India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 107 of 164 · 4,909 total
The Regents of the University of California v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California filed an appeal challenging the rejection of their patent application, No.10336/DELNP/2013, titled "Blockade Of Inflammatory Proteases With Theta - Defensins." The initial rejections were based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. After subsequent amendments, the application was rejected again under S. 59 r/w S.15. This order sets out procedural directions for the parties to file replies and written submissions before the next hearing.
Pfizer Inc And Ors v.Jodas Expoim Pvt Ltd And Anr
The court framed several issues in this commercial suit concerning alleged patent infringement by the defendants against Pfizer Inc and Ors. The core questions revolve around whether the defendants' activities infringe two specific Indian Patents (No. 218291 and No. 209251) and if the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction or damages.
A India Print House Through Its Partners Kunal Kapoor and Vibha Kapoor v.Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of A India Print House against Pavan Bansal Trading As Bajrang Traders. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was deceptively using the identical trademark, trade-dress, and color scheme ('MERCURY') for playing cards, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion and passing off. The Court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, concluding that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm while the suit proceeds.
Shakthi Fashion & Anr. v.Burberry Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a plaint based on territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement suit. The court examined whether the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction, considering both past incidents in Bangalore and ongoing activities in New Delhi. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims regarding online sales (IndiaMart) and local solicitation in Delhi, the High Court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, stating that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.
FMC Corporation v.Insecticides India Limited
The case involves FMC Corporation and others against Insecticides India Limited regarding patent infringement. The defendant has indicated they will not launch a product until certain patents expire.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Beaukev Pharma International Pvt. Ltd for infringing its registered patent (IN'816) related to Sitagliptin. The dispute was subsequently settled under the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the rejection of its patent application for "ghosted synchronization" by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was primarily based on non-patentability under Section 3(k). The Court directed the Assistant Controller to submit a comprehensive report addressing the objections raised in the First Examination Report.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Msn Laboratories Limited
This order was passed in an interim application filed by the Plaintiffs (Astrazeneca Ab). The Defendant (MSN Laboratories Limited), through its counsel, requested a restraint on commercial launch while challenging the patent's validity and rights under Section 107(A) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Welcome Shoes Private Limited v.Retro Footwears Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court judgment in Welcome Shoes vs. Retro Footwears concluded the dispute through an amicable settlement between the parties. The defendants agreed to withdraw several similar trademarks, cease using deceptively similar marks like 'BURE' or 'WELCOMO' for footwear, and refrain from diluting the plaintiff's established brands ('WELCOME' and 'PURE'). This resolution provides a clear path forward, binding both companies to the terms of the settlement decree.
M/S Subros Educational Society v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Subros Educational Society against the refusal of registration for its trademark 'SBS World School'. The court found that the Registrar failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing registrations for similar marks under 'SBS' in Class 41. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'FOLZEST' infringed upon the Plaintiff's registered mark 'FORZEST'. Recognizing the potential for irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from selling or manufacturing the infringing product until further hearing. Furthermore, a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect and seize all medicines bearing the impugned mark.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The case involves a dispute over the infringement of a patent related to the drug Pazopanib Hydrochloride. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant manufactured stock during the patent's lifetime, while the Defendant argues that they launched the product only after the patent expired.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Radico Khaitan Ltd challenging the rejection of its trademark application for "EFKAY'S FIVE STAR MYSORE BRANDY." The court found that the Senior Examiner failed to properly consider the Appellant's existing assigned rights in 'EFKAY'S.' While this addressed the Section 11 objection, the court remanded the matter back to the Registrar. The examiner must now reconsider the application based on the remaining descriptive elements of the mark, ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Registrar Trade Marks
Radico Khaitan Ltd. appealed the rejection of its trademark application 'EFKAY'S XXX RUM (DEVICE)' by the Registrar of Trademarks, citing conflicts with existing marks. The appellant argued that several related 'EFKAYS' series marks had been legally assigned to them. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the arguments and directed all related appeals concerning similar mark rejections to be listed together for a comprehensive hearing.
Makind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Makind Pharma Limited's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application for "DON'T WORRY" in Class 3. The court held that, given the Appellant's existing registrations of the mark across various classes, the refusal based solely on lack of distinctiveness was unwarranted. The application was permitted to proceed for advertisement before acceptance, provided it is associated with the registered trademark 'MANKIND'S DON'T WORRY', and no exclusive rights are granted in the words 'DON'T' or 'WORRY' alone.
Northland Rubber Mills v.Varun Mahajan & Anr.
