India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 108 of 164 · 4,909 total
Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. successfully appealed a trademark rejection by The Registrar of Trademarks in the Delhi High Court. The court overturned the Senior Examiner's decision, which had cited lack of distinctiveness and descriptive nature. Recognizing the extensive goodwill and long-standing use of the 'KARIM/KARIM'S' mark since 1913, the court allowed the application to proceed for registration, subject only to association with existing registrations regarding specific descriptive terms.
Symphony Limited v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
Symphony Limited filed a suit against Raj Cooling System Private Limited alleging infringement of its registered design (No. 288184) for air coolers. The dispute was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the suit.
Kanishk Sinha & Anr v.Union Of India & Anr
The appellants challenged the dismissal of their writ petition, which sought linkage between their software and the 'VAHAN' vehicle registration system. The core issue raised was entitlement to compensation under Section 102(3) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Ruptech Educational India v.Mansi Aggarwal
The Delhi High Court formally decreed a commercial suit between Ruptech Educational India and Mansi Aggarwal based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement addressed disputes concerning formative trademarks, specifically the word 'SCOTTISH.' Key terms included the withdrawal of pending trademark applications by the defendant, a limited grace period for the use of certain marks until December 31, 2022, and subsequent cessation of all related activities. This judgment provides a clear example of how parties can resolve complex IP disputes through mediation.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The dispute involved Astra Zeneca alleging infringement of its formulation patents (IN 247984 and IN 272674) by Torrent Pharmaceuticals' product, Ticagrelor. The parties amicably resolved their differences before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Metrochem Api Pvt. Ltd
The parties amicably resolved their dispute concerning Patent Infringement (CS(COMM) No. 406 of 2019). The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive rights over products containing Sitagliptin.
Galatea Ltd. v.M. Kantilal Exports
This case involved multiple suits concerning patent and copyright infringement, where petitioners sought the appointment of a local commissioner to inspect infringing activities. The High Court found that the initial commission report was flawed because it did not follow mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically regarding issuing notice to respondents before inspection. Consequently, the court discarded the existing reports and directed the trial court to issue a fresh commission.
BASF SE v.SEEDLINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR
BASF SE filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Seedlings India Private Limited and others for infringing its Patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes used in fungicides/insecticides. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants' products were approved under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, despite previous undertakings by related group companies not to infringe the patent.
Unilever Plc v.Mukesh
The applicants filed an interim application seeking the extension and granting of ad-interim injunctions against the defendants. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods in the FMCG industry using counterfeit marks, pirated artwork, or trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (VIM) and prior used trademarks (U-Logo, SURF/SURF EXCEL).
BASF SE v.GSP CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit seeking protection of its patent No. IN 271338, which covers crystalline complexes containing thiophanate-methyl and pyraclostrobin used as a fungicide. The court addressed several procedural applications before granting an interim order regarding the injunction request.
Mody Pumps Inc v.Sovereign Pumping Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed an interim application alleging that defendants, former employees, colluded to steal copyrighted engineering drawings and confidential data relating to water pumps. The plaintiffs sought a restraining order against the defendants for manufacturing and marketing identical products. The court granted an interim injunction but stayed its operation for one week.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing their patent on Lactam-Containing Compounds (Apixaban API). The Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that it had not supplied commercial quantities and agreed to manufacture/sell the drug solely under Section 107A(a) of the Patents Act, leading the Court to pass an interim restraint order.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India
The petitioner, the patentee/assignee of Patent No. 254875, challenged an order by the Secretary, Government of India, regarding their request for a patent linkage to the VAHAN e-Module. The core dispute was whether the patent holder could mandate that electric vehicle registration (specifically e-Rickshaws) be subject to NOC issuance based on the patent before official registration.
Mahindra And Mahindra Limited v.Kanishk Sinha & Ors.
The case involved a suit alleging violation of Patent Rights. The petitioner sought modification/variation of an existing ad interim injunction, citing financial losses and delay in the disposal of interlocutory applications. The court directed the lower court to ensure these pending applications are disposed of expeditiously within six weeks.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited v.Mahinder Bhutani & Anr.
Parmesh Construction Company Limited filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of Mahinder Bhutani's registered mark 'BHUTANI'. The court noted that while the petitioner argued 'BHUTANI' is a common surname, they also use it in their own trademark 'BHUTANI INFRA'. The court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and scheduled further hearings, indicating the matter will proceed through litigation.
Lilly Icos Llc v.Vivek Pharmachem And Anr.
