Bench:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
402 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
402 cases indexed | Page 4 of 14
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'WAHEED.' The court held that because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory notice regarding the impending expiry of the registration, the petitioner was entitled to seek renewal despite the lapse of time. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative failure by the Registry can override strict procedural deadlines.
V.T. Varghese v.Jose Jacob and The Registrar of Trade marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by V.T. Varghese seeking rectification and removal of a registered trademark (No. 1334030). The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to non-prosecution, as the petitioner failed to appear before the court on multiple scheduled dates despite being given opportunities.
Jupeng Bio (Hk) Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Jupeng Bio appealed an order rejecting its patent application for 'Control of Conductivity in Anaerobic Fermentation'. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the prior art cited did not explicitly disclose all claimed elements (conductivity and SCU relationship), and that the reasons for rejection under Section 3(d) were unreasoned. The High Court found deficiencies in the respondent's reasoning regarding both novelty and Section 3(d) non-patentability.
The Good Stuff Private Ltd. v.Golden Chocolates Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of appeals between The Good Stuff Private Ltd. and Golden Chocolates Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark disputes over 'Luvit Dairy Rich' and 'Appeal Dairy Rich'. Key terms included the respondent modifying its product label, withdrawing specific trademark and copyright applications, and agreeing not to challenge the appellant's existing trademarks. This resolution allows both parties to move forward without further litigation.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting his patent application based on various grounds, including lack of enablement, ambiguity in claims, and non-patentability. The High Court examined these issues, concluding that the invention lacked a demonstrable technical effect and failed to meet statutory requirements.
Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd. v.Mr.Tallam Uma Shankar Gupta
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'GYPLOCK' (No. 3536418). The petitioner, Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd., successfully argued that its established trademark 'GYPROC' was similar to the impugned mark and used on identical goods—building materials. Despite arguments regarding common trade terms ('GYP'), the court found the overall similarity between 'GYPROC' and 'GYPLOCK' likely to cause confusion, thereby protecting the purity of the register.
M/s.Sri Modern Weigh Systems v.Nipro MACHOI P. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed appeals concerning the alleged deceptive similarity between the trademarks 'MACHOI' and 'MAKHOI'. The court accepted an undertaking from the appellants not to use 'MACHOI' or any remotely similar name in the future. Furthermore, the opposing party was directed to immediately apply for the cancellation of their registered trademark, which was deemed deceptively similar. This judgment provides a practical resolution through undertakings and administrative action rather than a definitive finding on infringement.
Poorliya Mobiles World And Electronics v.Kanni Uvaraj and Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of an appeal concerning a trademark dispute between Poorliya Mobiles World And Electronics and Kanni Uvaraj/Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. The parties reached a full and final settlement during the hearing. The appellant accepted the original trial court decree, provided they paid Rs. 1 lakh in damages, and formally undertook not to infringe upon the respondents' registered trademark.
Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning a system for selectively operating regenerative braking in a vehicle. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure regarding essential vehicle parameters. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two original petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking the rectification and cancellation of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan. The court noted that the first respondent had subsequently initiated applications for the cancellation of the disputed registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Since the underlying issue was being addressed through administrative channels, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
Somalogic Operating Co., INC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Somalogic Operating Co. appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'CARDIOVASCULAR RISK EVENT PREDICTION AND USES THEREOF'. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed invention qualified as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to argue against the classification and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Hendrickson USA, L.L.C. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 2621/CHENP/2015) by the Controller, which had previously found that shot peening in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) was obvious from prior art. The appellant argued that its invention specifically claimed peening beyond the stress concentration boundary and asserted technical advantages for this extension. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to allow a fresh examination of the claim's novelty and non-obviousness based on peening beyond the HAZ.
Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran
V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
Lv Bhavani Sankar v.Gemini Edibles And Fats India Pvt Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a Transfer Review Petition filed by Lv Bhavani Sankar against a previous rectification order concerning Trademark 3830617. The petitioner sought to keep the trademark registered. However, the court noted that the arguments in the current petition were identical to another pending petition and closed (T)Rev.Pet(IPD)/2/2024 without issuing a specific ruling on costs.
Natco Pharma Ltd. v.M/s. Schering Corporation
Natco Pharma Ltd filed an Original Petition (Patents) seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No.202128 against M/s. Schering Corporation and the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The court observed that the term of the patent had expired on 06.10.2018, rendering the petition infructuous.
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to permit the filing of renewal applications for several registered trademarks. The petitioner argued that due to the failure of the Registrar to issue timely notice, they were entitled to renew the marks as a successor-in-interest. The Court held that while the lapse by the Registrar is noted, the petitioner must first register the assignment deed before applying for renewal.
Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthikeyan Manishekar
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'HANS VENBA' (No. 3917470) following a settlement reached between the petitioner, Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., and the first respondent, Karthikeyan Manishekar. The court confirmed that the registration would be cancelled as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed on August 7, 2024. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
Mr. Prashant Philips v.M/s. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Indian Patent Application No. 1196/CHENP/2011, which related to using document length as a static relevance feature for ranking search results. The appellant argued that the invention provided a specific technical effect beyond general computing processes and was not merely an algorithm. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the new form exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in treating cataract symptoms, which was not adequately considered by the original examiner. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 202147005676 for a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the invention exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in reducing cataract symptoms in neonatal rabbits. The High Court found that the impugned order failed to properly consider the experimental data demonstrating pharmacodynamic studies and set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application for a new hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the compound demonstrated enhanced bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy compared to the free base form. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5948/CHENP/2014) for a hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), known as Rimegepant, by the Indian Patent Office. The opposition was primarily based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, arguing that enhanced bioavailability alone does not guarantee patentability. The High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5584/CHENP/2010). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and exclusion as a computer program per se. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the invention possesses enhanced technical effect and meets the inventive step criteria.
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.