Northland Rubber Mills filed a civil suit seeking an injunction against Varun Mahajan and others to prevent the use of the trademark 'NORTHLAND' or similar marks. The plaintiff asserted ownership based on historical adoption dating back to 1972. However, the defendants argued that Defendant No. 1 had rights as a legal heir and ex-partner of the firm. The court registered the suit and issued notice for the injunction application, setting the stage for further arguments.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (l026/DEL/2012) by the Controller of Patents, Chennai. The rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court ordered a report to be filed regarding novelty and inventive step before further consideration.
Jitendra Kohli v.The Controller Of Patents
Jitendra Kohli appealed the rejection of his patent application concerning an electronic tendering system. The Assistant Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) for being a business method, based on the original process claims. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller erred by not considering the later-filed amended 'system and process claims', leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Sequenom Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Sequenom Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3139/DELNP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held it non-patentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the invention was a screening test, not a diagnostic test, while the respondent relied on the broad definition of 'Pre-Natal Diagnostic Test' under the PCPNDT Act.
Pi Industries Limited v.Seedlings India Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications before proceeding with the main suit. The court decreed the suit against Defendants No. 1 to 3, based on their submission that they would not contest the patent infringement claim and were willing to suffer an injunction.
Jagran Prakashan Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
Jagran Prakashan Limited appealed the abandonment of its trademark application for 'JAGRAN' in Class 12, which was initiated due to non-filing of a reply to the Examination Report (FER). The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had approached the court too belatedly. Despite acknowledging the appellant's existing rights in related marks, the court held that the delay in responding to the FER and filing the present appeal was too long to be condoned.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex matter involving the trademark 'FIELD MARSHAL,' which had been pending for decades across multiple forums, including the IPAB. The court set aside an earlier order dismissing the cancellation petition by default, finding that the dismissal was erroneous given the long-standing nature of the dispute and common evidence already led. Consequently, the High Court restored the cancellation petition and consolidated it with the original suit (Suit No. 2408/1985), directing the matter to be listed for final arguments.
M/S.Gm Modular Private Limited v.K.Dalpat Singh
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/S. Gm Modular Private Limited seeking the rectification of two rival trademarks, 'GM Pipe' and 'GMware'. The court found that the 1st Respondent adopted these marks with an ulterior motive to ride on the Petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'GM' brand since 1999. Despite arguments regarding differing classes of goods (Class 19 vs Class 17), the court held that the similarity and bad faith adoption justified removing the infringing marks from the Register.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 233161, which covers 'ELTROMBOPAG OLAMINE / REVOLADE'. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicating that the defendant was included in a list for procuring the patented preparation.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 283133, which covers PYRROLOPYRIMIDINE (RIBOCICLIB). The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum indicating the government's intent to procure RIBOCICLIB TAB/CAP, and Novartis argued this posed a threat to its patent rights.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Private Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Msn Laboratories for alleged infringement of its patent (No. 237430) covering Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases, specifically related to the drug NILOTINIB/TASIGNA. The dispute arose from an Office Memorandum indicating that the Defendant was being considered by the Department of Pharmaceuticals for manufacturing this patented preparation.
Novartis Ag v.Centurion Remedies Private Limited
Novartis Ag filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Centurion Remedies Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers pharmaceutical compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP Inhibitors. The cause of action arose from an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, listing the defendant for procurement of 'SACUBITRIL + VALSARTAN'.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
In this trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought a permanent injunction against Mackedos Pharmaceuticals Ltd. regarding the use of the mark 'OFLOMAC.' The court noted that the matter was previously stayed pending an IPAB order which ultimately favored the Plaintiff by ordering the removal of the Defendant's mark due to deceptive similarity with 'OFRAMAX.' However, given conflicting statements made by counsel before the Bombay High Court regarding the continuation of the suit, the Delhi High Court decided not to rule on the procedural dispute and instead issued notice for the Defendant to file a reply.
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. v.Mukesh Dalmia
In this Delhi High Court order, Jindal Stainless sought to cancel an upcoming evidence recording date before a Local Commissioner. The request was made because the Plaintiff had filed rectification proceedings challenging the Defendant's trademark registration. Since the Defendant raised no objection, the court allowed the application and cancelled the scheduled date, allowing the parties to mutually fix a new convenient time.
Getaround, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the rejection of a patent application for "VEHICLE ACCESS CONTROL SERVICES AND PLATFORM" by the Patent Office, which cited two US patents (D5 and D6) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that their invention differs significantly from the prior arts, particularly regarding communication flow.
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.