India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 101 of 161 · 4,815 total
Delhi Public School Society v.Delhi Public International School
The Delhi Public School Society filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Delhi Public International School for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the use of 'DPIS' was deceptively similar to their established brand 'DPS'. The court initially granted an interim injunction recognizing the plaintiff's prior rights. However, upon considering subsequent developments, particularly the change in name by the defendant school, the court concluded that the main cause of action no longer survived against all parties. Consequently, the suit was disposed of, allowing the plaintiff to pursue remedies regarding pending trademark applications.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Dlvk Cement Private Limited
The suit filed by UltraTech Cement Limited against Dlvk Cement Private Limited was settled out of court. The Bombay High Court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order, disposed of the suit and interim application, and decreed the matter in accordance with the settlement terms.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 (Patentee) seeking dismissal of revocation petitions on the grounds of being time-barred. The court held that since no specific limitation is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision. Furthermore, interim stay applications were dismissed as the patent was already granted and injunctions had been granted elsewhere.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This judgment addresses applications filed by Respondent No.2 seeking dismissal of revocation petitions concerning patent IN 243301 (Linagliptin) on the grounds that they were time-barred. The Court held that since no specific limitation period is prescribed for revocation under Section 64, a three-year limitation period cannot be read into the provision.
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. v.Surjit Dairy Products
The commercial IP suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Surjit Dairy Products was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.
Osaka University v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Osaka University appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 3495/DELNP/2012) for 'Bridged Artificial Nucleoside and Nucleotide'. The rejection was based on lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The suit was filed by Glaxo Group Limited seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of money against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Patent No. IN212714. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the Court accepted and decreed the suit in terms of that agreement.
I. M. A. Industria Macchine Automatiche S. P. A. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant, a manufacturer of packaging materials, appealed against the Controller's rejection of its patent application for a transporting apparatus. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step over cited prior art documents. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient reasons and failed to deal with the merits or arguments raised by the appellant.
Incyte Holding Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Incyte Holding Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8686/DELNP/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal was filed after a considerable delay of 530 days. The court condoned this delay, allowing the main appeal to proceed.
RRR Motion Pictures And Ors v.Shahe Ali
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition seeking to set aside an order that framed issues in a trademark infringement suit. The core issue was whether the Petitioners' request for permission to file a rectification petition under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been properly considered. The Court clarified that while a civil court must examine the prima facie tenability of an invalidity plea, this process is not equivalent to granting 'permission.' It directed the Commercial Court to decide on the validity application before proceeding with the main infringement trial.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'JIMSUN' held by Jimsun Life Sciences P. Ltd. The court granted the relief based on a settlement reached between the parties, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to have no objection to the cancellation. This order effectively cleared the path for the Petitioner to remove the disputed mark from the registry.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The commercial suit for patent infringement concerning Sitagliptin (protected by IN 209816) was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. The Defendants acknowledged the validity of the patent and agreed to cease all infringing activities, including manufacturing generic versions, until the patent expires.
Usha International Limited v.Citizen Udyog
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by the defendant seeking vacation of an interim injunction and return of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. While the defendant argued that all operations were outside Delhi, the plaintiff countered by citing Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and evidence showing export activities originating from ICD Delhi. The court directed both parties to obtain and file the Local Commissioner's report and related photographic evidence before proceeding with the substantive arguments.
General Mills Inc. v.Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd Federation
In this ongoing trademark dispute, General Mills Inc. sought to incorporate the registration of its mark 'TRIX' into the existing pleadings. The Delhi High Court accepted the amendment and subsequently framed a new, specific issue before the court. This new issue directly addresses whether the defendant's use of the 'TRIX' mark constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Sandeep Kumar v.Pla Foods Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar challenging an ex parte ad interim injunction issued by a lower Commercial Court, which restrained him from using the trademark 'CHEFFY'. The court noted that while the appellant raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and prior knowledge of usage, it deemed inappropriate to interfere with the existing interim order at that stage. The appeal was ultimately disposed of, allowing the original parties to advance their full contentions before the Commercial Court.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Chougle Salt Works Private Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited successfully resolved its intellectual property dispute against Chougle Salt Works Private Limited through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a comprehensive settlement agreement acknowledging that the defendant had inadvertently infringed upon Tata's registered copyrights (TATASALT packaging) and trademarks (TATA SALT). Under the terms, the defendant agreed to cease using similar marks, destroy infringing materials, and permanently refrain from applying for or using any confusingly similar IP rights. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on this settlement.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of its rights in patents claimed to be standards essential to 3G and 4G communications standards. The Plaintiff suspects that various other patents may also be infringed by the Defendants.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Laziq Trading Company
The Plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, filed an interim application seeking relief against Laziq Trading Company for alleged infringement of its well-known trademarks and copyrights associated with the DR. FIXIT silicone sealant range. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling goods bearing similar marks or infringing the artistic work on the packaging.
