N.Seshasayee
119 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
119 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
Martinswerk Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk Gmbh appealed the rejection of its product patent application for novel aluminum hydroxide flame retardants. The appeal argued that the Patent Controller repeatedly shifted and reverted between different limbs of Section 3(d) without providing a consistent or fair hearing process. The High Court found merit in these submissions.
Diageo North America, Inc v.Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd.
Diageo North America filed a petition seeking rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BULLET MALTED WHISKY' registered by Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd., alleging that it is deceptively similar to Diageo's well-known mark 'BULLEIT'. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioner had established a case for cancellation.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.P.Krishnam Raju; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the cancellation of the trade mark 'SPICE' (Registration No. 1091801). The court noted that despite being served with the Registry notice, the petitioner failed to appear and prosecute the matter before the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for default.
M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Mirshad C.E.502
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the opposition proceedings. The core issue was the Registrar's decision to dismiss the opposition as abandoned due to non-production of evidence. The court ruled that for an opposition to be validly initiated, the applicant must prove service of the counter statement on the opponent, and a mere assertion of email service without proof is insufficient under the Trade Marks Act.
A.L.M.Holding Company v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
A.L.M.Holding Company appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a cold-in-place recycling method, which was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core dispute centered on whether prior art citing heat-based processes could invalidate an invention that specifically operates without heat in key stages.
Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application based on objections under Section 3(k) and Section 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the Controller's order was not adequately reasoned and failed to consider the inventor's submissions regarding both sections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Industeel France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, Design, Trade Mark And Geographical Indications Patent Office
Industeel France appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 119/CHENP/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller repeatedly changed objections and prior arts, causing procedural inconvenience. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.
Monsnto Technology Llc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai
Monsnto Technology Llc appealed the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'Chloroplast Transit Peptides'. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on incomplete consideration of claims and citation of subsequent prior art. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Intelligent Energy Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Intelligent Energy Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3716/CHENP/2007) by the Controller General, which held that the invention lacked inventive step due to close resemblance to prior art D1. The appellant argued that their technique for capturing byproduct hydrogen represented a significant improvement over existing technology. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
M/s.Mesmer Pharmaceuticals v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration of 'REJUSTAR' in Class 5. The Registrar had cited phonetic similarity to other marks, but the court held that it was premature to determine deceptive similarity based solely on scrutiny under Section 11. Given that the appellant's mark is an invented word and the cited marks were used for different goods or outside India, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for further processing.
Hmd Global Oy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trademark Registry
Hmd Global Oy successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its word mark 'PureDisplay' in the Madras High Court. The core issue was the Registry's finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness, despite the appellant providing evidence of global use and registration. The court found that the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by passing an order under a different section (9(1)(b)) without giving the appellant a hearing on that specific ground. Consequently, the rejection was set aside, and the application was remanded for final consideration.
Hmd Global Oy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trademark Registry
Hmd Global Oy successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its word mark 'PureDisplay' in the Madras High Court. The core issue was the Registry's finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness, despite the appellant providing evidence of global use and registration. The court found that the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by passing an order under a different section (9(1)(b)) without giving the appellant a hearing on that specific ground. Consequently, the rejection was set aside, and the application was remanded for final consideration.
Erytech Pharma v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Erytech Pharma filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the Assistant Controller's decision regarding Indian Patent Application No. 661/CHENP/2010. The appellant subsequently sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the dismissal of its patent application (No. 4866/CHENP/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on alleged non-filing of Form-3, coverage by the original application, and exceeding the specification. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller had not applied its mind to the facts, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn. v.The Controller of Patents
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn appealed an order from the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on a propylene impact copolymer and method. The appellant argued that the rejection was flawed because the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and amendments made in response to prior art objections. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Sicpa Holding Sa v.The Controller of Patents
Sicpa Holding Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Inline Spectroscopic Reader and Methods' by the Controller of Patents, which cited a lack of inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller had not adequately considered the detailed explanations provided by the appellant in response to the objections raised on prior art. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Omega SA v.The Controller of Patents & Design, Government of India
Omega SA appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a ceramic element inlaid with metallic decoration, which was rejected by the Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller failed to apply his mind properly to the issue and equated the hyper-precision technology to ordinary laser etching. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller of Patents
Qualcomm appealed an order from the Patent Controller rejecting its invention titled 'ENHANCED BLOCK-REQUEST STREAMING SYSTEM FOR HANDLING LOW-LATENCY STREAMING'. The appeal argued that the Controller failed to adequately consider the appellant's written submissions and did not correctly assess the novelty and inventive step against prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Fintie Llc Through Mr.Nai Chu Cheng v.Vivekananda Chintapalli Of Flat 5 & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Fintie LLC's petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration. The court found that the respondent had registered the identical word mark 'FINTIE,' relying on the petitioner's established goodwill and prior use in other jurisdictions. Given the clear identity of the marks, the court ruled it inappropriate for the respondent's mark to remain on the register.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.V.Nataraja trading as M/s.Nataraja Traders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark registered by V.Nataraja Traders. The court found that the respondent's mark was strikingly and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ArokyA' brand, despite minor differences or added devices. This decision reinforces the principle that similarity in appearance, color scheme, and overall impression can lead to trademark cancellation, even if the infringing party attempts slight modifications.
Idamakanti Madhusudhana Reddy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register 'Doctor Reddys Path Labs,' which was based on similarity to an existing mark. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that the word 'Reddy' is generic and that the marks operate in different classes of goods/services (Pathology vs. Pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the High Court mandated a fresh review by the Registry, requiring it to consider Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, even if opposition from a well-known mark arises.
Manking Pharma Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Manking Pharma Limited seeking the removal of the trademark 'DOLOBENE' from the register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the original petition for default.
Victaulic Company v.Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Mechanical Pipe Coupling having Spacers' on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The appellant argued that its invention, featuring a collapsible spacer, provided an advantage not present in the cited prior art (D1 and D2).
Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
M/s.Haryana Soap Factory (Sh.Krishan Kumar Jain) v.Sh.A.J.Saravanan & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment confirms the dismissal of Transfer Original Petitions filed by M/s.Haryana Soap Factory seeking rectification of specific trademarks (936165 and 1833170). The court noted that both parties had reached a compromise regarding the underlying dispute, which was formalized in a memo recorded by the District Court, Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their claims, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner filed an Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to reverse a prior order by the Controller General of Patents regarding patent application 201841047838 and grant the patent in their favor. The petition also included a request for condonation of delay. However, the court noted that attempts to serve the Registry notice on the petitioner failed as the petitioner was not present at the given address. Consequently, the Court closed the appeal/petition.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v.Indu Devi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'GOLDY,' held by Indu Devi. The court found that despite minor visual differences, the first respondent's mark was strikingly and deceptively similar to the petitioner's established marks ('GOLDIEE'). This decision reinforces the principle that phonetic similarity can outweigh superficial design elements in trademark disputes.
Dr. Vandana Parvez v.The Controller of Patents Office of Controller General of Patents
The appellants appealed the rejection of their patent application for a method/system related to interactive online digital content. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty based on prior art D1 (the appellants' own withdrawn application). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that citing the appellant's own withdrawn application as prior art was invalid and directing the Patent Office to expunge it from the public domain.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.Life Style International Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'SPICE IT UP (Label)' registered in favor of Life Style International Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on the scheduled date. Consequently, the entire original petition was dismissed for default.
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.