Outcome Category

Dismissed

at Supreme Court of India

4 dismissed decisions from Supreme Court of India.

Dismissed Decisions

4 cases | Page 1 of 1

patent dismissed · Nov 29, 2013

M/s Paragon Rubber Industries v.M/s Pragati Rubber Mills

Supreme Court of India · Civil Appeal No.10745 of 2013 (and C.A.No.10746 of 2013)

This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute concerning the territorial jurisdiction for a composite suit filed by Paragon Rubber Industries against Pragati Rubber Mills. The core issue was whether a suit claiming relief under both the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, could be maintainable in the court where the plaintiff resided. While the High Court initially found the composite suit not maintainable, it allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the amendment liberty.

patent dismissed · Oct 1, 2008

Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.

Supreme Court of India · CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6004-6018 OF 2008

The Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning patentability issues involving crystal modification of an N-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative. The core issue was the absence of a qualified Technical Member in the Intellectual Property Appellant Board (IPAB).

patent dismissed · Aug 21, 2008

J.Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Controller of Patents & Desig. & Ors.

Supreme Court of India · Civil Appeal No. OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15729 of 2008)

The Supreme Court addressed the confusion arising from the postponed commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The dispute involved pending pre-grant opposition appeals filed by Span Diagnostics Limited challenging a rejection order by the Controller of Patents.

trademark dismissed · Mar 26, 2001

Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited

Supreme Court of India · Appeal (civil) 2372 of 2001 / Special Leave Petition (civil) 15994 of 1998

The dispute arose from a suit filed by Cadila Healthcare Limited against Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited regarding the use of trade marks Falcigo and Falcitab for drugs treating cerebral malaria. The appellant claimed that the respondent's mark would cause passing off due to confusing similarity, especially since both were medicines of last resort.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →