Bench:N.Seshasayee
117 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
117 cases indexed | Page 3 of 4
Tempting Brands Ag v.Mr.Parasmal Purohit
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Tempting Brands Ag, ordering the cancellation of Mr. Parasmal Purohit's registered trademark (No. 1690863). The court found that the respondent had literally copied the petitioner's mark, making only a minor cosmetic change ('66' to '69'). The judgment strongly condemned this act as theft and dishonest adoption, reinforcing the principle of protecting prior rights against subsequent imitation.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a communication system. The appellant argued that the grounds of rejection were not properly disclosed or overlooked by the Controller. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
S.Sudhakar v.K.Priya
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed for the rectification of the Trademarks Register, directing the cancellation of K. Priya's 'UDAYA MASALA' mark. The court relied on a prior final judgment in an infringement suit which had already established that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered marks ('UDHAIYAM'). This decision reinforces the principle that successful infringement litigation can serve as a basis for seeking cancellation of confusingly similar trademarks.
Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Chirec Public School's petition seeking to expunge a registered trademark (CHIREC) belonging to Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited. The court held that since the petitioner had not obtained prior leave from the trial court, and was reserving its right to file a fresh rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the current filing was legally unsustainable. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for challenging trademark registrations.
Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a previous rejection by the Trade Marks Registry. The core issue was the similarity between the appellant's registered word mark 'ORKID' and the respondent's applied-for word mark 'ORZID' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products). The Court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were visually similar and capable of causing confusion, thereby directing the rectification of the trademark register.
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Aratana Therapeutics appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201747026233), which related to a weight-gaining compound for animals with chronic maladies. The appellant argued that their claims were limited to oral administration methods and did not claim a permanent cure, contrary to the Controller's interpretation under Section 3(i).
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks; K.Suma Trading as Suma Oil Agencies
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark registration, arguing it was deceptively similar to its own mark. The petitioner also noted that the rival trademark had expired and not been renewed. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as having become infructuous, effectively upholding the status quo regarding the challenged registration.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Orchid Healthcare (A Division Of)
The Madras High Court allowed Alkem Laboratories Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's decision to register 'TAXTAM'. The court found that despite the registry listing several differences (such as product type or price), the marks 'TAXIM' and 'TAXTAM' were phonetically and visually deceptively similar. Citing established legal precedent, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the rectification of the Trademark Register to protect Alkem's prior rights.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Methods and Apparatus for Estimating Departure Time'. The rejection was based on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned proceedings too cryptic and lacking in reasoning, leading it to allow the appeal.
R.K.Steel Industries Partnership Firm v.R.K.Impex India Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by R.K.Steel Industries seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by R.K.Impex India Private Limited. The court found that there was considerable visual similarity between the two marks, specifically due to the shared 'R.K.' letters and the display of screw sizes on the label. Given this striking resemblance, the court ruled that the mark registered in 2019 could confuse consumers and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories, setting aside an order by the Trade Mark Registry that had declared its opposition to a rival mark ('LIBOSE') as abandoned. The core issue was whether the Registry properly served the counter statement to the appellant. The court held that since the Registry failed to provide concrete proof of service—relying only on a website notification—the principle of natural justice was violated, necessitating the remand of the matter.
Amit R Gowda v.C.Kiran Trading As A And A Fitness Training Center; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Amit R Gowda seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 3065086 in Class 41. The court noted that the Registry's notice to the petitioner was returned as undeliverable, making it difficult for the court to proceed with the matter. Although the petition is closed, the petitioner retains the right to revive it upon receiving proper notification.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for a soluble foaming composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the Patent Controller failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the appellants regarding the distinction between their protein-free invention and the cited prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed and the matter remanded.
M/s.Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its computer-related invention, 'Delegating Instant Messaging Sessions'. The core dispute centered on whether the software met the criteria for patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, emphasizing that an invention based on a computer program is not automatically excluded if it demonstrates a clear technical effect or contribution, aligning with international jurisprudence and revised Patent Office guidelines.
The Hyderabad Public School v.Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding trademark rights, the Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by The Hyderabad Public School. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the mark registered by Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd., following the latter's statement that it had ceased using the mark in India. This ruling clarifies the implications of non-use and voluntary abandonment on trademark registration.
The Bull Hospitality v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed The Bull Hospitality's appeal, setting aside the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its mark 'THE BULL' (Device). The court held that while the word 'Bull' alone lacks distinctiveness, the accompanying device provided sufficient distinctiveness for registration under Class 43. The Registrar was directed to complete the registration process promptly.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltda v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller, which cited lack of inventive step and objected to an amendment under Section 59. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider the explanations regarding prior art and misinterpreted the substance of the amended claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
M/s.D.R.Raanka Bros v.Mr.Sumti A.Challani & M/s.Challani Ranka Jewellery
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/s. D.R. Raanka Bros seeking rectification of registered trademarks held by Mr. Sumti A. Challani and M/s. Challani Ranka Jewellery. The court found a 'striking similarity' between the petitioner's established marks (D.R./D.R.Raanka Bros) and the respondent's newly registered marks (C.R.J., C.R.), which were obtained after 2003. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify the register within three weeks.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the refusal by The Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its invention concerning a pull starter mechanism for a scooter. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive steps. The High Court allowed the appeal, allowing the appellant to consider amended claims, and remanded the matter to another Patent Controller.
Gunakar Private Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, The Patent Office
Gunakar Private Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order dated 22nd February, 2019, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design regarding patent application no. 201621033630. The appeal sought to quash the rejection and allow the claims.
Mansoor Ahamed v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Mansoor Ahamed's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register his trademark 'ATTITUDE' under Class 25. The court found that the appellant's mark was inherently distinctive, possessed a unique graphical representation, and had established international recognition and market presence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's observations.
Novozymes A/S v.The Controller of Patents
Novozymes A/S appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on 'Enzyme Dehairing of Skins and Hides'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and being contrary to public order (harm to animals).
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, allowing its appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its opposition. The core issue was the strict adherence to timelines regarding evidence submission. The court held that while deadlines are necessary for discipline, they should not extinguish a party's substantial rights, especially when those rights face imminent threat from registration. Consequently, the opposition has been restored and the matter is directed to be disposed of according to law.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Seales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Seales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petitioner had sought to remove and expunge the trademark registration 'TINTOMETER' from the register, citing grounds of wrongful registration or non-use. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on two successive occasions, the petition was dismissed for default.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
Gala Industries, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Gala Industries appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Centrifugal Pellet Dryer Screen With Integral Embossed Deflector Strips'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, relying on prior arts D1 and D3. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting that the invention improved upon D1 by using embossing instead of nut-bolting.
P.Sathish Kumar v.Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by P.Sathish Kumar seeking rectification of a trademark entry (No. 4074848 in Class 3). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Transfer Original Petition for default.
M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses & Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd., which sought the removal of a trade mark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because the Registry's attempt to serve notice on the petitioner failed due to an incorrect address. Crucially, the Court allowed the petitioner to revive the petition since the failure was attributable to the Registry's inability to effect service.
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.