Bench:Ravi Krishan Kapur
168 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
168 cases indexed | Page 2 of 6
Fox And Mandal And Anr v.Somabrata Mandal And Ors
This case involves an application filed by Fox And Mandal And Anr seeking to consolidate their civil suit (IP-COM/6/2025) with two other related proceedings, including a writ petition concerning trademark disputes. The core dispute revolves around rival claims over the partnership firm's mark 'Fox & Mandal'. However, the court rejected the consolidation request, finding that the current suit was stillborn and lacked sufficient material bearing to the issues in the other cases.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the matter raised by the respondent Controller.
Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark
Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.
Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors
Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
In this trademark rectification proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, the court noted that the petitioner's advocate-on-record was absent and no representative could furnish instructions. Due to the wastage of judicial time caused by the non-appearance, the court directed Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Phillips 66 Company And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application seeking the rectification and cancellation of a trademark dispute between Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited and Phillips 66 Company. The court issued interim directions, requiring both parties to file their respective Affidavits-in-Opposition within three weeks from the judgment date. This procedural step moves the matter forward in the ongoing intellectual property litigation.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
The Calcutta High Court granted Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd liberty to file a supplementary affidavit, allowing them to introduce two key letters from the private respondent into evidence. The court also directed the petitioner to ensure proper representation for the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This interim order keeps the trademark dispute active and sets the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2025.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2705/KOLNP/2014), which claimed a method for labeling visited locations based on contact information. The Controller rejected it under Section 3(k) as being an algorithm or computer program per se. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was directed to an abstract idea and lacked sufficient technical advancement.
Triumph Designs Limited v.Tube Investments Of India And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application filed under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of a mark based on non-use. While the core issue remains pending, the court granted a short adjournment to allow for the appearance of counsel from Chennai. The respondent was directed to pay costs before the next hearing date.
East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited v.Anil Keshrwani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited against Anil Keshrwani and Ors. The court granted necessary procedural leaves, including exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, Quality Tools Srl, appealed against an order rejecting its Patent Application (3902/NP/2010) due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. The court found that the rejection order was devoid of proper reasoning and failed to apply sufficient judicial mind. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
ITC Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
ITC Ltd challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for 'METHOD OF PRODUCING AEROSOL GENERATING SUBSTRATE'. The core contention was that the rejection, based on non-patentability and lack of inventive step, violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the Controller relied on technical materials not furnished to them at any prior stage or during the hearing. Recognizing this serious procedural infirmity, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade
The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co.Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected its application for a patent related to aripiprazole microspheres. The core contention raised by Otsuka was that the rejection order lacked any reasoned justification, failing to discuss the invention or adequately address prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The Calcutta High Court agreed with this assessment, finding the impugned order unreasoned and unsustainable.
Oramed Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller regarding its patent application for a biological surfactant used as an anti-inflammatory agent and tissue preservative solution. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this omission.
Shaperon Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs, Mumbai and Anr.
Shaperon Inc. appealed an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, challenging its validity. The appellant contended that the Deputy Controller failed to consider crucial expert evidence provided by Dr. Seung-yong Seong regarding the invention's technical advancement and advantages. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to this procedural lapse.
Kamterter Products Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents
Kamterter Products Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (IN 1044/KOLNP/2010) for a 'SEED TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS' under Section 15 of the Patent Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the rejection order was devoid of reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
ITC Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
ITC Ltd appealed a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark regarding its patent application for an 'Electronic Aerosol Generating Device'. ITC contended that the rejection was based on technical materials not provided to them, violating principles of natural justice. Given this procedural lapse, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original rejection and remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Aroa Biosurgery Limited v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Aroa Biosurgery Limited challenged an order by the Controller General of Patents which dismissed its patent application for 'Tissue Scaffolds Derived From Forestomach Extracellular Matrix.' The core dispute centered on procedural fairness, as the rejection order introduced a ground of non-patentability (Section 3(i)) that was never raised during the examination process. The Calcutta High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing on the merits.
Vmi Holland B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vmi Holland B.V. appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected their patent application, titled "Assembly for and method of making a tyre component," on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The High Court found the rejection order to be arbitrary, devoid of reasons, and lacking proper adjudication on the merits.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject a patent application for a lamp lightning control circuit. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to address their submissions and ignored evidence, thus violating natural justice. The Court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents, which dismissed their application for 'A LAMP LIGHTNING CONTROL CIRCUIT' on grounds of obviousness and lack of inventive steps. The High Court found that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked reasons and failed to address the appellant's submissions and evidence.
Fena Private Limited v.Bajranglal Rathi Trading As M/S. Maheshwari Soap Industries and Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a trademark dispute brought by Fena Private Limited against Bajranglal Rathi Trading. The court noted that prima facie, the impugned registration appears to infringe upon the appellant's rights. Furthermore, the court observed evidence suggesting a clear case of non-use regarding the respondent's mark, which was not disputed at the hearing. Consequently, the matter has been adjourned for further arguments and submissions.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Sanofi - Aventis challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller Patent and Designs, which rejected their subject invention under Sections 2(i)(j)(a) and 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Calcutta High Court took cognizance of this appeal (Oa/11/2019/Pt/Kol). While the Respondent Controller remained unrepresented, the court directed Sanofi - Aventis to ensure proper service on the Controller and file an Affidavit of Service before listing the matter for further hearing.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Driving Support Device and Vehicle Driving Support Method'. The rejection was based on the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'NOVEL FORMS Of CDDO METHYL ESTER' on grounds of non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e). The appellant argued that the rejection failed to consider crucial clinical trial data demonstrating enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the authority must deal with all submitted evidence and provide reasoned orders.
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.