Bench:Prathiba M. Singh
448 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
448 cases indexed | Page 6 of 15
Uab Research Foundation And Anr v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The Uab Research Foundation appealed against an order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The impugned order refused to grant a patent application titled 'Purine Nucleoside Phosphorylase as Enzymatic Activator of Nucleoside Prodrugs' because the claims were deemed to fall within the scope of Section 3(i) of the Act.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the rejection of its patent application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection relied on outdated guidelines (CRI Guidelines, 2016), while the newer 2017 guidelines were already in effect and did not mandate novel hardware for Section 3(k) applicability.
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Johnson And Johnson Consumer Companies appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused to grant a patent for 'Leave-on Compositions Containing Cellulose Materials' due to lack of inventive step. The core dispute revolved around the prior art cited against the application, particularly documents in Japanese. The court condoned procedural delays and directed remedial steps to ensure translated copies of the foreign language prior art were made available before listing the case for final hearing.
Microsoft Corporation v.Pcpatchers Technology Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
STP Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed STP Limited's appeal against the refusal of its trademark application 'SHALIMARK'. The initial rejection was based on similarity to earlier marks. However, the court permitted the application to proceed by restricting the scope of goods, specifically removing 'building material (non-metallic)' from the list. This decision allows the mark to be advertised in the trade mark journal for further opposition proceedings.
Sanjeev Juneja v.Imaamuddin Khan And Anr
Sanjeev Juneja filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Dr. Ortho' registered by Imaamuddin Khan. The petitioner argued that his established use of the identical mark in orthopaedic goods (Class 10) would be violated by the respondent's registration for textiles and mattresses (Class 24). Despite the class difference, the court found the petitioner prima facie aggrieved and issued notice to the respondents, setting the matter for detailed arguments.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products v.Deepak Kumar, Deepak Manocha, Sara Sales and Anr.
Manju Singal Proprietor Singla Food Products filed a petition seeking rectification of a conflicting copyright registration held by Deepak Kumar. The petitioner claimed ownership over their artistic packaging design for 'Gulchhare' since 2009, asserting that the respondent's subsequent registration was based on an identical and slavish imitation. After examining the works, the Delhi High Court found that the respondent's work lacked originality compared to the petitioner's earlier creation.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its divisional application (No. 201918017795) concerning a bifunctional co-polymer composition. The refusal was based on outstanding objections regarding lack of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure under the Patents Act, 1970.
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited v.Mr Jitendra Ravjani
Jaypore E-Commerce Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mr. Jitendra Ravjani, alleging infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'JAYPORE'. The Delhi High Court proceeded to frame seven key issues in the matter, including whether the defendant's use constitutes trademark infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealment. This order sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation by both parties.
Glaxo Group Limited And Anr. v.Manoj Kumar Jain And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Manoj Kumar Jain and others. Although the matter was resolved amicably through a settlement, leading to the decreeing of specific terms, the court also independently declared the Plaintiffs' mark 'BETNESOL' as a well-known mark due to its long history and extensive market presence in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes: resolution via negotiation alongside judicial recognition of brand status.
W R Grace And Co Conn v.The Controller Of Patents
W R Grace & Co Conn appealed the Patent Office's refusal of its patent application (201717030699), which related to a crystalline form of Nicotinamide Riboside. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step and failure to meet requirements under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The Appellant subsequently filed amended claims restricting the scope to the method aspect, leading the Court to remand the matter for fresh examination by the Patent Office.
M/S Laxmi Agro Impex India v.M/S Ladli India Commodities
In a dispute concerning the trade mark 'LADLI/SABKI LADLI', the Delhi High Court addressed parallel proceedings related to trademark rectification. Recognizing that simultaneous litigation could lead to multiplicity of suits, the court permitted both parties to withdraw their respective pending rectification petitions. This decision aims to consolidate the issues and streamline the legal process for a comprehensive trial.
United Breweries Limited v.Rajesh Kumar Kohli And Anr
United Breweries Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KINGFISHER' mark registered by Rajesh Kumar Kohli, arguing exclusive association with its brand. However, due to the Petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the court, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. This case highlights the procedural requirements in trademark litigation and the importance of consistent representation.
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd v.Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd
SSG Pharma (P) Ltd filed a petition seeking rectification of the copyright held by Paras Pan Products Pvt Ltd concerning the artistic work 'NAGRAJ HARFANMOLA'. The Petitioner argued that its own artistic work, 'SATMOLA', was the prior adopter and user. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work bore a striking resemblance to the Petitioner's, noting that the pouches were copied in terms of color scheme and images of children. Consequently, the court directed the rectification/expungement of the impugned copyright registration.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision to reject a patent application concerning 'BIO-BASED POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE POLYMER AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME'. The appellant argues that all grounds for patentability were satisfied, despite the rejection based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The court allowed applications for exemption from filing documents and condoned delay in filing the appeal.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary filed a writ petition challenging the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching." The Petitioner sought restoration of the application, alleging that repeated follow-ups to their patent agent were ignored, leading to the deemed abandonment. The Court directed the Patent Agent firm to file an affidavit detailing all correspondence related to the abandonment process. Furthermore, the bench raised broader concerns regarding the lack of regulatory supervision over IP agents in India.
