Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd.

Western Engineering Co.vsPaul Engineering Co.

The petitioner applied for the revocation of the respondent's cycle lock design (No. 127199) under Section 51-A of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The petitioner argued that their earlier registered design (No. 125728) was prior art and that the respondent's design lacked novelty or originality. After examining the designs, the court found sufficient similarity to allow the application.

Paresh Ajitkumar KapoorvsController Of Patents And Designs And Ors.

The appellant, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller cancelling his registered design for an Air Cooler (No. 233559) based on alleged prior publication in China. The appeal contended that the cancellation relied only on insufficient evidence from the CNIPA website and ignored previous rejections of similar claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Thermo Electrics Madras ManufacturingvsP.R.Gopalakrishnan

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for committing piracy through fraudulent imitation of four registered designs (No. 193288, 193289, 193290, 193291) related to Extraction and Heating Mantles. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had access to their trade secrets and designs during his employment with the second plaintiff, leading to unauthorized imitation.

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy JvsUnknown

The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not new and had been in use for decades. The Court ultimately disposed of the Original Applications on terms requiring the Respondent to maintain and submit quarterly accounts related to the sale of similar products.

Nec CorporationvsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs

The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUIs constitute an 'article' or possess permanence were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding all matters for fresh consideration.