Bench:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
428 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
428 cases indexed | Page 11 of 15
V.Periasamy, Finetech Pipe Products v.V.Shanmugham, S.Sudha; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by V.Periasamy against V.Shanmugham and the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought to cancel a registered trademark (No. 1005460) in Class 17, alleging it was obtained unlawfully. However, due to repeated failure to appear before the court despite proper notice, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Mr. Syedmohideen v.Ms.B.SulochanaBai
The Madras High Court addressed the petition filed by Mr. Syedmohideen seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, IRUTTUKADAI. The petitioner had sought to challenge the registration of this mark held by Ms. B. Sulochana Bai. However, before any substantive hearing took place, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he intended to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed (T)OP(TM).No.118 of 2023 as withdrawn.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Abdulla A Olia (Director of M/s Imex Industries (I) Pvt.Ltd.) v.M/s. Shri Ashapura Hardware & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Abdulla A Olia seeking rectification or removal of the registered trademark 'STAR IMEX DEVICE' (No. 1625661). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear at multiple scheduled hearings despite receiving proper notice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
M/s.Aquasub Engineering v.M.Mandal Trading as Aqua Tech Enterprises
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by M/s.Aquasub Engineering seeking to rectify or cancel the registration of the trademark AQUATECH (No. 1925332). The court found that the trade mark had lapsed because its last valid registration expired on February 22, 2020, and was not renewed within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register.
M/s.Aquasub Engineering v.M.Mandal Trading as Aqua Tech Enterprises
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by M/s.Aquasub Engineering seeking to rectify or cancel the registration of the trademark AQUATECH (No. 1925332). The court found that the trade mark had lapsed because its last valid registration expired on February 22, 2020, and was not renewed within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888. The petition, which sought to challenge the patent's validity, was contingent on its active status. However, upon submission of a document from the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, it was revealed that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888 before the Madras High Court. The petition was filed under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. v.Guala Closures Patents B.V.
Axiom Propack Pvt. Ltd. filed an Original Petition before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207928 against Guala Closures Patents B.V. The petition, which was filed under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, aimed to challenge the validity of the patent. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the term of Patent No. 207928 had already expired on June 2, 2018.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.M&G Polimeri Italia S.P.A.
Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 220888, which claimed a priority date of January 31, 2003. The petitioner sought this action before the Madras High Court. However, during the proceedings, it was noted that the patent had already ceased to be in force as of January 30, 2023. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation and removal from the register of various Indian Patents held by Aloys Wobben. The court observed that the term of all the patents in question had expired.
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (patents) challenging an earlier order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Home Box Office, Inc. v.Danish Salim; The Registrar of Trademarks
In this matter concerning trademark cancellation, Home Box Office challenged an entry in the Register of Trademarks. However, the court noted that the registered proprietor of the impugned mark had subsequently agreed to cancel the registration. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to complete the necessary steps for cancellation and removal of the entry within a specified timeframe.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd., setting aside an order that had deemed its opposition to a trademark application abandoned. The core issue revolved around whether a communication sent to the Mumbai office, despite being addressed to the Chennai Registry, constituted substantial compliance with the Trade Marks Rules. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was sufficient compliance and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.R. Hanumantha Rao
Pfizer Products Inc. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to expunge the registration of the trademark VECOREX (No. 980006) from the register. The court noted that the mark had not been renewed since December 29, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the entry within four weeks, effectively clearing the mark for potential use by the petitioner.
M/s.Jaya Balaji Tex v.Senniappan Kuppusamy; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitions sought the removal of specific registered trademarks (No. 1607835 and No. 1464323) from the Register of Trademarks in Class 25. However, both parties reached an amicable resolution regarding the disputes, leading the petitioner to withdraw the cases before the court.
Agfa Nv v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, The Patent Office, Delhi, India
Agfa Nv filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant subsequently filed a memo instructing the withdrawal of the appeal.
