be an interim or procedural order given the lack of detailed findings on merits in the provided excerpt, setting the stage for further litigation.
Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Vibrant Concepts And Designs
Maya Appliances Private Limited filed suits alleging that Vibrant Concepts And Designs infringed upon its intellectual property rights, specifically concerning its patented technology and registered designs for frameless gas cooktops. The plaintiff claimed their products were world's first and featured unique design elements and a patentable internal piping system providing visual leak feedback. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement, it dismissed the interim injunction applications, directing both parties to proceed to trial.
Idamakanti Madhusudhana Reddy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register 'Doctor Reddys Path Labs,' which was based on similarity to an existing mark. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that the word 'Reddy' is generic and that the marks operate in different classes of goods/services (Pathology vs. Pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the High Court mandated a fresh review by the Registry, requiring it to consider Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, even if opposition from a well-known mark arises.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
Mansoor Ahamed v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Mansoor Ahamed's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register his trademark 'ATTITUDE' under Class 25. The court found that the appellant's mark was inherently distinctive, possessed a unique graphical representation, and had established international recognition and market presence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's observations.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & M/s.Aachi Masala Foods Private Limited, M/s.Flora Foods v.Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, Zomato Limited, Swiggy India
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and associated entities alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, alongside online platforms Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar names like 'KARAIKUDI AACHI BRIYANI MANDI' and mandatory orders to remove these listings from digital platforms. While the judgment details the extensive claims for injunctions and removal, it does not provide a final conclusive ruling on all reliefs in this excerpt.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited v.Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India initiated a civil suit against Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan alleging trademark infringement and passing off regarding the use of similar names in the hotel and food business. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, long-standing usage since 1974, and registered trademarks for 'VASANTA BHAVAN.' Although the defendant was set ex parte, the court proceeded based on the plaintiff's evidence to address claims of deceptive similarity and irreparable harm.
M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd v.Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute regarding the proper forum for trademark rectification proceedings between Prestige Estates Projects Ltd and Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that when an infringement suit is pending, questions concerning the validity of a trademark registration should be handled by the High Court, not solely by the Registrar of Trademarks. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of all related rectification petitions from the Registrar's office to the High Court for adjudication.
M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd v.Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute regarding the proper forum for trademark rectification proceedings between Prestige Estates Projects Ltd and Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that when an infringement suit is pending, questions concerning the validity of a trademark registration should be handled by the High Court, not solely by the Registrar of Trademarks. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of all related rectification petitions from the Registrar's office to the High Court for adjudication.
Living Seed Technologies Llp. v.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.
Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited v.M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity
In a trademark rectification case, Titan Paints And Chemicals Private Limited sought to register its mark against an existing registration held by M/s.Titan Company Limited Integrity. Initially, the respondent opposed the petition based on deceptive similarity and infringement concerns. However, during the proceedings, the first respondent withdrew its objection regarding the petitioner's use of the mark under clause 2. Consequently, the Madras High Court directed the Registrar to consider the petitioner's application anew (de novo), effectively clearing the path for registration.
M/s.Carborundum Universal Limited v.Selvam Hardwares
In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
Vennila Clothing Company v.M/s.Arrs Silks
Vennila Clothing Company filed a suit against M/s.Arrs Silks alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('RAMRAJ'/'RAJARAM') and copyright over its trade dress in the textile industry. The core dispute centered on the unauthorized use of deceptively similar labels by the defendants, leading to claims for injunction, damages, and account of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement via a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (MOC).
Optimus Drugs Private Limited v.Union of India
Optimus Drugs Private Limited challenged the hearing notice issued during the post-grant opposition proceedings against Patent No. 281489 for 'An improved process for the preparation of Linezolid'. The petitioner argued that since both parties filed additional evidence after the initial Opposition Board recommendations, a fresh board should be constituted to consider all facts and amended claims. The Madras High Court agreed with this contention, directing the Controller of Patents to reconstitute the Opposition Board and examine the entire record expeditiously.
Ved Prakash Malhotra (M/s. S.P. Products) v.M/s.Abhinav Export Corporation
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an opposition against a trademark application ('BLACK GOLD'). The court analyzed claims of similarity and prior use between 'BLACK N GOLD' (appellant) and 'BLACK GOLD' (respondent). While acknowledging the marks are nearly identical, the court found that the respondent successfully established honest concurrent use dating back to 1992. Consequently, the respondent was granted the benefit of Section 12, but their rights were narrowly restricted solely to henna hair dye products.
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.