India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 164 · 4,909 total
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Controller of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v.Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Picadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.) v.Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited v.Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
M/S Arpan Biri Factory v.M/S Momin Biri Factory
The petitioner, M/s Arpan Biri Factory, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.09.2026 passed by the Commercial Appellate Court (District Judge, South Salmara), which dismissed Misc.(J) Case No. 10/2026 without issuing notice, on the ground that the relief sought was redundant since the connected appeal itself prayed for temporary injunction. The Gauhati High Court agreed with the petitioner that under Section 107 of the CPC, appellate courts possess the same powers as courts of original jurisdiction, and the petitioner had a right to seek temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal.
Ashok Jain v.State NCT Of Delhi And Anr
The petitioner, Ashok Jain (Accused No. 2), sought quashing of FIR No. 15/2012 registered at P.S. EOW, Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to counterfeiting of car speakers bearing the registered trademark 'PIONEER' belonging to Respondent No. 2. The parties had amicably settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Understanding executed in March 2025, with the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs. 1 lakh as full and final settlement. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, while directing the police to destroy the seized counterfeit goods.
Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited
This Chamber Summons was filed by Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited in their 1996 trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited, seeking to bring on record six renewed Legal Proceedings Certificates (LPCs) evidencing renewal of their trade mark registrations. The Bombay High Court allowed the application, directing the LPCs to be marked into evidence as Exhibits P-50 to P-55, along with two additional LPCs as P-56 and P-57, while reserving Anchor's liberty to challenge the evidentiary weight and probative value of these documents.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the defendant's mark 'Amul TRU' was deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No. 2276842 in Class 32). The defendant filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, which was allowed by the court, resulting in the dismissal of the suit with no costs.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited (plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No.2276842 in Class 32) and the defendant's alleged use of the mark 'Amul TRU'. The court allowed an application filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908, to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, and consequently dismissed the suit with no costs.
Annapurna Swadisht Limited v.Gef Foods India Private Limited
The Madras High Court dealt with a trademark dispute between GEF Foods India Private Limited, the proprietor of the registered mark ANNAPOORNA used for blended spices since around 1980, and Annapurna Swadisht Limited, which used the mark ANNAPURNA for snacks and namkeens. The plaintiff sought interim injunctions for trademark infringement and passing off, which were initially granted ex parte on 05.08.2026. The defendant filed applications to vacate the injunction, which the court dismissed, making the ad interim injunction absolute pending disposal of the suit, though confined to the goods and uses where prima facie confusion was established.
S.Balakrishnan Unni v.M/s. Vasudeva Vilasam Herbal Remedies (P) Ltd. & Anr.
This is a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court by S. Balakrishnan Unni, trading as Vasudeva Vilasam A.M. Pharmacy, seeking to quash the order dated 12.12.2008 in O.R.A. No. 92/2006/TM/CH passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and to allow his rectification application against the first respondent. The court issued only a procedural order directing impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks as a third respondent and issuance of fresh notice, posting the matter for further hearing.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a consolidated set of matters involving Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula. The petitioner's counsel submitted that evidence was still ongoing and prayed for adjournment of the hearing. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to 22.03.2027, directing that any interim order shall continue.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court consolidating multiple connected cases between Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula, along with related matters. The petitioner's counsel requested adjournment on the ground that evidence was still being recorded. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to March 22, 2027, directing that any existing interim orders would continue.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. Respondent No. 1, the Registrant, failed to appear, and while physical service had returned undelivered, e-mail service was effected. The court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service within two weeks and listed the matter for directions on October 23, 2026.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Respondent No. 1, Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. The Respondent did not appear despite service attempts, with physical service having returned undelivered though email service was effected. The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service on the Registrant within two weeks and adjourned the matter to October 23, 2026 for directions.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr v.Bollywood Time & Ors
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a set of connected commercial suits involving Bollywood celebrities seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The order records that the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 868/2026 (Janhvi Kapoor vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.) has concluded submissions, while the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 105/2026 (Vivek Anand Oberoi vs Collector Bazar & Ors.) has handed up extracts from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. The matter was re-notified for further hearing on 9th October 2026.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. v.Sanskar Singhaniya & Ors.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Sanskar Singhaniya and others for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' use of 'THE BHARAT EXPRESS' mark and the domain 'thebharatexpress.com', along with a similar 'flame-of-hope' logo, infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The defendants, despite being served, failed to appear and through a communication dated 11 September 2026, informed the plaintiff that they did not intend to contest the matter and had adopted a new name and logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in terms of the relevant prayer clauses, granting permanent injunctive relief against the defendants.
