Plaintiff Favorable
422 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
422 cases | Page 12 of 15
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd v.Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited
Devi Cropscience Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Sds Ramcides Cropscience Private Limited alleging infringement of its process and product patents related to a flowering stimulant containing Nitrobenzene. The defendant submitted that it had stopped manufacturing the product 'Dynamic Super' in November 2015 due to health hazards associated with Nitrobenzene. The court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions against the defendant.
M/s.Advaith Bio Remedies v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
M/s. Advaith Bio Remedies approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention regarding the undue delay in processing their trademark application for 'BIO CARE' (Application No. 3040849). The petitioner, which manufactures Ayurvedic medicines, argued that the prolonged wait was negatively impacting their business operations. The court intervened by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to prioritize and dispose of the pending application as expeditiously as possible.
Ahmed Hussain. B & Sebille Educations Private Limited v.Sh.Sunil Jethi & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition seeking rectification of the Trademark Register. The petitioners, owners of 'LITTLE EINSTEINS' in the education sector, successfully argued that the respondent's subsequent trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINZ,' was deceptively and phonetically similar to their prior registered mark. The court found that the adoption of the impugned mark was an attempt to deceive the public and capitalize on the petitioners' established goodwill, leading to the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Chandra Sekar v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Chandra Sekar challenged orders dismissing his two patent applications (Nos. 8846/CHENP/2011 and 8907/CHENP/2011) because the request for examination was filed late. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to calendaring errors and negligence on the part of the Indian agent, not his own.
M/s.Mahavir Home Appliances v.The Intellectual Property Appellate Board; The Registrar of Trade Marks; Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/s.Mahavir Home Appliances, setting aside an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The core issue revolved around the validity of associated trademarks related to the 'RALLY' mark. A new affidavit submitted by the Registrar of Trade Marks contradicted the IPAB's finding that the marks had lapsed, thereby supporting the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the High Court remitted the matter back to the IPAB for fresh consideration based on the corrected factual position.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.K.Balashankar
In a case concerning the salt market, Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully secured a permanent injunction against K.Balashankar after both parties entered into a compromise agreement. The court decreed the suit based on this settlement, affirming that the defendant must cease using the deceptively similar mark 'ANANDIPURNA' and its packaging. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks and copyrights in the FMCG sector.
Novartis AG v.Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging that Nutra Specialities Pvt. Limited was infringing its Indian Patent No. 212815 related to Vildagliptin API and formulations. The dispute was resolved after the defendant submitted an affidavit undertaking to cease all infringing activities, leading the court to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
S.M.Anand Vel v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs which deemed his patent application abandoned because it was not put in order within the prescribed time. The petitioner argued that since multiple sets of fresh objections were raised during the examination process, the abandonment could not be applied. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration.
M/s.Simco Thread Mills v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, Geographical Indications, Designs
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/s.Simco Thread Mills regarding the delay in processing its application for a change of constitution related to its registered trademark, SIMCO (label). The court directed the relevant Trademark Registry officials to process Forms TM-24, TM-33, and TM-34 pertaining to the trademark expeditiously, ensuring compliance with legal procedures. This ruling provides relief by mandating timely administrative action from the IP authorities.
M/s. Sivanesan & Co. v.M/s. Kanchan Home Appliances and others
The Madras High Court granted an absolute interim injunction in favor of M/s. Sivanesan & Co., who held the registered trademark 'Premier'. The court found that the defendants' use of 'Premier Dezire' constituted both infringement and passing off, causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation. This decision underscores the importance of continuous usage and established market presence when enforcing trademark rights.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB granting a plea of revocation made by private respondents. The dispute involved multiple patent infringement suits and corresponding revocation petitions/counter claims. The High Court addressed whether the Supreme Court's ruling on electing one remedy was affected by ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court.
Bayer CropScience AG v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bayer CropScience AG appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for long-chain inulin. The rejection was based on a lack of novelty and inventive step, arguing that the compound was merely isolated from artichoke roots. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the specific chain length and higher degree of polymerization achieved by fractionalizing the inulin constituted a novel invention with beneficial results.
Fdc Ltd. v.Union Of India
FDC Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had set aside the Assistant Controller's initial ruling against the petitioner regarding the revocation of Indian Patent No.197822. The core dispute centered on whether IPAB should have decided the merits or remanded the matter, and specifically, whether directing a fresh Opposition Board was legally sound.
Salzer Electronics Limited v.S.G.Controls & Switchgear (P) Ltd.
Salzer Electronics Limited appealed against a single judge's order that dismissed its applications seeking temporary injunctions regarding alleged infringement and passing off of its registered patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it lacked necessary details and discussion on the merits of the case.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Lunar Rubbers Private Limited
Nike Innovate C.V. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel several trademark registrations held by Lunar Rubbers Private Limited, citing non-use. Nike demonstrated extensive use and recognition of its 'LUNAR' technology across various footwear lines in India since 2009. The court found that the petitioner had discharged its initial burden of proving non-use, and despite the onus shifting to the respondent, Lunar failed to provide satisfactory evidence of continuous commercial use during the relevant five-year period. Consequently, the trademarks were ordered removed from the register.
