India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 105 of 164 · 4,909 total
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.
Patola Industries v.Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the parties, Patola Industries and Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd & Ors, into mediation regarding trademark disputes. The petitioner had submitted that they ceased using their trademark, while the respondent sought a permanent injunction against the use of similar marks for namkeens and snacks. Despite differing views on settlement, the court prioritized resolving the dispute amicably by mandating appearance at the Mediation Centre.
Emaar Properties Pjsc v.Address Infrastructures Private Limited
Emaar Properties filed a suit against Address Infrastructures Private Limited alleging trademark infringement regarding the use of 'ADDRESS' and 'THE ADDRESS' in real estate projects. The Delhi High Court issued an ad interim order, allowing the Defendant to continue operating its existing projects under the disputed name. However, the court imposed a strict condition: any future expansion or new project using the word 'Address' must first seek explicit leave from the Court, balancing the Plaintiff's transborder reputation claims against the Defendant's established business operations.
Astrazeneca Ab v.MSN Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent IN 297581 related to cancer treatment. The dispute centered on whether a Public Notice issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals constituted Government Authorization allowing generic manufacturing. The Court clarified that the notice was merely for collating local manufacturer details, not an authorization to infringe.
Shyam Sunder v.Pushpa Devi And Ors.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a complex dispute over the usage rights of the registered trademark 'Shehnai' for edible oils. The appeal, filed by Shyam Sunder (the defendant), challenged the lower court's decision which granted co-usage rights to the plaintiffs (Pushpa Devi and Ors.). After examining evidence regarding prior use, partnership history, and consumer perception, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It ultimately found that both parties had established usage rights, thereby upholding the principle of shared or concurrent trademark use in this specific context.
Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court overturned a rejection of the trademark 'HEALTHSKOOL' by the Registrar, which had deemed it descriptive under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The court recognized that despite some indicia related to health, the mark was sufficiently distinctive given its long-standing use since 2015 and existing registrations in various classes. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed for advertisement, albeit with a caveat preventing exclusive rights over the generic term 'Health'.
Best Agrolife Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's decision granting Patent No. IN 394568, arguing that the grant was flawed because the pre-grant opposition raised on grounds like lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(d) was ignored. The court found that the impugned order was non-speaking, failed to address key objections, and did not consider expert affidavits. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision.
M/s Unik Industries v.M/s Amazon India Ltd.
M/s Unik Industries filed a contempt case against M/s Amazon India Ltd. alleging willful disobedience of an interim order regarding the removal of infringing design patent products (clothing hangers) from its online portal. The petitioner claimed continuous infringement despite compliance efforts. However, the court found that since Amazon acted as an intermediary and listings were made by third parties without their actual knowledge or human intervention, there was no wilful violation.
Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Aryan Sharma & Anr.
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. against Aryan Sharma & Anr. was settled between the parties via Consent Terms dated 02.05.2022. The court accepted these terms, permitted amendments to the case title, and subsequently disposed of the suit.
Nippon A&L Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon A&L Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding its application for a copolymer latex process and product. The Patent Office had raised objections concerning inventive step, non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), and lack of clarity in claims. The High Court focused specifically on the objection related to claim amendments. The court ruled that since the Appellant was narrowing the scope of the claims and the process sought was disclosed in the specification, the amendments were valid under Section 59.
Novo Nordisk A S v.Union Of India
Novo Nordisk challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, arguing that the decision did not address the substantive grounds raised in its representation regarding a pending post-grant opposition. The case involves Patent IN257402, which relates to pharmaceutical preparations. Despite years of delays and procedural complexities in the Opposition Board proceedings, the High Court intervened to ensure that the Deputy Controller would consider all arguments presented by the patentee before rendering a final decision.
Philips Lighting Holding B.V./Signify Holding BV v.Jai Prakash Agarwal And Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses applications concerning the infringement of registered designs related to LED lighting products. The court considered claims regarding Design Registration No. 299147 (T-Bulb) and others, where the plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the defendants. While the court noted the existence of similar products in the market, it denied the ad-interim injunction due to the lack of action against other competitors. However, for Design Registration No. 247723, the defendant was directed to file regular sales accounts.