Usha International Limited v.Tarun Arora Trading As Krishan Enterprises
Usha International Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Arora for trademark infringement concerning sewing machines. The Delhi High Court examined the plaintiff's claim, noting Usha's long-standing use of the mark 'USHA' since 1936 and its status as a well-known mark. Finding that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'WSHA', the court granted an interim restraint order, preventing the defendant from using the infringing marks until further proceedings.
Essential Export Sociedad Anonima v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Essential Export Sociedad Anonima challenging the rejection of its multi-class trademark application (No. 3639686). While dismissing a request for stay, the court found prima facie grounds to reconsider the matter. The court noted that certain facts, including oppositions and COVID-19 related adjournments, had not been properly considered by the Registrar's Examiner. Consequently, the case was remanded back to allow for fresh consideration of the application.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Chiral Biosciences Limited
The suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Chiral Biosciences Limited for infringing Merck Sharp & Dohme's patent (IN 209816) covering Sitagliptin. Although the court found evidence of infringement, it ultimately denied the permanent injunction because the patent had expired by July 2022, but awarded damages and costs.
Kanishka Sinha & Anr v.The Union Of India & Ors
The petitioners sought a direction to the Deputy Director General (VAHAN), National Informatics Centre, to grant linkage of their patented software with the Vehicle Registration and Homogation System. The matter was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the writ petition.
The Goodyear Tire Rubber Company v.Deva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the Trademark Registrar to immediately comply with a prior judgment favoring Goodyear Tire Rubber Company. The court confirmed that the defendant had paid the stipulated litigation costs. Crucially, the Registrar was directed to remove the defendant's infringing 'GOOD YEAR' trademark (No. 1120219) from the register and dispose of related rectification and opposition proceedings within one week. This order solidifies Goodyear's position against unauthorized use of its mark.
Abhishek Gupta v.Vipin Jain
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Abhishek Gupta, who was seeking restraint against trademark and copyright infringement related to his 'BOL' sports publication. Despite initial resistance based on delayed approach, the court found a prima facie case for the appellant. The judgment specifically restrained Vipin Jain from passing off or associating their goods with the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights, recognizing the likelihood of consumer confusion due to similar get-up and use.
Synthes Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Synthes Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'BONE FIXATION APPARATUS' by the Controller General of Patents. The appeal was transferred to the Delhi High Court following legislative changes. Initially, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the court directed both parties to file comprehensive written submissions and place prior art on record before proceeding with the merits of the patent rejection.
Excitel Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of the trade mark application 'REELTIME' by the Senior Examiner. The court held that website printouts could constitute valid evidence of use, provided they are accompanied by a Section 65B certificate under the IT Act. Furthermore, the court found that prior registrations and a settlement agreement with Google LLC were sufficient to establish the Appellant's rights, allowing the mark to proceed for advertisement.
Ms Shivam Hardware Store v.Ms Century World
The Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in favor of Ms Century World against Ms Shivam Hardware Store. The dispute centered on the use of the mark 'SHIVAM CENTURY,' which was deemed deceptively similar to Ms Century World's registered marks, including 'CP CENTURY.' Despite arguments that 'CENTURY' is a common word, the court found that the prominent inclusion of this term in both marks, coupled with the similarity of goods and lack of justification for the appellant's use, warranted protection of the respondent's goodwill. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 294424, which covers the tetracyclic compound Alectinib used in cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether the Defendant's import and use of Alectinib Hydrochloride were commercial infringements or activities permitted under Section 107A (Bolar provision) for research and regulatory purposes.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Assistant Controller that refused its application seeking cross-examination during pre-grant opposition proceedings against Novartis A.G.'s patent application (No. 4412/DELNP/2007). The court ultimately disposed of the petition, allowing for procedural steps to be taken in the underlying opposition.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed the Controller's rejection of a divisional patent application related to DPP-IV inhibitors. The core dispute centered on whether the parent application contained a 'plurality of inventions' sufficient to support the new product claims sought in the divisional filing. The Delhi High Court ultimately rejected the appeal, holding that since the original application only contained method or use claims and not distinct product claims, the subsequent introduction of such products was considered disclaimed. Consequently, the divisional application could not proceed.
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.