Plaintiff Favorable
440 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
440 cases | Page 8 of 15
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing various objections, including issues with method claims and lack of clarity. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that procedural lapses did not justify the rejection when substantive changes had been made to address the SER objections.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978). The Controller rejected the application citing lack of clarity in method claims and unnecessary amendments. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the grounds for rejection were not based on merits, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural failures and misinterpretations, despite having addressed substantive objections raised in the Second Examination Report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802) by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding Form-3 filing delay. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds for rejection were untenable and remanding the matter.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application. The Controller rejected the application citing various deficiencies, including improper numbering and lack of invention in certain claims. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that procedural errors did not justify the outright rejection, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application (No. 201947028978). The rejection was based on various objections, including lack of novelty and clarity in claims. The High Court found that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Laticrete International, Inc. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.
Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. v.India G6 Hospitality Ip Llc
The Madras High Court set aside an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) that had removed a trademark belonging to Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner successfully argued that the IPAB's decision was ex parte, having been passed without affording them a proper hearing due to their inability to engage counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the matter be presented before an appropriate bench for fresh consideration.
M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited v.Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office
The Madras High Court overturned the Senior Examiner's objections against Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited's trade mark applications. The court found that the device mark was inherently distinctive and disregarded the examiner's narrow focus on the words alone. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the acceptance of the mark for advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over its constituent words when used individually.
CCL Product (India) Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.
M.S.Earthevents (I) Private Limited v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside an administrative order that had removed a registered trademark (No. 1249884) from the register. The appellant successfully argued that the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically by not issuing the required notice (Form O-3) to the proprietor before taking action. Consequently, the court allowed the appellant to take necessary steps for the renewal of their trademark.
N.C.Nanu v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by N.C.Nanu, whose trademark application for 'PAYYOLI MIXTURE' was deemed abandoned by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that the petitioner had complied with Section 21(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, as the initial counter statement was filed within the stipulated two-month period from receiving the notice of opposition. The High Court quashed the abandonment order and directed the Registry to consider the application on its merits.
Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopa Lakshmi Bhat; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Spalon India Pvt. Ltd.'s application for rectification against Trademark No. 2280919. The court noted that the last registration of the mark had expired on February 10, 2022, making its continued presence in the Register invalid. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the entry from Classes 3, 41, and 44 within four weeks.
Insta Rooms Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection of Insta Rooms Private Limited's device mark application. The Examiner had objected that the mark was highly descriptive of temporary accommodation services. However, the court ruled that when considered as a whole—including the visual elements (bed and lamp) alongside the words 'Insta Rooms Book Instantly'—the mark possesses sufficient distinctiveness to overcome the Section 9 objections. The registration was allowed, though with a caveat limiting the appellant's exclusive rights over the individual words 'insta' or 'rooms'.
World Animal Protection v.The Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Examiner's rejection of World Animal Protection's device mark application. Although the court acknowledged that the individual words are descriptive, it ruled that when considered as a composite device mark, the registration was sufficiently distinctive to warrant protection. The appeal was allowed, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over the constituent words.
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.