Bench:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
428 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark, copyright matters.
Cases Presided Over
428 cases indexed | Page 14 of 15
Lupin Limited v.Dong-A ST Co., Ltd.
Lupin Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236862 granted to Dong-A ST Co., Ltd. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they would not prosecute the matter further due to the patent's term expiring shortly.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the term of the patent had already expired on June 4, 2021.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 224634, which was granted to Matrix Laboratories Limited. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 224634 had expired on the date of the judgment.
Abs Global, Inc. v.Cytonome/ST, LLC
Abs Global, Inc. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 240790 granted to Cytonome/ST, LLC. However, the court noted that leave had been granted in another proceeding for the petitioner (and defendants) to withdraw the revocation proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the current petition as withdrawn.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 252762. The court noted that the term of this patent had already expired on February 3, 2014.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Novartis AG
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212815 titled “N-substituted 2-cyanopyrrolidines” under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after noting that the patent term had already expired and the petitioner had previously requested withdrawal.
Delight Chemicals Private Limited v.Ganga Yallappa trading as Sarpa Paint
The Madras High Court dismissed several petitions filed by Delight Chemicals Private Limited seeking the removal or rectification of trademarks registered under Ganga Yallappa. The court noted that the petitioner had previously won a suit for infringement and passing off against the respondent in 2019. Crucially, the respondents submitted that the subject trademark had not been renewed since 2017. Based on this development, the High Court found that there was nothing left to adjudicate in the pending petitions, leading to their dismissal as infructuous.
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Schering Corporation
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207233 held by Schering Corporation. The court noted that the term of the patent had already expired on March 24, 2019.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted by the Controller of Patents to S.A.Safiullah. The first respondent submitted that the term of the patent had expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
N.Solomon v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents Patent Office
N.Solomon filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
B.Kailasam Sole Proprietor of M/s.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts v.S.A.Safiullah an Indian National, trading as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of S.A.SAFIULLAH & CO
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to the first respondent. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
Matrix Labs. Limited v.Astellas Pharma Europe Bv
Matrix Labs. Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 234753. However, the court noted that the term of the subject patent had already expired on June 25, 2017.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah by The Controller of Patents. However, the respondent submitted that the term of the patent had already expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
G.Daniel v.S.A.Safiullah and Company
G.Daniel filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079 under Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970, alleging it lacked novelty and/or inventive subject. The respondent submitted that the term of the said patent had already expired.
Wipro Enterprises Limited v.Zydus Wellness Products Limited
Wipro Enterprises Limited filed a suit against Zydus Wellness Products Limited and others alleging passing off concerning its glucose-based chewy tablet brand, BOLTS, versus the defendants' product under the mark VOLT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions regarding trademark infringement, tag line similarity, and packaging get-up. While initial prayers related to the tagline and color scheme were dropped due to prior compromises, the core dispute over the 'VOLT' mark remained central. The court ultimately directed the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a memorandum of compromise executed by both parties on August 23, 2022. Consequently, the Madras High Court decreed the case based on the terms of this settlement, allowing the defendant to use a specified label.
Agsar Match Industries v.Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals
Agsar Match Industries filed a suit against Sundarapandian Trading as Gerizim Chemicals alleging both trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off. The dispute was resolved through a mutual agreement between the parties. The court examined the memorandum of compromise dated 23.08.2022 and found no legal impediment to its terms. Consequently, the suit was decreed based on the settlement.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima alleging copyright infringement concerning her work on 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief relating to an Australian patent application for the same product. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a joint compromise memo.
Ms.Y.Aafiya Halima v.Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science
The suit was filed by Ms. Y. Aafiya Halima against Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science alleging copyright infringement related to 'Almond and Coconut Cottage Cheese' and seeking relief regarding an Australian patent application. The dispute was amicably resolved through negotiations, leading to a compromise memo.
Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited v.Karaikudi Chettinad Mess
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Amaravathi Restaurants Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of 'KARAIKUDI CHETTINAD MESS' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered marks. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the similar trade name for hospitality services. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, although claims for damages and rendition of accounts were rejected due to lack of evidence or representation.
M/s.Neuberg Hitech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Dr.Ganesan'S Hitech Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.
This Madras High Court order addressed applications seeking to vacate existing interim injunctions in a trademark infringement suit between Neuberg Hitech Laboratories and Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostic Centre. The court upheld the injunction regarding the mark 'Hitech,' noting its long-standing use, but modified the protection for the corporate name. Regarding device marks like 'Nalam,' the court found them to be descriptive and limited the scope of protection only to identical or deceptively similar composite marks, allowing defendants broader usage.
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthik Subbaraj.G
M/s.Five Star Films Pvt. Ltd filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership over the copyrights of its film 'Jigardhanda', damages, and permanent injunction against Karthik Subbaraj.G for alleged infringement. The parties subsequently executed a Joint Compromise Memo.
M/s.Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh v.Mr.N.Balaji
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Langro-Chemie Theo Lang Gmbh, granting a substantial judgment for the recovery of dues and permanent injunctive relief. The suit involved claims related to goods supplied and investments made towards a joint venture that failed to materialize. Crucially, the court also recognized the plaintiff's registered trademark rights, ordering all defendants to cease any infringement of the 'Langro' trade name and associated logo. This judgment underscores the dual nature of IP disputes, combining commercial debt recovery with protection of intellectual property assets.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patents against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit in terms of this compromise, decreeing it against the third defendant and dismissing it against the first and second defendants.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patent (No. 197822) against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit based on this compromise.
Saint-Gobain Glass France v.M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.
The suit was filed by Saint-Gobain Glass France (through its Indian subsidiary) against M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering for infringement of Suit Patent No.305596, which covers a system and method for installing glass panels. The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing products, and damages. The Court found the Plaintiff to be the proprietor and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
M/s.Proklean Technologies P. Ltd. v.M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'ProKlean' versus 'ProClean'. While acknowledging the applicant's registered marks, the court found that the balance of convenience tilted against granting an immediate injunction due to the respondent's significant turnover. Consequently, the applications were disposed of without granting the requested restraint, but the respondent was mandated to submit quarterly accounts of sales and profits related to the disputed mark.
Netsweeper Inc. v.Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited & Others
Netsweeper Inc. filed a suit against several entities for passing off its corporate name 'NETSWEEPER' and infringing on its trademark rights. The plaintiff sought damages, permanent injunctions, and an accounting of profits derived from the deceptive use of the brand. While the court addressed multiple claims including licensing fees and tax debts owed to the government, the judgment primarily focused on restraining the defendants from using or dealing with the 'NETSWEEPER' name in a manner that suggests affiliation with the plaintiff.
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.