Bench:Prathiba M. Singh
448 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
448 cases indexed | Page 2 of 15
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Delhi High Court heard several part-heard matters concerning a common legal question under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970. The order was passed in hybrid mode and scheduled for further hearing.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Patent Office's order rejecting its application titled "DISCOVERY OF SECURE NETWORK ENCLAVES". The rejection was based on grounds related to Sections 2(l)(j) and Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court released the matter from part-heard status and listed it for further hearing.
Smt. Harbans Kaur / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Ascent Electronics / Gurmarg Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court ruled decisively in favor of the original proprietor regarding the trademark 'TANASHI'. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior rights through long-standing use dating back to 1993, despite subsequent registrations by the defendant. Crucially, the court held that a distributor is merely a permissive user and cannot claim proprietary rights over a mark belonging to the original owner. Consequently, the suit for infringement was decreed, and the defendant's conflicting trademark registration was cancelled.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
The suit alleged infringement of several patents held by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories was manufacturing and exporting Olaparib API, violating their patent rights. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the Defendant from commercially launching the product before the patent expiry date, subject to Section 107A provisions.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
GSP Crop Science Private Limited filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian patent no. 298645 (IN645) granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. The petitioner argued that IN645 is invalid because its main patent has expired and it suffers from anticipation by prior claims.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents Designs
Syngenta Participations Ag filed an appeal challenging the Controller's decision to reject its Indian patent application. The rejection was based on the grounds of lacking inventive step and falling under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that sufficient data existed to prove significant enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d). The court allowed applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents before directing notice and setting the matter for further hearing.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Indian Patent No. 314523, granted to FMC Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & FMC Corporation. Natco argues that since the main related patent (IN 204978) expired in March 2021 and has identical claims, IN523 is invalid and liable for revocation.
Inter Ikea Systems Bv v.Https://Www.Cyberxg.Top/ And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Inter Ikea Systems Bv's application to implead the registrars of the infringing domain names in the ongoing trademark suit. This crucial procedural step allows the plaintiff to directly target the parties responsible for operating the websites, strengthening their case against trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court extended the existing injunction order to these newly added defendants, maintaining the status quo until the final judgment.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals Internationals Private Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation and Novartis AG seeking protection of their patent (IN 269841) covering the anti-cancer drug RUXOLITINIB. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had obtained manufacturing approval for this compound, leading to a quia timet action. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from commercially manufacturing or launching RUXOLITINIB without court permission.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications and noted that the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had filed a counterclaim under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of the Plaintiff's patent IN 363203.
BSA Business Software Alliance, Inc. v.Tube Investments Of India Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court resolved a trademark dispute between BSA Business Software Alliance and Tube Investments of India Limited regarding the use of the mark 'BSA'. The court mandated that both parties agree on clear delineations of services to prevent conflict. Following this agreement, the appeals were disposed of, allowing BSA to register its mark in specific, restricted classes related to software promotion and education (Classes 16, 35, 41, 42). Crucially, the court also ensured that the Respondent's right to seek a declaration as a well-known mark for their goods in Class 12 remains unaffected.
Phoola Rani v.Anita Kharbanda & Anr.
Phoola Rani filed a petition seeking the cancellation of Respondent No. 1's registered trademark 'PREM DI HATTI' (No. 2543229) in Class 43, arguing that she has been using the mark extensively since 1969 for similar food and restaurant services. The court found that the Petitioner prima facie is an aggrieved party due to the similarity of the marks and business purposes. Consequently, notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was scheduled for further proceedings.
Inventprise, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Inventprise, Inc. challenged the requirement of prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) concerning its patent application for a 'Heat Stable Liquid Rotavirus Vaccine.' The NBA had previously insisted on compliance with Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, citing the use of human rotavirus strain isolated in India. However, Inventprise argued that the subject matter did not constitute a 'biological resource' under the Act. Recognizing this core dispute, the Delhi High Court directed the NBA Expert Committee to conduct a personal hearing and issue a reasoned order on whether the invention falls within the scope of the Biological Diversity Act.
Balanced Body Inc. v.Yasmins Body Image Private Limited & Anr.
