Plaintiff Favorable
418 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
418 cases | Page 7 of 14
Kuraray Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Kuraray Co. Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a process involving PVA film for plant cultivation. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the specific properties (birefringence and swelling degree) of the PVA film provided unexpected excellent results.
India International Technical Institute v.Terala Educational Society
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by India International Technical Institute seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'SANSKRITI,' held by Terala Educational Society. The court noted that the mark's last registration was valid only up to March 23, 2020, and its renewal had long expired. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register within one month.
SELFDOT TECHNOLOGIES (OPC) PVT. LTD. v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appeal challenged an order rejecting a patent application (No. 201843023004) on the ground that the applicant contravened Section 39 of the Patents Act, leading to deemed abandonment under Section 40. The appellant argued that since the parent invention was first filed in India and the breach was technical, not substantive, the rejection should be overturned.
GOTO Technologies USA, Inc. v.Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of GOTO Technologies USA, Inc., allowing petitions to cancel several trademark registrations held by Sanikommu Venkata Ramalinga Reddy. The court found that the respondent had adopted the prominent 'GOTO' part of the petitioner’s established mark without justification. By demonstrating its long history and market presence, the petitioner successfully countered arguments regarding delay or lack of prior registration.
Anjay Bansal v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the rejection of a device mark registration applied for by Anjay Bansal. The initial refusal was based on the mark being non-distinctive or merely descriptive. However, the court found that the appellant successfully demonstrated long-standing use since 2005 through submitted invoices and annual reports. Citing the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court ruled that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use, allowing it to proceed to advertisement.
Legrand France and Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.Praveen Kumar Jain (Trading as Biocon Tapes India) and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the trade mark register, successfully canceling an identical registration of 'LEGRAND' held by Praveen Kumar Jain. The court found that the petitioner, Legrand France, had prior and extensive use of the arbitrary mark since 1970 in India, while the respondent's goods (adhesive tapes) were complementary to the petitioner's electrical products (switches). Given the identical nature of the marks and the likelihood of public confusion due to overlapping distribution channels, the court ruled that the later registration was made without sufficient cause.
M/s.Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd v.BHCosmetics LLC
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd, granting a petition for rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the first respondent's subsequent trade mark registration was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and established use of 'Blue Heaven.' Given that both marks are used in relation to cosmetics and related products, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the impugned registration (No. 4200085) from the register.
Lupin Limited v.Tablets (India) Limited
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier rejection order in favor of Lupin Limited, allowing its appeal against the registration of the mark 'CEFTRIL'. The court found that the Registrar's conclusion—that Lupin did not use its prior mark 'CEFF'—was erroneous and contradicted the evidence presented. Furthermore, given the 1st respondent's willingness to seek cancellation, the High Court directed the removal of the disputed trade mark from the register.
Compagnie De Saint-Gobain v.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India
Compagnie De Saint-Gobain filed applications alleging that Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India was continuing to use the protected Trade Mark 'SAINT-GOBAIN' for selling toughened glasses after their contract had been terminated. The respondents raised defenses regarding lack of compliance with mediation, contractual relationship, and arbitration clauses.
Cabot Corporation v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Cabot Corporation successfully challenged the refusal of its word mark 'PROPEL' by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The High Court overturned the rejection based on two cited marks. For the first mark, the court noted that the proprietor had subsequently consented to registration despite differences in goods. For the second composite mark, the court clarified that protection only extends to the entire composite device and not its individual elements unless separately registered. This ruling paves the way for 'PROPEL' to proceed toward trademark registration.
M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Limited v.Khoday India Limited
The Madras High Court set aside a previous rejection order, allowing M/s. Godfrey Phillips India Limited to successfully challenge the registration of 'Khoday's Red & White'. The court found that the appellant possessed a well-known trademark used since 1940 for cigarettes, and crucially noted the prolonged non-use of the mark by Khoday India Limited from its application date in 1995. This decision reinforces the importance of continuous use and reputation when challenging subsequent registrations.
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellants challenged the rejection of their patent application (No. 9445/CHENP/2013) by the Controller, which cited objections regarding insufficient disclosure and lack of clarity in the claims. The High Court held that the impugned order lacked the necessary specificity to enable the applicant to address the objections effectively.