Enercon (India) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking to revoke several Indian Patents granted to Aloys Wobben. The court noted that the patents had expired but a counter claim was lodged by the petitioner in proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
Paymate (India) Private Limited v.Paymate Pty Limited; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, The Trade Marks Registry, Chennai
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by Paymate (India) Private Limited seeking to strike off a specific trademark registration. The court found that Trademark No. 1960699 was no longer in force because its last renewal date had expired on May 5, 2020, and the long stop period for restoration had passed. Consequently, the Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register.
Enercon ( India ) Limited v.Aloys Wobben
Enercon (India) Limited filed multiple Transfer Original Petitions (TOPs) before the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of various Indian Patents granted by the Controller of Patent Chennai. The petitions were filed under Sections 64 and 117D of the Patents Act.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Genova Biotechniques Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a specific trademark, 'PSO KIND,' from the register. The court observed that while the mark was initially registered, its renewal had lapsed after November 8, 2020. Consequently, the time limit for both renewal and restoration had expired. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration certificate and remove the entry within four weeks.
B.M.Dhananjaya.S v.M/s.Billionsmiles Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petition (Trademarks) No. 26 of 2023 after the petitioner, B.M.Dhananjaya.S, filed a request to withdraw the case. The original petition sought the expungement and removal of an entry related to the registered trademark 1485593 from the Trademark Registry. The withdrawal was based on a settlement reached between the contesting parties, concluding the dispute without a formal judicial ruling on the merits.
Foodvista India Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in trademark applications filed by Foodvista India Pvt. Ltd., which were previously refused by the Trademark Registry on grounds of descriptiveness. The court found that the refusal orders were unreasoned and failed to consider the appellant's evidence of use and acquired distinctiveness, particularly under the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, mandating a reasoned decision based on all submitted evidence.
M/s.Swagath Motels Private Limited v.M/s.Hotel Swagath; Registrar of Trademarks
M/s.Swagath Motels Private Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Hotel Swagath' registered in M/s.Hotel Swagath, citing concerns over register purity. However, on August 8, 2023, the Madras High Court noted that the dispute between the contesting private parties had been resolved amicably. Consequently, the court closed (T)OP(TM) No.486 of 2023 without passing any formal order regarding costs.
Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.New Hope Food Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of multiple Original Petitions filed by Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd seeking cancellation of several trademarks. The court noted that both parties had reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement dated March 26, 2018. This agreement defined specific usage rights for the 'MILKA' mark in Class 30, ensuring mutual non-infringement across various product categories. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of based on this existing compromise, avoiding a full judicial hearing.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.M.Safiullah, Trading as M.N.A.Mohammad Sulthan & Sons, and also as Tajmahal Tobacco Co., Partnership Firms; Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a rectification proceeding initiated by Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. against the trademark 'HANS CHAAP SCENTED KHANI, TAJMAHAL.' The court noted that the first respondent (M.Safiullah) had categorically stated their willingness to surrender the trademark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the entry relating to Trademark No. 865412 from the register within four weeks.
M/S. Tradall S.A. v.The Learned Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by M/S. Tradall S.A. against the Learned Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant had sought to revoke a previous refusal order and allow the registration of the mark 'HALLMARK' in Class 33. However, due to repeated non-appearance of the appellant's counsel during scheduled hearings, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution.
Venator Materials Uk Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Venator Materials UK Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant subsequently instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal.
Marico Limited v.Mathewsons Exports And Imports Pvt.Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Marico Limited, directing the removal of the trademark 'KASTHOORI MANJAL' (Registration No. 1451234) from the register. The core issue was that the mark had not been renewed since April 26, 2016, and the statutory long stop date for renewal or restoration had expired. This decision underscores the critical importance of maintaining trademark registrations through timely renewals.
Venator Materials Uk Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Venator Materials Uk Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order dated 14 December 2020 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appeal sought to set aside that order and allow the patent application No.7188/CHENP/2012 to proceed to grant.
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.