Bench:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
428 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
428 cases indexed | Page 9 of 15
Novozymes v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Novozymes appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs to grant a patent for its phytase variants. The rejection was based on Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection concerning claims 1-7, allowing the application to proceed towards grant.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing various objections, including issues with method claims and lack of clarity. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that procedural lapses did not justify the rejection when substantive changes had been made to address the SER objections.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978). The Controller rejected the application citing lack of clarity in method claims and unnecessary amendments. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the grounds for rejection were not based on merits, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural failures and misinterpretations, despite having addressed substantive objections raised in the Second Examination Report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802) by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding Form-3 filing delay. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds for rejection were untenable and remanding the matter.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application. The Controller rejected the application citing various deficiencies, including improper numbering and lack of invention in certain claims. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that procedural errors did not justify the outright rejection, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application (No. 201947028978). The rejection was based on various objections, including lack of novelty and clarity in claims. The High Court found that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Titan Company Ltd. v.Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Titan Company Ltd. against Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the trade mark in question, No. 925369 (Class 20), had not been renewed since May 17, 2010. Since the long stop date for renewal had expired, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Laticrete International, Inc. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.
M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
M/s.White House (Partnership Firm) v.White House Apparels Private Limited & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by M/s. White House seeking the removal of several registered trademarks belonging to its competitor, White House Apparels Private Limited. The petitioner argued they were a prior user of the 'WHITE HOUSE' mark since 1963, relying heavily on historical turnover and export documents. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous use or application of the mark to goods until much later (around 2015), concluding that the respondent's prior registration rights were valid.
Indoco Remedies Limited v.M/S.Micro Labs Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a dispute between Indoco Remedies Limited and M/S.Micro Labs Ltd regarding the trade mark 'CITALIFT'. The parties reached an agreement, leading the court to mandate the cancellation of the disputed registration (No. 1005556). Micro Labs agreed to change its mark to 'MICROLIFT' while being granted a six-month grace period to liquidate existing inventory bearing the old mark.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec, Inc. filed a miscellaneous petition seeking reinstatement of claim No. 32 in Patent Application No. 7133/CHENP/2009. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel was not pressing the petition and closed the matter at the SR stage.
M/s.Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v.M/s.Prestige Estates Project Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of rectification petitions filed by M/s. Prestige Buildwell Private Limited against M/s. Prestige Estates Project Ltd. The petitions sought to rectify, revoke, or cancel several trademark registrations based on alleged non-use. However, the court noted that the petitioner had previously admitted in civil proceedings that the first respondent was the registered proprietor of the 'Prestige' mark and undertook only to use a specific trading style ('Prestige Buildwell Private Limited'). Based on this prior agreement, the court closed the rectification petitions.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.V.Senthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving trade mark infringement and rectification petitions between Aachi Spices and Foods and V.Senthil Kumar. The parties ultimately reached a comprehensive settlement, formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise dated August 31, 2023. Consequently, the court decreed the civil suit by granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of similar marks, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel and rectify the disputed registrations held by the respondent.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited v.Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office
The Madras High Court overturned the Senior Examiner's objections against Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited's trade mark applications. The court found that the device mark was inherently distinctive and disregarded the examiner's narrow focus on the words alone. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the acceptance of the mark for advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over its constituent words when used individually.
CCL Product (India) Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.
Jupiter Drugs Partnership Concern v.Mrs.M.Sarojini Proprietrix; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Jupiter Drugs filed an Original Petition seeking to expunge or limit the registered trademark 'ZIPROVIT' (No. 1306475) held by Mrs. M. Sarojini Proprietrix, citing issues related to geographical scope and use. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution because the petitioner could not be served notice due to an outdated address. This procedural dismissal effectively halted Jupiter Drugs' attempt to challenge the trademark registration.
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. challenged the Controller of Patents regarding systemic issues in the e-filing system, which prevented the submission of a divisional patent application following a remand by the IPAB. The petitioner's original parent application had been refused but was subsequently remanded for re-consideration. Since the online portal reflected the 'refused' status, the divisional application could not be filed digitally. The Madras High Court acknowledged this systemic glitch and issued several directions to facilitate the filing process.
Sundaram Industries Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Sundaram Industries Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration for the word mark TRISTAR. The court found that despite arguments regarding differences in goods, the appellant's proposed mark was near identical to an earlier registered mark (TM No. 308929). Given that both marks were applied to similar goods—solid industrial tyres and tyres/tubes for motor land vehicles—the court concluded there would be a likelihood of confusion or association among the public, thereby upholding the refusal under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
Helion Biotech ApS v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helion Biotech ApS appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which denied grant of a patent for antibodies to MASP-2. The appeal was filed seeking consideration of further amended claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back for examination of the amended claims.
M.S.Earthevents (I) Private Limited v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside an administrative order that had removed a registered trademark (No. 1249884) from the register. The appellant successfully argued that the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically by not issuing the required notice (Form O-3) to the proprietor before taking action. Consequently, the court allowed the appellant to take necessary steps for the renewal of their trademark.
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.