Sheeja Menon trading as M's Shwethas Hygeine Products v.M/s. Novel Tissues Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, finding that the first respondent fraudulently registered an identical device mark (No. 2298691) in Class 16. The petitioner successfully demonstrated prior use and ownership rights over the mark for cosmetic wet wipes since 2011. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the impugned registration, preventing confusion in the market.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd.
Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit against Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered designs for pressure cookers and passing off due to the defendant's use of identical shapes, configurations, and phonetically similar marks like 'Svachh'. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
CRYTEK GmbH v.Hameed Firnas
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by CRYTEK GmbH, a German company specializing in computer games, seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the impugned mark registered to Hameed Firnas was deceptively similar to CRYTEK's earlier trademark and was likely to cause public confusion. Crucially, the respondent failed to provide any evidence of use for their mark despite being given an opportunity, leading the court to direct its cancellation.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.K. Sarinivas Reddy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. against K. Sarinivas Reddy for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SRI AROGYA,' coupled with a deceptively similar color scheme, get-up, and packaging design, infringed upon the plaintiff's registered mark 'AROKYA.' Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction to stop the unauthorized use and directed the defendant to pay costs.
Lombard Brands Ltd. v.United Spirits Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Lombard Brands Ltd against United Spirits Limited regarding the trade mark 'STORM'. The court found that the registration for STORM in Class 33 was liable to be cancelled because the first respondent failed to demonstrate continuous use of the mark for at least five years, as required under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the impugned trade mark from the register.
Shyam Enterprises Private Limited v.Hotel Amaravati
The Madras High Court partially decreed a suit filed by Shyam Enterprises Private Limited against Hotel Amaravati concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully proven its claim regarding the use of the registered trademark AMARAVATHI in the hotel and hospitality sector. Consequently, the defendant was granted permanent injunctions restraining them from using the mark or suggesting a connection to the plaintiff's services. However, since the plaintiff did not press for claims related to damages or accounting of profits, those specific reliefs were dismissed.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs
Huawei appealed an order rejecting its patent application (IN 4561) for a radio communication system. The appeal argued that the Patent Office failed to consider detailed arguments against obviousness and rejected amendments without proper justification. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of reasoned consideration and set it aside, remanding the matter.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
The Chinese University Of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4812/CHENP/2012), which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed invention—a process for fetal genomic analysis from maternal samples—was an unpatentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that determining foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not 'diagnostic' in the statutory sense, allowing the patent application to proceed to grant.
T.V.Nagarajan v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.Milka Nutriments Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Pioneer Bakeries, directing the removal of two specific trade marks (No. 821974 and No. 691534) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that both marks had long expired because their renewal periods had lapsed, making them liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision underscores the importance of timely maintenance and renewal of intellectual property rights.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2072/CHENP/2011) because the current set of amended claims were deemed beyond the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined whether the amendments expanded or narrowed the original claim scope and found that the specificity incorporated in the amended claims curtailed rather than expanded the original scope.
M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Sri Vinayaka Agro Industries for infringing the registered trade mark 'DHEEPAM' and engaging in passing-off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'V RICH DEEPAM OIL' and its deceptively similar packaging material constituted infringement, despite the defendant failing to appear in court. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known trademarks against confusingly similar marks.
Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. successfully appealed a rejection by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its word mark 'QuiK-Tap' for temperature measuring devices. The Madras High Court overturned the refusal, finding that the original order and grounds of decision were unsustainable and lacked proper reasoning. The court accepted the evidence of use provided by the appellant, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
Novozymes v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Novozymes appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs to grant a patent for its phytase variants. The rejection was based on Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection concerning claims 1-7, allowing the application to proceed towards grant.
FC Madras Trust v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by FC Madras Trust against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'FC MADRAS'. The initial objection was based on Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, claiming the mark was a common geographical name and lacked distinctive character. The court ruled that when viewed as a whole, the mark is not descriptive of the goods (printed publications), especially given its prior successful registration in other classes. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their device mark. The court found that when viewed as a whole—including the rooster image, stylized font, and corporate name—the mark was distinctive and did not fall under absolute grounds for refusal. Crucially, the prior registration of an identical mark in a related class bolstered the appellant's case, leading the court to set aside the objection and allow the application to proceed to registration.
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.