Plaintiff Favorable
418 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
418 cases | Page 4 of 14
M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries
The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
Cosmetic Warriors Limited v.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Cosmetic Warriors Limited against Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding the trademark 'BIOMIC SCIENCE'. The court accepted the argument that despite registering the mark in 2012, the first respondent had failed to put it to substantial use in commerce. Consequently, the registration entry was rectified and removed.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The appeal addressed objections concerning lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and ambiguity in claim language. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, allowing the patent to proceed subject to specific amendments and deletions.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure, despite multiple pre-grant oppositions citing prior art. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order, directing that the patent proceed to grant after specific amendments were made to address clarity issues.
Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited v.Jona'S Cafe
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited, finding that Jona'S Cafe was infringing upon its registered trademark 'JONAH'S' and engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'JONA'S,' despite a minor alteration, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, especially given their proximity and identical business sector (food chain). Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions and directed the defendant to pay damages based on profits earned.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order that his patent application was deemed abandoned due to a four-day delay in responding to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to a clerical error. The High Court found the reasons acceptable, noting the minimal delay and the Controller's failure to properly address the Rule 137 application.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order that deemed his patent application abandoned due to a four-day delay in filing the response to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to clerical error, and that the Controller had sufficient power to condone such irregularities. The High Court found the reasons acceptable and condoned the delay.
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited's appeal, setting aside the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its 'BONUS' trademark application. The court accepted the appellant's plea of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, despite a phonetic conflict with an existing mark ('BONUSS'). The judgment emphasized that prior usage, even in different classes, can establish bona fides, allowing for registration.
Genentech, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Genentech appealed the rejection of its patent application for a medicinal compound, 'Inhibitors of IAP', by the Controller. The Controller rejected the claims citing lack of novelty and inventive step under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Controller's objections farfetched.
Ollos Biotech Private Limited v.Omega Ecotech Products India Limited
Ollos Biotech Private Limited filed an Original Petition to revoke Patent No.411774 granted to Omega Ecotech Products India Limited. The petitioner contended that the invention lacked novelty, inventive step, and was patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that both the product claim and method claim lacked an inventive step or novelty based on prior art and non-patent literature.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trade Mark and Geographical Indications
Malikie Innovations Limited appealed against the Patent Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its file system software. The Controller had raised objections primarily under Section 3(k), arguing it was pure software lacking hardware limitations. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, concluding that since the invention relates only to software and is permissible under existing guidelines, the refusal should be set aside.
M/s.Star Plastics v.Chandrasekhar
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Office's decision to reject its patent application concerning a gene sequence designed to increase plant biomass. The appellant argued that the rejections were based on misconceptions regarding claim scope, subject matter eligibility (3j), and inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Nripendra Kashyap v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting his patent application for a reference signal design in cellular communication systems, citing objections under Sections 10(4) and 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the amendments were merely cosmetic substitutions and criticized the Controller's cryptic rejection, ultimately allowing the appeal.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's issuance of a pre-grant hearing notice, arguing that it had not been provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opposers. The court found this procedural lapse and set aside the notice.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Qualcomm appealed the Controller General's order rejecting its patent application for an invention related to pilot transmission in wireless communication systems. The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of hardware support (Section 3(k)) and lack of novelty/inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)).
Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The appeal challenged the Patent Controller's decision, arguing that the Controller failed to properly address objections related to amendments and fell back on earlier claims without due process.
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The rejection was based on various objections including lack of novelty and insufficiency of disclosure. The High Court found that the Controller erred by falling back on earlier claims after the applicant had made amendments, without issuing a proper hearing notice regarding the new objection (Sec. 59).
BASF SE v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
BASF SE appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application for an 'Auxiliary spring having axially running contour elements'. The rejection was based on various objections, including procedural and technical ones. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the cosmetic objection should not deny the applicant their rights, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Puma Se v.K.Srinivasan Trading as K.Srinivasan Mills & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Puma Se's petition for rectification, directing the removal of a conflicting trade mark registration (No. 2892343) held by K.Srinivasan Mills. The court found that the leaping cat depicted in the respondent's label bore a strong resemblance to Puma's registered 'leaping puma' logo. This ruling reinforces the principle that established trademark proprietors are entitled to protect their distinctive logos against confusingly similar marks, even if those marks operate in related classes.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
International pharmaceutical companies (Petitioners) challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent. They argued that the Board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by them under Rule 60, due to inaction by the Patent Controller.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Union of India, The Controller of Patents & Designs, Zydus Healthcare Limited
The petitioners, international pharmaceutical companies, challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent (IN340060). They argued that the board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the petitioners. The court found that the Controller's failure to pass orders on procedural applications led to an incomplete scrutiny, thus vitiating the recommendations.
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Voicemonk Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Voicemonk Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a system and method related to content recommendation using Augmented Reality. The Controller had raised objections regarding lack of clarity, subject matter eligibility (Section 3(k)), and novelty/inventiveness (Sections 2(1)(j) and 10(4)).
GenSquare LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, Patent Office
GenSquare LLC appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing its divisional patent application. The refusal was primarily based on the ground that the divisional claims did not flow from the original parent application. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller's reliance on an overruled judgment was flawed.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Majji Suresh
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to strike off a confusingly similar trademark, 'PEPPS,' registered by Majji Suresh. The court found that the mark PEPPS bears striking phonetic and visual resemblance to PepsiCo's globally recognized mark, PEPSI. Given PepsiCo's established reputation and well-known status of its brand, the court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Alpha Foundation for Education and Research v.Akara Education Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed multiple appeals filed by Alpha Foundation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to treat their opposition as abandoned. The court ruled that the failure of the Registrar to provide proof of service of the counter statement was fatal, overriding procedural delays in filing evidence. Consequently, the opposition has been restored, and the challenged trademark registrations have been held in abeyance pending a full hearing on the merits.
Hygieia, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Hygieia appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10225/CHENP/2013) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on various grounds, including Section 59, which alleged that the amended claims exceeded the original specification. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that a patent specification must be read as a whole.
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.