NTT DoCoMo Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office; The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office; The Union of India
NTT DoCoMo Inc. challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to revive its Patent Application No.4851/CHENP/2007. The application was mistakenly withdrawn due to a clerical error committed by the petitioner's erstwhile patent attorneys, who interchanged the numbers of two related applications. The court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner was an innocent party and should not suffer injustice.
R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.N.K.Theatres Pvt. Ltd.
R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff/Appellant) sued M/s.N.K.Theatres Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) for copyright infringement related to the Telugu dubbing and remake rights of its movie '3', after the Defendant failed to pay the final installment amount due under the assignment agreement. The Defendant filed an application seeking arbitration, arguing that all disputes should be referred to arbitration. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the suit involves complex issues mixing payment dispute with copyright infringement against multiple parties, it cannot be bifurcated for arbitration.
Vodafone India Limited v.M/S. R.K. Productions Pvt Ltd
The suits were filed regarding the unauthorized copying, recording, reproduction, and distribution of cinematograph films '3' and 'Dhammu'. The court upheld the maintainability of the John Doe suits and clarified that the interim injunction was limited to blocking specific infringing URLs rather than entire websites. All applications seeking to vacate the existing interim orders were dismissed.
Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited (and Dr. Issac Mathai) v.Defendant/Respondent (unnamed in excerpt)
The Madras High Court granted interim injunctions in favor of Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited against the respondent. The court found that the respondent's use of deceptively similar marks like 'SOWKHYA' and associated domain names constituted trademark infringement and passing off, despite arguments regarding prior usage or delay. This ruling underscores the importance of registered trademarks in protecting service-based businesses from unauthorized imitation.
Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v.Union Of India
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Rhizome Distilleries, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark. The court held that the IPAB erred by applying grounds for refusal—which should have been raised at the time of initial registration—to a rectification application filed much later. Given that the petitioner had used the mark and faced prior objections which were withdrawn, the High Court found the subsequent attempt to cancel the mark was legally unsustainable.
Miss.Kajal Aggarwal v.The Managing Director, M/s.V.V.D. & Sons P.Ltd.
The actress, Miss. Kajal Aggarwal (Appellant), filed an appeal against the refusal to grant interim injunction, alleging that the Respondent used her image and profile for promoting their hair oil and coconut oil products after the one-year endorsement agreement expired. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the right to use the actress's profile is limited by the contract duration, thus granting the injunction.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed applications seeking permission to reserve its right to lead evidence concerning the invalidity of Bajaj Auto Limited's Patent No.195904, which was central to a suit challenging infringement by the product TVS Flame. The court found that due to the interconnected nature of the facts and issues in both suits, a joint trial was necessary.
Respondents/Plaintiffs v.Applicant/Defendant
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774 related to the cancer drug EROLTINIB HYDROCHLORIDE (TARCEVA). The defendant subsequently filed an application to revoke the leave granted by the court, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that since the defendant approached the IPA Board in Chennai with a revocation petition, a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Anu Ambraile Proprietrix M/s.AA Impex Company v.The District Collector Tiruvallur
Anu Ambraile challenged various orders related to the cancellation of her property mark registration and the subsequent seizure/confiscation of red sanders wood. The court ultimately found that the initial seizure and confiscation were void, upholding the judgment that the petitioner was not involved in illegal exports.
Mayil Traders v.Thiyagarajan
Mayil Traders, a long-established firm, filed an appeal against a judgment that favored its opponent, Thiyagarajan. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's use of 'RAGAM' and similar packaging for cigars constituted trademark infringement against Mayil Traders' registered mark 'RATHAM'. The court found that the marks were visually and phonetically too close, leading to potential consumer confusion.
Sheila Cine Arts v.Gemini Pictures Circuits Private Limited
The plaintiff, a cine film production firm, sued the respondent (a laboratory) for damages after copies of their film 'Manasu' were illegally pirated from the laboratory. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court appellate bench found that the defendant's employees were involved in video piracy and held them vicariously liable.
Electronic Machine Tools Limited v.Power Engineers
Electronic Machine Tools Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its registered patents (Nos. 188585 and 190675). The trial court rejected the plaint, finding no cause of action against the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaint did disclose a triable issue.
Nokia Corporation v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Corporation challenged the Deputy Controller's order which rejected its National Phase Application because it was filed after the stipulated 31-month deadline. The petitioner argued that Rule 138 allowed for a one-month extension and condonation of delay. The High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the application should be decided on merit under Rules 137 & 138.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v.TVS Motor Company Ltd.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. appealed against an order directing them (the defendant in the original suit) to start leading evidence, while Bajaj Auto was the appellant. The original suit filed by TVS Motor Company Ltd. claimed that its product, TVS Flame, did not infringe Patent No. 195904 held by Bajaj Auto. The court ruled that since the plaintiff's suit was for declaration of non-infringement and damages, they should have been directed to lead evidence first.
Yahoo! Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Yahoo! Inc challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's refusal to entertain its appeal against the Controller's order rejecting a patent application. The petitioner argued that the rejection under Section 25(1) should be construed as a decision under Section 15, allowing for an appeal. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the IPAB to hear the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity to the opposing party.
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.