Cresset Capital Management Llc & Anr. v.Registrant Of Www.Cressetcapital.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Cresset Capital Management LLC against domain name registrants. The court recognized the global goodwill associated with the 'Cresset' mark, despite its lack of Indian registration, finding that several registered domains were being used to commit fraud and misrepresent the Plaintiffs' business. Consequently, the Court directed Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing websites, while also directing law enforcement to commence action against the perpetrators.
Triology Solutions Private Limited v.Flipkart Internet Private L Imited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Triology Solutions Private Limited against various online sellers (Defendants 12-23) for trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the distinctiveness of the 'Muuchstac' brand, which is used for cosmetic products, and restrained the defendants from using its registered device mark and trade dress/packaging. Furthermore, the court directed the major e-commerce platforms (Defendants 1-11) to ensure takedown actions are taken against counterfeit listings and mandated disclosure of sales revenue by the infringing sellers.
Sintex Industries Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Anr
Sintex Industries Limited appealed against an order revoking Indian Patent No. 197086 on the ground of insufficiency of disclosure. The court noted that the subject patent had already been revoked by the Controller, satisfying the main prayer of the appellant for revocation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd v.Sh. Gopal Shinghal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd's petition seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'GMT' held by Sh. Gopal Shinghal. The court found that 'GMT' is deceptively similar to the Petitioner's established mark 'GM', which has been in continuous use since 1999 for electrical goods. Given the prior adoption and substantial goodwill of 'GM', the registration of 'GMT' was deemed contrary to Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v.Sun Pictures A Division Of Sun Tv Network Ltd.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark infringement suit filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Sun Pictures. The dispute centered on the use of the RCB team jersey in a derogatory manner within the film 'Jailer.' Through mutual agreement, the court decreed that the defendants must digitally alter all depictions of the RCB jersey and sponsor branding to ensure it is not identifiable before further release, effectively resolving the brand dilution concerns.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. v.Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the advertisement of 'KENT' as a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The core dispute centered on jurisdictional issues, with the Respondent arguing that such challenges must be filed in the Bombay High Court. However, the Court also clarified procedural requirements for the Registrar, emphasizing that when an applicant relies on court orders to establish well-known status, the Registrar must scrutinize whether those orders constitute a specific declaration or merely preliminary observations.
Dow Agrosciences Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Dow Agrosciences LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application, 'Stabilized Agricultural Oil Dispersions,' citing errors and inaccuracies in the Controller's objections. The appellant argued that key prior art documents were wrongly cited or misinterpreted, particularly regarding thermal stability claims. Recognizing significant procedural flaws and incorrect references in the impugned order, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh examination.
Roxtec Ab & Anr v.Sukant Chakravarty & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Roxtec Ab & Anr seeking permission to file rectification petitions against registered trademarks, which the defendants argued were monopolizing common industry terms. The court examined the claims related to a 'Bulls Eye' device mark and the slogan 'We Seal Your World'. While addressing the scope of trademark rights, the Court ultimately disposed of the application but framed an issue regarding whether Roxtec India Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) was a necessary party in the ongoing suit.
Enconcore N.V. v.Anjani Technoplast Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Enconcore N.V., a Belgium-based company, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing its patented technology related to folded honeycomb sandwich panels (Therm-Hex technology). The court held an interim hearing, modifying existing injunctions and imposing conditions on the defendants regarding sales reporting and security deposit.
Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd v.Bal Kishan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Acko Technology And Services Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark (No. 5320418) registered by Bal Kishan. The petitioner argued that its established mark 'ACKO' for insurance services was being infringed upon by the respondent's mark 'ACKOLITE' in Class 11 (household appliances). Given the likelihood of confusion and Acko's strong prior rights, the Court cancelled the impugned registration, reinforcing the principle against conflicting marks.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioners filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondents sought to transfer these petitions to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to consolidate them with ongoing infringement suits related to Patent IN243301 covering Linagliptin. The court dismissed the applications for transfer/consolidation.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
Mhg Ip Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Mhg Ip Holdings challenging the refusal of registration for its mark 'TIVOLI'. The Appellant argued that it had used the mark globally since 1933, establishing significant prior adoption. Recognizing this extensive global usage, the court invoked Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing for honest concurrent use. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar, directing a fresh review considering the Appellant's long-standing reputation.
new era cap co inc v.ms galaxy caps
New Era Cap Co. Inc. sued M/S Galaxy Caps for trademark infringement, alleging that Galaxy Caps manufactured and sold counterfeit caps bearing New Era's 'NEW ERA' mark and associated logos without authorization. The Plaintiff claimed significant global sales and brand recognition, including endorsements from Virat Kohli. Local Commissioners seized over 200 infringing products from Galaxy Cap’s premises.
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.