Balanced Body Inc., a U.S.-based company, filed suit against Yasmins Body Image Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents related to 'REFORMER EXERCISE APPARATUS' and 'ARM CORD SUPPORT RISERS'. The court examined evidence showing that the Defendant No.1 was operating gyms with machines clearly mapping on the Plaintiff's granted patents. Consequently, the Court issued directions for the Defendant No.1 to disclose the source and quantity of the alleged infringing equipment.
ATC IP LLC & Anr. v.Owner Of <Https://Atcindiatower. In/> & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of ATC IP LLC, granting a permanent injunction against the operators of infringing domain names. The court found that the defendants' websites copied the plaintiffs' registered trademarks ('ATC', 'ATC India') and logos, causing potential misuse. Furthermore, the court ordered NIXI to facilitate the transfer of the infringing domain name www.atctower.in to ATC IP LLC, effectively resolving the dispute through summary judgment.
Vega Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Sagar Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Vega Industries challenging the registration of the trademark 'VIGA' by Vinod Sagar Jain. While noting that the correct remedy for the appellant might be rectification, the court preliminarily found no cause for grievance if certain listed products were excluded from the scope of goods. The stay application filed by Vega was ultimately rejected, and the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited v.M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited
M/S Dandi Salt Pvt. Limited filed a review petition challenging an earlier dismissal by the Copyright Board on grounds of being time-barred. The core dispute involved objections raised by the petitioner against M/S Indo Brine Industries Limited's attempt to register copyright for the artistic work 'INDOBRINE DANDI SALT/DANDI NAMAK'. Although the initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural delays, the High Court considered the parties' claims and subsequent settlement. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Copyright Office for fresh consideration.
Toyo Aluminium Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application ('MULTILAYER BODY AND CONTAINER') due to non-compliance with requirements for inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The court allowed a procedural exemption and directed the respondent counsel to file written submissions before listing the matter further.
Grasim Industries Limited v.Lenzing Ag & Anr.
Grasim Industries Limited filed a revocation petition against Patent no. IN 367685, granted to Lenzing AG for 'Fire-retardant cellulose fiber'. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications and initiated proceedings by issuing notice and setting timelines for filing the counter affidavit.
Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited v.Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the trademark cancellation petitions filed by Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Limited against Mahavir Spinning Mills Limited. The dismissal was based on a pre-existing settlement agreement from 2010, which stipulated that both parties would continue using their respective shade numerals and adopt unique identifiers for future shades. This compromise effectively resolved all disputes related to the trademarks in question.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The court heard matters concerning various parties, including T-Mobile Usa Inc vs Controller Of Patents. The hearing focused on issues related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Colgate-Palmolive Company v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Colgate-Palmolive Company appealed the refusal of its national phase patent application (4411/DELNP/2007) for 'An Oral Composition'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). However, due to the Appellant's failure to appear despite repeated notices, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which refused their patent application (201717017554) due to a lack of novelty. The court directed the respondent to file a reply, specifically addressing the inconsistency of the claims cited by the Controller.
Freebit As v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS filed a suit seeking an injunction against Exotic Mile Private Limited regarding its granted patent, IN 276748, for an 'Improved Earpiece'. The Defendant challenged the validity of this patent by presenting evidence that corresponding foreign patents had been invalidated or refused in several jurisdictions, including based on lack of novelty.
Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. v.Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark cancellation petition filed by Walter Bushnell Pvt Ltd. against Galaxi Drugs Pvt Ltd. The dispute centered on the conflicting marks 'DROTIN' and 'DROTAGAN' in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to Respondent No.1 agreeing to surrender its registration for 'DROTAGAN' and acknowledging the Petitioners' rights in 'DROTIN'. The court accepted this agreement, effectively resolving the dispute.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc & Anr v.Varshaben Kantilal Talreja & Anr
In this trademark dispute, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit in Delhi High Court, arguing they only operate in Gujarat. The court permitted the defendants time to file their written statement and replication. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on both the injunction application and the issue of maintainability.
Shri Dhruv Gupta v.M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Shri Dhruv Gupta against M/S Ujala Aquatech India Private Limited concerning the trademark 'UJALA'. The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctions for alleged infringement, passing off, and dilution. Given that the original owner of the mark is under insolvency proceedings (NCLT), the court deemed it necessary to issue notice to the Resolution Professional (RP) to ascertain their position before proceeding with the case.
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.