The dispute between Lilly Icos Llc and Vivek Pharmachem was amicably resolved through mediation before the Delhi High Court. The parties executed a settlement agreement where they mutually acknowledged each other's respective trademarks, 'CIALIS' and 'ZYDALIS'. Crucially, Defendant No. 2 agreed not to use any mark with the suffix 'ALIS' for erectile dysfunction drugs, while Plaintiff agreed to withdraw an opposition against ZYDALIS. The court subsequently decreed the suit against Defendant No. 2 based on these settlement terms.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr
In a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. successfully reached a comprehensive settlement with M S Sunmarker Pharmaceuticals & Anr before the Delhi High Court. The parties jointly filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, leading to a decree that formally acknowledged Sun Pharma's rights in 'SUN' and 'SUN PHARMA'. Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendants agreed to cease using the infringing mark, destroy related materials, and withdraw their trademark application.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing their patents related to the High Efficiency Video Encoding (HEVC/H.265) standard. The Plaintiffs also seek to add further patents and devices that may infringe during the proceedings.
Valent Biosciences Llc v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Valent Biosciences Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201717025151). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step under relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed applications for additional documents and exempted filing fees, and listed the appeal for further hearing.
The British School Society v.Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of The British School Society, confirming an existing interim injunction against the Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society. The court found that the unauthorized and continuous use of the identical mark 'The British School' by the Defendants constituted misrepresentation and caused irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the Defendants were mandated to change their school names effective May 1, 2022, ensuring a smooth transition for enrolled students.
Wsou Investments Llc v.Zte Telecom India Private Limited & Anr
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patent No. 322101, along with damages and other reliefs. The disputes were settled, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and counterclaim.
Marico Limited v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Marico Limited successfully challenged the actions of the Trademark Registry in the Madras High Court, arguing that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when removing its registered trademark 'MANJAL'. The court ruled in favor of Marico, holding that the Registrar improperly bypassed statutory requirements by proceeding with rectification despite an ongoing infringement suit. This judgment reinforces the strict jurisdictional limits placed on the Registrar under the Trademarks Act.
Saga Lifesciences Limited v.Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the brand 'ULTRAMOL', the Delhi High Court recognized Saga Lifesciences Limited as the prior adopter and user of the mark for pharmaceutical preparations. Despite initial procedural applications being disposed of, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The commissioner is tasked with inventorying products bearing both 'ULTRAMOL' and 'ARISTO ULTRAMOL', and critically, examining the sales accounts of the defendant to assess the scope of alleged infringement.
Osram Gmbh & Anr. v.Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr.
In this Delhi High Court matter, the court addressed the ongoing suit concerning the 'OSRAM' trademark. The defendants voluntarily expressed their intent to abandon two specific trademark applications for the mark. Consequently, the court confirmed the existing interim injunction granted in favor of Osram Gmbh & Anr., while also directing the parties to list all relevant trademark filings for future consideration.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN319780, thereby maintaining the patent. The Appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking and unreasoned. Both parties consented to the matter being remanded.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Co. KG v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs sought an injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing their patent rights related to Linagliptin. The defendant challenged the plaint's validity, arguing that the suit was barred by law under Section 53(4) of the Patents Act or not properly filed. The court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The court heard various interlocutory applications in a patent infringement suit concerning standards essential patents related to 3G, 4G, and 5G communications. The primary focus was on allowing the Plaintiffs (Interdigital) to reserve rights to add future infringing devices and additional patents from their large portfolio.
ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. v.JUMBO ELECTRIC COMPANY
The case involves a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of patent no. 193488, which pertains to a conversion kit for fluorescent lighting. The Plaintiff has not appeared in court since November 2017, leading to the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution.
Sanofi India Limited v.Ridley Life Science Private Limited
Sanofi India Limited filed a suit against Ridley Life Science Private Limited alleging continuous violation of an earlier injunction order, specifically regarding the sale of products under the marks 'CONCIFLAM' and 'CORIFLAM'. The Plaintiff claimed that these infringing products were being sold despite the May 2021 restraint on using marks similar to its registered trademark 'COMBIFLAM'. The court noted the defendant's history of alleged habitual infringement in pharmaceutical preparations. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to submit detailed sales figures and imposed a significant deposit amount due to the persistent violations.
Surbhi Tangri v.Nishant Goel
The Punjab-Haryana High Court allowed Surbhi Tangri's appeal, setting aside a lower court order that had dismissed her application for an injunction. The court found that the defendant's use of 'DECORALLEY' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered trademark, 'The Décor Alley'. Despite arguments regarding different mark types (word vs. device) and business models, the High Court emphasized the common law principle of passing off, ruling that a common man would be deceived by the similarity.
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.