Judge Profile

Bench:K.M.Thaker

4 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.

Cases Presided Over

4 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent defendant favorable · Aug 28, 2014

Radhe Krishna Products - A Partnership Firm v.Parshottambhai Dharamshibhai Lunagriya

Gujarat High Court · C/SCA/410/2014

This petition challenged a trial court's order rejecting the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which argued that the respondent's second civil suit was not maintainable. The petitioners claimed that since the respondent had previously restricted their claims to copyright infringement after filing an initial suit alleging both copyright and passing off, they could not file a subsequent suit for similar relief. The High Court ultimately upheld the trial court's decision, finding no fault in the impugned order.

patent pending · Jul 18, 2013

Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & 3

Gujarat High Court · O/CS/1/2011

Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & others alleging patent infringement. The court framed multiple issues, including those related to the validity (novelty, inventive step) and infringement of the suit patents. Both parties agreed to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence.

patent mixed · Oct 12, 2010

Talod Gruh Udyog v.Bahuchar Gruh Udyog

Gujarat High Court · AO/108/2009

The Gujarat High Court disposed of an appeal challenging a trial court's rejection of interim relief in a trademark infringement case. Given the protracted nature of the dispute, the court directed the trial court to proceed with the main civil suit expeditiously, setting a deadline of December 31, 2011. Furthermore, the respondent was mandated to file half-yearly statements detailing the production and sales of the disputed products until the final disposal of the case.

patent mixed · Jun 13, 2008

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Alembic Limited

Gujarat High Court · AO/192/2008

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. challenged an ex-parte injunction passed by the lower court against it, which restrained the use of its trade mark GEMIMAC due to alleged similarity with Alembic Limited's reputed trade mark GERIMAC. The appellant argued that the injunction was granted without issuing prior notice or recording adequate reasons, violating procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Gujarat High Court admitted the appeal and intervened, restricting the scope of the injunction until a proper hearing could take place.

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 →