Mrs. Anugya Gupta v.Mr. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. Anugya Gupta against Mr. Ajay Kumar and others, finding that the defendants' use of domain names like 'SARKARIRESULT.INFO' was likely to cause confusion with her established trademark and website, 'SARKARIRESULT'. The court emphasized that the similarity between the marks/domains, coupled with evidence of dishonest adoption by the defendants, warranted immediate protection for the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The petitioner filed an application alleging that the defendant violated a prior injunction by offering to supply Eltrombopag Olamine to the Government. The court examined whether this offer, made under Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970, constituted contempt.
Vimala Parmar v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Vimala Parmar against The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention to compel the Trademark Registry to accept evidence in an opposition proceeding concerning trademark application No. 812224. However, due to non-prosecution—the failure of the petitioner to file a new counsel or appear before the court—the High Court dismissed the petition.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patent (No. 197822) against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit based on this compromise.
Sanjeev Khandelwal v.Ganesh Medicals
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of his patents against three defendants. Subsequently, the parties executed a Deed of Compromise dated 22.11.2010. The court disposed of the suit in terms of this compromise, decreeing it against the third defendant and dismissing it against the first and second defendants.
Unilever IP Holdings B.V. v.Ruchi Ice Cream
The Commercial IP Suit filed by Unilever IP Holdings B.V. against Ruchi Ice Cream regarding an impugned mark was ultimately settled between the parties. The court accepted the Consent Minutes of Order and disposed of the suit, decreeing it in terms of the original plaint's prayers.
Saint-Gobain Glass France v.M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering (P) Ltd.
The suit was filed by Saint-Gobain Glass France (through its Indian subsidiary) against M/s.Harsha Exito Engineering for infringement of Suit Patent No.305596, which covers a system and method for installing glass panels. The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing products, and damages. The Court found the Plaintiff to be the proprietor and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Neha Overseas v.Khushi Impex
The Bombay High Court rejected Khushi Impex's application to vacate an ex-parte interim order that had seized their alleged infringing goods. The court found that the defendant admitted infringement by copying the plaintiff's 'CROWN' trademark and packaging, noting that reliance on a rectification application before the Registrar was insufficient grounds for vacating the stay. Consequently, the relief sought for the release of the goods was also denied.
XXX v.Union Of India
The petitioner, suffering from HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer, sought an interim direction compelling the 3rd respondent (DPIIT) to consider their representation regarding the high cost of Ribociclib. The petitioner argued that since Ribociclib enjoys patent monopoly and is not manufactured in India, compulsory licensing under Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970, was necessary for affordability.
Aasik Jindran v.Mohammad Rafiq
Aasik Jindran, proprietor of M/s GBL Agro Equipments, filed a petition challenging an earlier commercial court order. The dispute centered on the use of the brand name 'GBL' for agricultural goods by Mohammad Rafiq, which Jindran claimed infringed his registered trademarks and copyrights. While the trial court had granted injunction against 'GBL', Jindran sought an extension to include restraint against the similar mark 'SGBL'.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Ravi Mehra
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging infringement and passing off against the defendants for manufacturing and selling apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to 'Levi's'. The court found that the defendants were deliberately copying the plaintiff's marks with dishonest intent.
M/s.Proklean Technologies P. Ltd. v.M/s.Godrej Consumer Products Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed applications seeking interim injunctions against trademark infringement and passing off concerning the mark 'ProKlean' versus 'ProClean'. While acknowledging the applicant's registered marks, the court found that the balance of convenience tilted against granting an immediate injunction due to the respondent's significant turnover. Consequently, the applications were disposed of without granting the requested restraint, but the respondent was mandated to submit quarterly accounts of sales and profits related to the disputed mark.
Geoscope Exim Private Limited v.Snj Distillers Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal filed by Geoscope Exim Private Limited challenging an interlocutory order regarding passing off. The court noted that the main suit was at an advanced stage and, based on mutual agreement between counsel, decided to dispose of the appeal without expressing a definitive view on the merits. This decision allows the Commercial Division to proceed with the final arguments in the original infringement and passing-off case.
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.