Judge Profile

Bench:R.Subbiah

11 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, copyright matters.

Cases Presided Over

11 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 11, 2020

Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A.Nos.38, 40 & 42 of 2020

Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others regarding alleged patent infringement (Patent No.282429). The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the suit fell within the court's territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the state. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the revocation of leave to sue was incorrect due to jurisdictional concerns.

patent plaintiff favorable · Nov 11, 2020

Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited

Madras High Court · O.S.A.Nos.38, 40 & 42 of 2020

Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others for alleged infringement of Patent No. 282429. The core issue revolved around whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the local limits. The Madras High Court allowed the appeals, restoring the suit to the Commercial Division.

copyright defendant favorable · Dec 12, 2019

Deepa Jayakumar v.A.L. Vijay

Madras High Court · O.S.A.No.75 of 2020

Deepa Jayakumar filed an appeal seeking an interim injunction to prevent respondents (film producers) from making, releasing, or promoting films/web series about the life of Dr. J. Jayalalitha without her consent, citing concerns over privacy and reputation. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 2, 2019

K.Dalpat Singh v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Madras High Court · W.P.No.5486 of 2019

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by K.Dalpat Singh challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on whether opposition proceedings against the trademark 'Gold Mehal' had been validly abandoned. The court found no infirmity in the IPAB's decision, which set aside the initial finding of abandonment and remanded the matter for a full hearing on its merits. This ruling emphasizes procedural correctness in trade mark oppositions.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 10, 2019

S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons v.The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks

Madras High Court · W.P.No.34305 of 2004 and W.M.P.No.41434 of 2004 and W.M.P.No.25148 of 2017

The Madras High Court allowed S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons' writ petition, setting aside a decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on the registration of the 'SVS' trade mark for edible refined oil. The court ruled that the contesting respondents could not claim exclusive rights over the mark based on an ambiguous arbitration award, especially since the award did not specifically allot the mark to them. This decision reinforced the petitioner's right to use and register the mark.

patent defendant favorable · Aug 21, 2018

M/s.Geege Paints v.M/s.Agsar Match Industries

Madras High Court · W.P.No.708 of 2012

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s.Geege Paints challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Geege Paints had sought to uphold the validity of its trademark 'STAG' against rectification initiated by M/s.Agsar Match Industries. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court despite being duly served with notice, the High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.

patent defendant favorable · Jun 10, 2015

Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.

Madras High Court · Original Application Nos.33 to 35 of 2015 in C.S.No.23 of 2015

Wipro Enterprises Limited sought an interim injunction against Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., alleging trademark and tag line infringement regarding their glucose-based energy products. Wipro claimed that the defendant's use of 'VOLT' and similar tag lines was a deliberate attempt to trade on its goodwill associated with 'BOLTS.' However, the Madras High Court dismissed all applications for interim injunction, finding that Wipro had not established a prima facie case at this stage. The court held that the issue of protecting descriptive taglines like 'ANYTIME ANYWHERE' requires extensive evidence and must be decided during the full trial.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 17, 2015

M/s. Sivanesan & Co. v.M/s. Kanchan Home Appliances and others

Madras High Court · Original Application Nos. 243 & 244 of 2014 (in Civil Suit No. 182 of 2014)

The Madras High Court granted an absolute interim injunction in favor of M/s. Sivanesan & Co., who held the registered trademark 'Premier'. The court found that the defendants' use of 'Premier Dezire' constituted both infringement and passing off, causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation. This decision underscores the importance of continuous usage and established market presence when enforcing trademark rights.

patent defendant favorable · Feb 28, 2014

M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.Aachi Aappakadai Chettinad A/c Restaurant

Madras High Court · Original Applications Nos.154 & 155 of 2013 and Civil Suit No.151 of 2013

The Madras High Court dismissed the applicants' requests for an interim injunction, ruling that the trademark 'AACHI' is a common Tamil word associated with Chettinad cuisine. The court held that since the mark was deemed common, the applicants could not prevent others from using it in their restaurant business unless they could prove secondary meaning through evidence during trial. While the respondent was allowed to use the name 'AACHI', they were prohibited from adopting the applicant's registered oval-shaped label mark.

patent defendant favorable · Dec 3, 2013

M/S. Nico Quality Products v.M/S. N.C. Arya Snuff And Cigar Co.

Madras High Court · O.A.Nos.667 & 668 of 2013

The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's applications for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The core issue revolved around an assignment deed transferring trademarks from the respondent firm to the petitioner. However, the court ruled that because this crucial assignment deed was insufficiently stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, it could not be admitted as evidence in the suit. Consequently, the injunctions were vacated, allowing the respondent to continue its operations.

patent defendant favorable · Nov 13, 2013

M/s.La Renon Health Care Pvt. v.Union of India

Madras High Court · W.P.No.1219 of 2014

M/s. La Renon Health Care Pvt. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its application to revoke Indian Patent No. 224100, which covered compositions for augmenting kidney function. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the IPAB order and direct the Controller General of Patents to cancel the patent granted to Kibow Biotech Inc. The Madras High Court examined the matter under supervisory jurisdiction, focusing on procedural fairness rather than substituting its own technical findings.

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 →