Plaintiff Favorable
422 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
422 cases | Page 3 of 15
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd. v.Mr.Tallam Uma Shankar Gupta
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'GYPLOCK' (No. 3536418). The petitioner, Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd., successfully argued that its established trademark 'GYPROC' was similar to the impugned mark and used on identical goods—building materials. Despite arguments regarding common trade terms ('GYP'), the court found the overall similarity between 'GYPROC' and 'GYPLOCK' likely to cause confusion, thereby protecting the purity of the register.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent recommendation made by the Patent Office in a post-grant opposition application filed by Low Cost Standard Therapeutics. The petitioner argued that the process violated the Patents Act, 1970, specifically by denying them an opportunity to present evidence. The High Court quashed the impugned notice and the Board's earlier recommendations.
Mr. M. Anees Ahmed (M/s Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Ambur Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. M. Anees Ahmed, granting a permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'STAR AMBUR BRIYANI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AMBUR STAR BRIYANI,' which is associated with his restaurant business. While the claim for destruction of infringing stock was rejected due to lack of evidence, the suit was partly decreed.
Disys India Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to grant registration for the mark 'DISYS'. The appeal argued that the refusal, based solely on phonetic similarity to another mark ('DISYSO'), failed to consider evidence of the appellant's long-standing use and acquired distinctiveness. The court found the original order was a non-speaking order, necessitating a remand back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application on its merits.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu
Financiere Batteur Sas successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel a registered trademark, 'Physiolac AR,' held by Kalai Arasu. The petitioner argued that the mark was adopted in bad faith and had suffered prolonged non-use, violating Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court agreed, finding that the lack of genuine use for over five years demonstrated malafide intent to ride on the petitioner's established international reputation. Consequently, the trademark registration was ordered to be removed from the Register.
Shanmugavadivel v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Shanmugavadivel against an order passed by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The core issue was that the Registrar dismissed the appellant's review petition without providing a hearing, despite a scheduled date being fixed. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registry for fresh consideration on merits after ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard.
Department of Atomic Energy v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The Department of Atomic Energy challenged an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents refusing to process its patent application No. 201921029932, citing a delay in submitting the power of attorney. The petitioner argued that they had substituted a fresh power of attorney which was accepted by the respondents. The High Court quashed the refusal order, finding it passed without proper consideration and violating natural justice.
Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG against the refusal of its trademark registration for 'REPELLAN'. The court found that the Assistant Registrar's original order was cryptic, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice because it failed to consider the appellant's detailed arguments regarding the difference in goods (textile vs. construction) between 'REPELLAN' and the cited mark 'REPELLIN'. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the Registrar was directed to publish the trademark for public opposition.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Rpd Workstations Private Limited
Lenovo successfully challenged the registration of the mark 'THINBOOK' belonging to Rpd Workstations Private Limited in the Madras High Court. Lenovo, asserting its status as the originator and exclusive proprietor of the 'THINK Family of Marks,' demonstrated that the impugned mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to its established brand. The court ruled in favor of Lenovo, directing the cancellation and removal of the infringing trademark from the Register, thereby protecting Lenovo's goodwill and reputation in the market.
The Research Foundation for the State University of New York v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting its patent application, citing issues with both claim amendments and failure to meet the time limit for filing the National Phase Application. The court found that the respondent failed to properly consider the provisions allowing condonation of delay (Rule 138) and erroneously rejected the application based on non-application of mind.
Neetha Madala (Proprietor of M/s.Harsha Hospitals) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Neetha Madala's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting aside an earlier refusal to register her device mark 'HARSHA HOSPITALS'. The court found that the Registrar had issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without clearly explaining how the mark infringed Sections 9 or 11 of the Act. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant had subsequently registered other marks, strengthening her claim for distinctiveness in her specific class (Class 44). Consequently, the application was restored and directed to proceed with the trademark registration process.
Samsudeen A v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Salama Eye Hospital Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Samsudeen A against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to abandon a trademark application. The core issue was whether service via email, as per TM Rules, was sufficient when the applicant claimed non-receipt of the opposition notice. Applying a purposive interpretation in the interest of justice, the court ruled that since the appellant could not prove receipt, he was deemed not to have received the notice, thereby quashing the abandonment order and allowing him a chance to file his counter-statement.
Monster Energy Company v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Monster Energy Company's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'SUPER FUEL.' The court found that the Registrar erred by comparing 'SUPER FUEL' (for non-alcoholic beverages) with a similar existing mark ('FUEL') used for different products. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be allowed to publish the trademark in the journal, allowing any third parties to file opposition petitions on merits.
Beerco Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Beerco Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar's refusal to register its trademark 'BeerCo' under Class 32. The court found that the initial rejection was based on a non-speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's existing registrations for similar marks. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing the Registrar to allow publication of BeerCo in the Trademark Journal so that third parties could raise any objections.
France Telecom v.Union of India
France Telecom filed a Writ Petition challenging orders from the Patent Office which returned its patent application because the request for examination was made beyond the statutory 48-month limit. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to an error by their Indian agent, constituting exceptional circumstances. The Court accepted this argument and set aside the impugned orders.
Mr.Rahul Bagga v.The Controller of Patent
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on two grounds: that the amendment sought changed the scope of invention (violating Section 59), and that the subject matter lacked substantial benefit to mankind (Section 3(b)).
KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Patent Controller regarding its patent application for a live scene recognition system that filters objectionable content before recording. The Controller rejected the claim based on lack of inventive step, citing two pieces of prior art (D1 and D2).
Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
Mr.A.Salaudeen v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application, which had been rejected by the Controller despite prior rulings from the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court found that the Controller disregarded established legal precedent and allowed the appeal.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201948026247) by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi. The appeal argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Syngenta Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal.
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748028185) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court agreed, finding the rejection contrary to established law.
R. & D. S.R.L. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
R. & D. S.R.L. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application (No. 8850/CHENP/2012) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking, failing to provide reasons for rejecting the application or disallowing amended claims. The High Court agreed, finding the decision unsupported by adequate reasoning.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation regarding the amendments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The High Court found that the impugned order was unreasoned because the Controller failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite it being provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Just Lime My Child Foundation v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Just Lime My Child Foundation against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration of the word mark 'GIRL POWER PROJECT.' The court found that the Respondent erred by dissecting the composite mark and incorrectly deeming it descriptive. Crucially, the court emphasized that a composite mark must be evaluated as a whole, not in isolation, thereby upholding the distinctiveness of the foundation's brand.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
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.