Bench:S.M.Subramaniam
12 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
12 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging a previous order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Application No.10810/CHENP/2012. The High Court examined whether the Original Side Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, considering the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the original matter involved a rejection of patent grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since an appeal mechanism already existed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
M/s.Fair Beat Herbals Cosmetics Private Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging trademark registration proceedings involving 'Fair Beat'. The court noted that objections had been raised against the application, and an inquiry was pending before the Trademark Registry. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to conduct a thorough enquiry, ensuring all parties are given an opportunity to participate, and to pass final orders on the merits as quickly as possible.
Umaid Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as it related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial notice.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that since the registration was allegedly erroneous (Government property), the petitioners should have defended their case before the Competent Authorities rather than filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Umaid Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners, members of the Mohonot Family and M/s.Jay Group of Companies, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the Government property should be preferred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding the registration of their trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the entry was erroneously registered as government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should have participated in the adjudication process rather than challenging the initial show cause notice.
Umai Mohonot v.Union of India
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the registration was erroneous as the mark related to government property. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process before the competent authorities.
Umai Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Plastic Company; Bijay Singh Mohonot, Proprietor, M/s.Jay Garment Accessories v.Union of India; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and GI; The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding their registered trade mark 'ARROW'. The respondents argued that the government property had been erroneously registered. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating it could not adjudicate disputed facts on merits and the petitioners should have participated in the adjudication process.
Leeds Hr Solution v.The Controller General of Patents
Leeds Hr Solution challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on December 2, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further action was necessary from the respondents.
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks, geographical Indications, Designs
Leeds Skill Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. challenged the delay in refunding a sum of Rs. 17,500 related to its trademark application under Rule 38(3) of the Trademarks Rules. The petitioner argued that the examination report should have been issued within three months of filing. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition after noting that the third respondent had already submitted the required examination report on November 30, 2011. Consequently, the court held that no further judicial consideration was necessary regarding the refund claim.
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.