Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
431 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
431 cases indexed | Page 8 of 15
M/s.Ufo Moviez India Ltd. v.M/s Real Image Media Technologies Pvt.Ltd
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 202980. The court observed that the term of this patent had expired on October 18, 2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
Nalli Sambbasivam Trading as M/s.Nalli's Silks Sari Centre v.M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty & Ors.
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Nalli Sambbasivam against M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty regarding the trade mark 'Nalli'. The core issue was whether a rectification petition could proceed when an earlier infringement suit concerning the same marks was pending before the Bombay High Court. The court held that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, a party must first convince the civil court to frame a triable issue on the validity of the registration before seeking rectification.
Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh v.Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed three trademark rectification petitions filed by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh against Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited. The original petitions, which sought to expunge specific trademarks from the register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were withdrawn by the petitioner before a final ruling could be made. This outcome highlights that procedural decisions, such as withdrawal, can conclude IP litigation without substantive judgment on the merits.
M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons v.M/s.S.Jaffer Mohideen Alias Noushad
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons against the rejection of their opposition to a trademark application (No.676174). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of prior use of 'S', the respondent's mark, which prominently features 'FILTER BEEDI,' was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. However, the judgment imposed strict conditions on the respondent, requiring them to use their label in combination with two other specific labels and formally undertake not to use the 'SS' logo independently.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs
Huawei appealed an order rejecting its patent application (IN 4561) for a radio communication system. The appeal argued that the Patent Office failed to consider detailed arguments against obviousness and rejected amendments without proper justification. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of reasoned consideration and set it aside, remanding the matter.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION'. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the specific submissions made by the appellant.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION' by the Assistant Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art documents D1 to D6. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the appellant's specific arguments and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
USV Private Limited v.Symed Labs Limited
USV Private Limited filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 229267. The court observed that the patent's term had expired on October 16, 2023, rendering the petition infructuous.
Ufo Moviez India Ltd v.M/s.Real Image Media Technologies Private Limited
Ufo Moviez India Ltd filed a petition to revoke Patent No. 202969 before the Madras High Court. The court observed that the term of the said patent expired on 18.10.2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
JK Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Union of India
This common order addressed multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders passed by Senior Examiners concerning various Trade Mark applications. The court observed that while the Act allows for appointment of officers, there is a widespread practice of issuing unreasoned or 'copy and paste' decisions. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to take immediate remedial measures to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasoned orders.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4863), which was refused by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed in vitro method, used to measure sequence imbalance in biological samples from pregnant women, qualified as a non-patentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act.
The Chinese University Of Hong Kong Knowledge Transfer Office v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The Chinese University of Hong Kong appealed the rejection of its patent application (IN 4812/CHENP/2012), which was rejected on the grounds that the claimed invention—a process for fetal genomic analysis from maternal samples—was an unpatentable diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that determining foetal fraction is related to diagnosis but is not 'diagnostic' in the statutory sense, allowing the patent application to proceed to grant.
T.V.Nagarajan v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
T.V.Nagarajan appealed the refusal of his trade mark application 'AAXLE' (Application No.4826693) by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court found that since the proprietors of the cited marks had no objection and no objections were raised under Section 9, the refusal was liable to be set aside.
Starpharma Pty Ltd v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Starpharma Pty Ltd appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 10044/CHENP/2013, which covered a method and gel formulation for treating bacterial vaginosis. The appellant argued that the amended claims were within the scope of the original application and complete specification. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
M/s.Jupiter Drugs v.Mrs.M.Sarojini
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. Jupiter Drugs' petition seeking to expunge or limit the trade mark 'ZIPROVIT.' The court noted that the last registration was valid only until December 14, 2017, suggesting the petitioner might no longer be an aggrieved party. Furthermore, due to the absence of a current address for service on the petitioner, the court found it impossible to proceed with the matter.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd. v.Milka Nutriments Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Pioneer Bakeries, directing the removal of two specific trade marks (No. 821974 and No. 691534) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that both marks had long expired because their renewal periods had lapsed, making them liable for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision underscores the importance of timely maintenance and renewal of intellectual property rights.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited v.M/s.PGR E-Commerce Private Limited; The Registrar Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petitions filed by Sorting Hat Technologies seeking rectification of several registered trademarks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather due to the Registry's inability to successfully serve notice to the petitioner at the provided address. Crucially, the court allowed the petitioner the right to revive the petitions, ensuring that procedural hurdles do not permanently bar their legal claims.
Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited v.V.K.R.Venkatesan
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Sivaji Hi-Tek Foods Private Limited seeking rectification and cancellation of a trade mark entry. The court noted that despite attempts to serve notice, the petitioner's address was insufficient, and their counsel confirmed they had no instructions to prosecute the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2072/CHENP/2011) because the current set of amended claims were deemed beyond the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined whether the amendments expanded or narrowed the original claim scope and found that the specificity incorporated in the amended claims curtailed rather than expanded the original scope.
M/s.Mysore Silk Udyog v.M/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by M/s. Mysore Silk Udyog seeking to expunge or limit the scope of registered trade marks belonging to M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog LLP. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the trademark dispute, but rather because the petitioner failed to appear and could not be served notice at the address provided in the petition. This highlights the critical importance for IP litigants to maintain accurate contact information throughout legal proceedings.
M/s.Mysore Silk Udyog v.M/s.Mysore Saree Udyog LLP
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by M/s. Mysore Silk Udyog seeking to expunge or limit the scope of registered trade marks belonging to M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog LLP. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the trademark dispute, but rather because the petitioner failed to appear and could not be served notice at the address provided in the petition. This highlights the critical importance for IP litigants to maintain accurate contact information throughout legal proceedings.
Avtar Singh And Mr.Harkirat Singh Trading as M/s.Aero Club v.Chiranjeelal Bihani and The Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a Trade Marks Original Petition filed by Avtar Singh and Mr. Harkirat Singh against Chiranjeelal Bihani. The core issue was the validity of Trade Mark No. 963781, which had expired on October 16, 2010, due to non-renewal. Since the statutory period for renewal had long passed, the court found the petition to be infructuous and dismissed it without further order.
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Medybiz Pharma Pvt. Ltd. filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the refusal of their trademark application by The Registrar of Trademarks. However, before the High Court could rule on the merits of the appeal, the appellant chose to withdraw the case. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed (T)CMA(TM).No.56 of 2023 as withdrawn without passing any order regarding costs.
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application for 'N-substituted indole derivatives as PGE2 receptor modulators'. The appellant argued that it was not given a proper opportunity to justify the inclusion of the expression 'pharmaceutically acceptable salts' in its claims before the rejection. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter.
Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Heraeus Electro-Nite International N.V. successfully appealed a rejection by the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its word mark 'QuiK-Tap' for temperature measuring devices. The Madras High Court overturned the refusal, finding that the original order and grounds of decision were unsustainable and lacked proper reasoning. The court accepted the evidence of use provided by the appellant, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement.
Ganesh Grains Limited v.K.R.Nagendra And K.N.Shoba; The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ganesh Grains Limited filed two Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the cancellation and expungement of specific registered trade marks (No. 460314 and No. 2000889). The petitions aimed to challenge the validity or registration of these marks. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw both Original Petitions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the proceedings as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
FC Madras Trust v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by FC Madras Trust against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'FC MADRAS'. The initial objection was based on Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, claiming the mark was a common geographical name and lacked distinctive character. The court ruled that when viewed as a whole, the mark is not descriptive of the goods (printed publications), especially given its prior successful registration in other classes. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their device mark. The court found that when viewed as a whole—including the rooster image, stylized font, and corporate name—the mark was distinctive and did not fall under absolute grounds for refusal. Crucially, the prior registration of an identical mark in a related class bolstered the appellant's case, leading the court to set aside the objection and allow the application to proceed to registration.
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.