M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v.Anugya Gupta and another
The petitioner challenged an order of the Commercial Court, Varanasi directing that the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC (return/rejection of plaint) be decided before the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of plaint). The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where subject-matter jurisdiction is challenged, it must be adjudicated first before any amendment application, as a court lacking inherent jurisdiction cannot grant amendment and any such order would be a nullity.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited, which manufactures and markets traditional Indian flavoured non-alcoholic beverages under the 'LAHORI' family of marks (such as LAHORI ZEERA, LAHORI NIMBOO, LAHORI KACHA AAM, LAHORI SHIKANJI, and LAHORI IMLI BANTA), filed a commercial suit against Goldenstuff And Beverages Private Limited and others for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyrights, and designs, along with passing off. The plaintiff sought an ex parte ad interim injunction, alleging that the defendants, who commenced business only in January 2026, had adopted an identical or deceptively similar logo, trade dress, colour scheme, and bottle shape. The Delhi High Court granted the ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using any marks, logos, labels, trade dress, packaging, taglines, slogans, or domain names identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's LAHORI formative trademarks.
M/s. Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited, an electric vehicle company, filed a stay petition (CMP No. 23555 of 2026) in its appeal (CMA(PT) No. 32 of 2026) against the Controller of Patents' order dated 01.04.2026 rejecting Patent Application No. 202341071388. The petitioner's counsel fairly conceded that the patent application itself had been dismissed, rendering nothing for further consideration. The Madras High Court dismissed the stay petition as infructuous.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Neeraj Bagh House
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr., filed a suit against Neeraj Bagh House seeking a decree of permanent injunction, trademark and copyright infringement, delivery up, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where they arrived at a settlement agreement dated 28.07.2026. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
Prg Pharma Private Limited v.Cure And Care Drugs Private Limited
The plaintiff, PRG Pharma Private Limited, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Cure and Care Drugs Private Limited, was using the trademark 'PRQ PHARMA,' which was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'PRG PHARMA.' The defendant's counsel indicated willingness to resolve the dispute through mediation and offered to change the packaging, trade dress, and mark if the seized consignment of cough syrup was returned. With the plaintiff's counsel also consenting, the court referred the matter to mediation.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.Ashok Kumar Unknown
The plaintiffs, Hero Investcorp Private Limited and another, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and damages on the John Doe principle. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and arrived at a settlement agreement dated 03.09.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed refund of full court fees to the plaintiffs.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799287) in Class 11, owned by the respondent. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, alleging that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 30.11.2026.
Rajesh Kumar & Others v.Jwala Devi
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Rajesh Kumar and others challenging the order dated 9.1.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, which allowed the plaintiff's appeal and granted an interim mandatory injunction in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court had originally dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order, holding that the appellate court acted as a trial court without recording perversity in the trial court's findings.
Reliance Industries Limited v.Rahul Meena & Ors
Reliance Industries Limited filed a commercial suit seeking interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing its well-known registered trademark 'JIO' by using identical or deceptively similar marks in numerous domain names and websites related to lottery, gaming, and payment services. The Delhi High Court disposed of several interlocutory applications, granting exemption from pre-institution mediation, permission to file additional documents, exemption from service, and dispensing with notice to defendant no. 1 for the purpose of considering the urgent interim relief application.
Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd v.Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani & Anr
This is a trademark cancellation petition before the Delhi High Court filed by Geetanjali Salon Pvt. Ltd. against Nitin Ajitkumar Kotwani and another. The dispute arose when an email from a purported trademark attorney of the respondent indicated no objection to the cancellation of the impugned registration, but the court found no material on record to establish the attorney's authority. The court directed fresh notice to be issued to respondent no. 1 by all permissible modes.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Rakesh Kumar & Anr.
Levi Strauss & Co., the globally renowned manufacturer of jeans and apparel, filed a suit for permanent injunction, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and rendition of accounts against defendants Rakesh Kumar and Shankar Maity, who were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit garments bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks including LEVI'S, the Two Horse logo, and the Arcuate Stitching Design. The suit was initially filed under the John Doe principle as the defendants' identities were unknown, and a Court Commissioner was appointed to identify them and seize infringing goods. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.