Bench:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
428 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
428 cases indexed | Page 13 of 15
T.G.Arumugam v.T.G.Harigopal
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of the trademark 'UMBRELLA BAND' registration. The court noted that the dispute had been resolved through a joint memorandum of compromise, which was subsequently decreed by a lower court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Trademark Registry to allow applications filed under Form TM-P and Form TM-M, thereby officially recording the petitioner as a joint proprietor alongside the respondent. Furthermore, the registry was mandated to implement the agreed geographical division of territory.
Solera Holdings, Inc. v.Solera Networks Inc.
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Solera Holdings, Inc. seeking the cancellation of Trademark No. 1795016 registered in the name of Solera Networks Inc. The court noted that the trademark registration had already expired on March 13, 2019. Consequently, since the mark was no longer valid, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without any order regarding costs.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236791 from the patent register. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the petition.
N.Mariappan v.S.A.Safiullah and Co.
N.Mariappan filed an appeal seeking revocation of Patent No.198079, arguing that the invention lacked inventive step and was not patentable. The first respondent submitted that the relevant patent had already expired on August 28, 2020.
World Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network v.Daystar Television Network India Pvt. Ltd.; Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal and rectification of the trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK' from the register. The petitioners argued that the first respondent company had been struck off the Register of Companies and that the impugned trademark ceased to be valid after June 25, 2017. Given these developments, the court found the petition to be infructuous.
M/s.Vicky Industries v.Sh.J.Pradeed; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/s. Vicky Industries seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'TULASI LABEL' (No. 1783253). The court noted that the term of the impugned trademark had expired on February 10, 2019. Consequently, the petition was deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was granted leave to re-apply should the mark be restored.
Groupe Seb India Private Limited v.Sumit Bafna Trading As: B & J Marketing
Groupe Seb India Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'MAHARAJA WHITELINE' from the register, citing issues related to its validity. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition because the impugned trademark registration number 921351 had already expired on April 28, 2020. This ruling highlights the critical importance of monitoring the expiry dates of intellectual property rights.
Vedant Fashions Private Limited v.Rajul Devi Trading As Manyavar
The Madras High Court addressed petitions filed by Vedant Fashions Private Limited seeking the rectification of registered trademarks held by Rajul Devi Trading As Manyavar. The court noted that the dispute between the parties had been resolved through an out-of-court settlement agreement dated April 1, 2019. Consequently, both petitions were closed without any formal order regarding costs.
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Varna Homes Pvt. Ltd.
In a case concerning trademark disputes, Hyundai Motor India Limited sought the removal and rectification of Varna Homes Pvt. Ltd.'s trademarks from the register. The Madras High Court noted that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to implement specific amendments to the service descriptions in both trademarks within four weeks.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust v.M/s.Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.
Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust filed two Original Petitions seeking the revocation and removal of Patents No. 207233 and 234103, both held by M/s. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., in the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to transfer these matters for adjudication regarding patent invalidity. However, the court noted that both patents had already expired on March 24, 2019. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as infructuous.
Rajeev Hiremath v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Rajeev Hiremath filed an appeal challenging the Controller's refusal to register specific claims (1-12) under Application No. 201741023631. However, on the date of judgment, the appellant withdrew the appeal.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures' Association v.Nippon Soda Co. Ltd
The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation/cancellation of Indian Patent No. 268448 related to a method of producing granular agrochemical composition. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they intended to withdraw the petition without prejudice to their rights.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.ICOS Corporation of Eli Lilly and Company; The Controller of Patents
Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 235242 before the Madras High Court. The court noted that the patent had already expired on April 26, 2016.
Radhakrishna Adiga v.M/s.Vasudeva Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of petitions filed by Radhakrishna Adiga against M/s. Vasudeva Adigas Fast Foods Pvt Ltd and the Registrar of Trademarks. The original petitions sought the removal or rectification of several trademarks registered under the name 'Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food Pvt Ltd.' However, the court noted that the petitioner had been instructed to withdraw all cases due to a settlement reached between the contesting parties.
