Bench:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
428 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
428 cases indexed | Page 1 of 15
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)
The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Frame Assembly' due to lack of inventive step and other objections. The appellant argued that their design, which mounts a utility box on gusset plates instead of cross members, provides surprising technical effects like enhanced strength and optimized space utilization. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
M/s.Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Office
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of its post-grant opposition against Patent No. 311984, which covered an anti-stick coating. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order because it failed to provide reasons for rejecting material grounds of opposition. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by a different officer.
TRANS UNION, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application (No. 4268/CHE/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, which rejected it primarily on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the system and method for matching database records was inherently technical, providing a solution to data quality issues in emerging markets. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the invention involved technical considerations implemented by hardware, but remanded the matter to refine the claims' scope and ensure adequate enablement.
Trans Union, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding its application for a database matching system. The core issue was whether the invention constituted a non-patentable 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the invention involved technical considerations and achieved a technical effect by optimizing data retrieval. However, due to overly broad claims, the court remanded the matter for further examination to narrow the scope and ensure enablement.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using metadata management systems.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using graphical representations.
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited v.Standard Corporation India Limited
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited filed a suit against Standard Corporation India Limited alleging infringement of its copyright and passing off. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the copyrighted drawings for its popular MF 245 DI tractor model and alleged that the defendant's Standard 348 tractor was an identical copy, either through direct copying or reverse engineering. The defense challenged the originality of the drawings and raised issues regarding the applicability of copyright law versus design registration.
Syngene International Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & The Controller of Patents
Syngene appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method predicting organ toxicity. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, particularly regarding the requirement of novel hardware for CRIs. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the contribution lies in software and directing reconsideration based on updated guidelines.
Amgen Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Amgen Inc. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that claims 1-13 of Patent Application No. 5857/CHENP/2008 were not patentable due to various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the claimed invention satisfied all requirements for protection and directing that the application proceed to grant.
Rajkumar Sabu v.Sabu Trade Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Sabu challenging the acceptance and subsequent advertisement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' in favor of Sabu Trade Private Ltd. The petitioner sought to quash the acceptance report, arguing that the application was based on fabricated documents and should not proceed without hearing him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's interlocutory petition lacked statutory basis and noted that he already had a remedy available through lodging an opposition under the Trademark Act.
Thilakarasu Venkatasamy trading as Grand Catering Company v.Brand Avatar Llp
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions OP(TM)Nos.64 & 65 of 2024 after the parties, Thilakarasu Venkatasamy and Brand Avatar LLP, reached an out-of-court settlement. The petitions sought the removal or rectification of specific trademark entries (Registration Nos. 5795826 and 3843193) in Class 41. Given the amicable resolution between the parties, the court allowed the proceedings to be dismissed without further order on costs.
S.Giridharan v.S.Sudhakar
The Madras High Court dismissed Civil Suit No. 193 of 2025 following a comprehensive settlement reached between the plaintiff, S.Giridharan, and several defendants. The suit, which sought declarations regarding ownership of the registered trademark UDHAIYAM and related injunctions, was resolved through a joint memorandum of settlement dated August 8, 2025. This agreement allowed the plaintiff to withdraw claims against certain parties while acknowledging existing titles held by others, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Natural Medicine Institute Of Zhejiang v.The Deputy Controller of Patents And The Controller of Patents
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 6275/CHENP/2011) for 'A MORDANT AND HAIR COLORING PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME'. The rejection was based on procedural grounds regarding claim amendments, but the court found that the impugned order lacked reasons and set it aside.
Sidharth Jindal v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Sidharth Jindal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of his word mark application, 'BANGTAN BOYS BTS.' The court found that the initial objections raised under Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act were unsustainable. Crucially, the court overturned the rejection based on the 'proposed-to-be-used' basis, holding that this conclusion was erroneous and contrary to Section 18 of the TM Act. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed for advertisement.
Ranjani Ramesh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order rejecting Patent Application No. 202141032403, which related to a system for identifying micro-motions for early detection of neuro-degenerative diseases. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability grounds. The High Court set aside the impugned order because it did not follow a robust obviousness analysis and failed to record findings regarding all objections raised in the FER.
M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.Al Kareem
In a dispute over trademark similarity, the Madras High Court addressed M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking rectification of Al Kareem's mark 'AL Kareem'. Despite the petitioner asserting long-standing goodwill and deceptive similarity, the court ultimately favored the respondent. The judgment recognized the existing use of 'AL Kareem' in Hyderabad but imposed a crucial geographical limitation on its registration to prevent confusion outside that specific region.
Lucas TVS Limited v.FFC Impex & The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court reviewed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision regarding a trademark opposition. The court upheld the Registrar’s finding that there was no proof of actual service of the counter statement on the opponent, thus preserving the right of the opponent to file evidence. However, recognizing the long pendency of the application, the High Court directed the Registry to dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.
M/s. Ttk Prestige Limited v.Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali
In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.
Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
M/S. Purva Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention to compel the Registrar of Trademarks to decide an opposition petition and trademark application within a fixed timeframe. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition because the underlying matter had already been decided by the Trademark Office on July 9, 2025, rendering the petitioner's request moot.
Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in a matter concerning trademark oppositions, where Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. sought judicial intervention to expedite pending proceedings. The court recognized that the delay in disposal was unjustified given the history of the applications and oppositions. Consequently, the High Court issued a mandate directing the Registrar of Trademarks to conclude both opposition cases within a strict three-month timeframe.
Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.
Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd. v.Vivekananda Chintapalli
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd., directing the removal of a confusingly similar trademark registration held by Vivekananda Chintapalli. The court found that the petitioner's inherently distinctive mark, used for e-gaming computer hardware, was strikingly similar to the respondent's registered mark in Class 9. Given the substantial turnover and commercial presence of the petitioner, the continued existence of the impugned entry was deemed likely to cause public confusion or deception.
M/s. K.A.S.Zainulabdin And Co. v.K.G.Subramaniam and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark '399 BRAND K.G.S. SUBRAMANI AND CO' in Class 25. The court granted the relief after both parties reached an agreement: the contesting respondent agreed to change its trade mark, and the petitioner consented to this change. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the disputed entry from the register within 30 days.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 784/CHE/2012 for an 'Accelerator Safety Control Device'. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1-D3, which were primarily related to four-wheeler vehicles. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
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.