Monsanto Technology Llc v.Union Of India
Monsanto Technology LLC challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 6560/CHENP/2008) by the Patent Office. The court found that the impugned order breached principles of natural justice because it referenced sections and paragraphs (like Section 10(4)(a), (b), (c) and paragraph 53) that were neither in the First Examination Report nor in the subsequent hearing notice.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation or rectification of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained by misrepresentation. The court noted that the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
Lakshmi Ring Travellers (Coimbatore) Limited v.Bracker Ag
Lakshmi Ring Travellers filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212183 held by Bracker Ag. The court noted that the term of the impugned patent had already ended on March 26, 2015.
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited v.Indian Institute of Science
M/s.Abellon Eco Equipments Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 229283, alleging it was invalid and obtained through misrepresentation. The court noted that the document indicated the patent had not been renewed and its term had expired.
Shaik Nazeemuddin v.Mohammed Aslam; Registrar of Trademarks
Shaik Nazeemuddin filed two petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the removal and cancellation of trademarks 'BRIGHT ROCK' and 'BRIGHT' registered by Mohammed Aslam. The petitioner sought to maintain the purity of the trademark register. However, shortly after filing, the petitioner instructed his counsel to withdraw both cases. Consequently, the court dismissed (T)OP(TM)Nos. 288 & 289 of 2023 as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Shaik Nazeemuddin v.Mohammed Aslam; Registrar of Trademarks
Shaik Nazeemuddin filed two petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the removal and cancellation of trademarks 'BRIGHT ROCK' and 'BRIGHT' registered by Mohammed Aslam. The petitioner sought to maintain the purity of the trademark register. However, shortly after filing, the petitioner instructed his counsel to withdraw both cases. Consequently, the court dismissed (T)OP(TM)Nos. 288 & 289 of 2023 as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Mrs.Veena Kumaravel v.Union Of India
Mrs. Veena Kumaravel challenged the abandonment of her trademark application, 'Natural's @,' before the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought to quash the public notice that treated her mark as abandoned under Section 21(2) of the Trade Marks Act. However, the case was ultimately dismissed because the Central Government subsequently withdrew the order of mass abandonment that formed the basis of the challenge.
Premier Airways Limited v.Easy Group Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Premier Airways Limited seeking the removal of a trademark belonging to Easy Group Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner company had been struck off the Register of Companies, meaning it no longer existed as a juristic entity. Consequently, the court found the petition infructuous and dismissed it without making any order regarding costs.
Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited v.Dr.Isaac Mathai; Soukya Indian Holistic Centre Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trademarks
In a matter concerning the removal and rectification of trademarks, Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited filed two petitions against Dr. Isaac Mathai and others. However, citing a prior memorandum of compromise between the parties, the petitioner subsequently withdrew both petitions. The Madras High Court accepted the withdrawal, dismissing the cases without making any ruling on the merits or costs.
A.D.Padmasingh Issac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.Hariharan (Trading as Sruthi's Masala) & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by A.D. Padmasingh Issac seeking the removal or rectification of Trademark No. 1759431 from the Register of Trademarks. The court noted that, subsequent to filing the suit, the trademark in question had already been removed from the register. Since the relief sought was no longer necessary due to this prior action, the petition was declared infructuous.
Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'KHANSI NIVAARAN' (Registration No. 1740206). The court found that the cancellation was mandated by a prior compromise order reached between the parties in C.S.No.644/2011. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to take all necessary steps to expunge the mark from the register.
Rajesh Kumar Naredi Trading as Visesh Appliances v.Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Naredi against Rallifan Limited concerning the rectification of Trademark No. 306508 in Class 11. The dismissal occurred because both parties had reached a settlement agreement, which was formally recorded by the court. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex intellectual property disputes efficiently.
Rajesh Kumar Naredi Trading as Visesh Appliances v.Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Naredi against Rallifan Limited concerning the rectification of Trademark No. 306508 in Class 11. The dismissal occurred because both parties had reached a settlement agreement, which was formally recorded by the court. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex intellectual property disputes efficiently.
Rallifan Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
Rallifan Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 1213190) from the register. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Aurobindo Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 216665 against Aurobindo Pharma Limited and the Controller of Patents. The court noted that the patent's term had expired on June 24, 2014, rendering the matter infructuous.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706 held by Mylan Laboratories Limited and the Controller of Patents. However, the court noted that the term of Patent No. 205706 had already expired on June 4, 2021.
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.