India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 110 of 161 · 4,815 total
Ramada International, Inc. v.Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Ramada International, Inc. against Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited and others. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions for infringement, passing-off, and dilution of its registered trademark 'RAMADA.' The court found a prima facie case existed, noting the defendant's use of similar marks (CLUB RAMADA) in identical hotel services, leading to an immediate restraint order until further proceedings.
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its patent application (No. 2109/DEL/2011). The rejection was based on the claim subject not fulfilling the requirements of Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. The High Court granted certain exemptions but directed further proceedings, including the presence of the Assistant Controller.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis sought an interlocutory injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for allegedly infringing its suit patent (IN 233161) covering the drug Eltrombopag Olamine, marketed as REVOLADE. The defendant contested by questioning the patent's validity under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found that infringement was established and there was no prima facie case of vulnerability to revocation, thus granting the injunction.
Marce Cemen Works Ltd. v.Shree Cement Ltd. & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted in a trademark infringement suit. While acknowledging the initial discretion exercised by the lower court, the bench decided that the matter required a full hearing at the trial level. The appellate proceedings were disposed of, with directions issued for both parties to exchange affidavits and proceed before the learned trial judge.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited v.Midie Cosmetics Through Its Proprietor Sh Tilak Raj & Anr.
M/S Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation or rectification of the trademark 'BLUEHEART' (No. 3388032) registered in Class-03. The court issued notice to the defendants, Midie Cosmetics, setting a date for them to complete their pleadings and proceed with the matter.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking temporary injunction regarding alleged infringement and passing off related to the Crompton brand. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were deceptively using the protected trade name 'Crompton' across their product lines, despite prior warnings. While the court noted the ongoing dispute over design piracy of pumps, it issued a specific interim direction compelling Defendant No. 1 to formally instruct its channel partners and distributors to cease all use of the Plaintiff's trademark on products and online platforms.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust & Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V. v.M/S Guru Nanak International & Ors. (specifically Defendant No. 5 - M/s Sazia Garments)
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V., finding that Defendant No. 5 (M/s Sazia Garments) was engaged in deliberate trademark infringement by manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel bearing their marks. Based on the local commissioner's report confirming the seizure of substantial infringing stock, the court decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages of Rs. 10 lakhs for the calculated willful infringement.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenged a single judge's judgment that invalidated the Appellant's patent IN240893 under Sections 64(1)(h) and (k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court held that since no issues were framed regarding these specific grounds for revocation, the learned Single Judge could not have entertained them.
G4S Limited & Anr. v.S4S Security Services & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed the suit filed by G4S Limited against S4S Security Services, which alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court noted that G4S holds valid registrations for its marks, including 'G4S'. After considering the allegations of deceptive similarity in the defendant's use of 'S4S', the Court issued notice to the defendants and granted an interim restraint order against them pending further proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors.
The appeal was filed by Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson against the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent. The court found that there had been a violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically regarding the lack of opportunity for the appellant to deal with fresh objections.
Vifor (International) Ltd v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Vifor (International) Ltd filed a suit against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Vifor's patent. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement on August 9, 2021.
Levi Strauss India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sh. Ramesh Kumar
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and selling jeans and accessories bearing falsified and confusingly similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', etc.). The court found the defendants guilty of trademark infringement and passing off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
The case involved patent infringement concerning Vivo mobile phones. A specific application was filed by defendant No. 3 (Xihi Technology Private Limited) seeking deletion from the parties array, claiming they only manufacture mobile chargers. The court accepted the undertaking given by D-3 not to infringe and passed an interim injunction against them.
Uster Technologies Ag v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Uster Technologies Ag challenged the rejection of its patent application, which related to a method for optimizing textile manufacturing processes. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was erroneous and failed to consider the provisions of the Patents Act regarding convention applications and amendments. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors
The plaintiff, Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab & Anr, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely infringing its patents related to parts of the SANDVIK VSI Crusher. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting infringement and irreparable loss.
Delhi Public School Society v.Deepak Kumar Pal & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction suspending the use of the respondent's registered trademark 'Delhi Public Secondary School.' The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent violated a previous consent decree by registering similar trademarks, leading to public confusion. This order reinforces the court's power to maintain the status quo and protect established goodwill against deceptive practices.
Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v.The Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioners challenged an impugned order regarding their patent rights related to electronic eco-friendly battery-operated vehicles. The court addressed arguments concerning the necessity of adding other manufacturers and states as parties, ultimately finding that the limited scope of the petition did not require such additions.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The court heard arguments regarding an application (I.A. 8386/2019) concerning the continuation and absoluteness of a previous interim order dated 31.05.2019, which restrained Ztt India Private Limited from infringing patents IN 241433 and IN 280211. The defendant affirmed that they had no objection to the existing restraint continuing until the suit's disposal.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit against Canva Pty Ltd seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its patented technology, titled 'Present and Record Feature of Canva'. The court allowed the plaint to be registered as a suit and set out directions for issuing summons and filing written statements.
Eli Lilly And Company & Ors. v.Bryan Pharmaceuticals Through Its Proprietor Mr. Laxmi Kand Pal / Navneet Kand Pal & Ors.
In this pharmaceutical dispute, Eli Lilly sued several companies for marketing its patented compound Baricitinib under a brand name ('Barinat') for rheumatoid arthritis, allegedly breaching licensing agreements that restricted use solely to COVID-19 treatment. The court addressed an application by one defendant (Defendant No. 11), who claimed the marketing was an inadvertent error and no sales had occurred. After the defendant provided undertakings not to market or sell the drug for any ailment other than COVID-19, the plaintiff agreed that no cause of action survived against this specific defendant, leading to its removal from the suit.
Bacardi And Company Limited v.Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a suit concerning trademark infringement where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants. The court reviewed an application filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the existing interim injunction, which was granted previously. The judge directed the defendant to place on record the memorandum of appeal and produce evidence regarding similar bottle shapes, while also addressing a counter-application by the plaintiff alleging non-compliance with the original injunction.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Sulphur Crop Care Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patent related to a Sulphur 90% WDG product by the defendants.
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Limited
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited filed an application seeking injunction against Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that a campaign of advertisements by HUL was designed to vilify and denigrate its popular toilet cleaner brand, HARPIC. The plaintiff argued that these ads disparaged the product's effectiveness and sought to divert market share to HUL's DOMEX. The court examined whether the defendant's advertising amounted to passing off or defamation of goodwill.
Ampm Fashions Private Limited v.Mr. Akash Anil Mehta, Partner Of Ampm Designs & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning the use of the 'AMPM' trademark. While the plaintiff asserted its mark was well-known and infringed upon by the defendant's stylized version, the court declined to grant the requested injunction. However, in a compromise, the defendants agreed to prominently display a specific subtitle ('Interior design by Akash Mehta and Poonam Mehta') alongside their impugned mark and submit quarterly turnover accounts to the court.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Zee Laboratories Limited & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing Indian Patent Nos. 247381, which covers the subject matter related to Apixaban. The court granted the ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing in or advertising the infringing generic products 'Apixaz' and 'Apiquis', and ordered the permanent delisting of such advertisements.
Mita Ashok Kapoor Through Poa Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Raj Cooling System Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed civil suits alleging that the defendant was infringing their registered design for an air-cooler grill. The plaintiff holds registrations (No. 324986-017 and No. 233559) covering the unique shape and configuration of the grill. The court examined the claims, noting a striking similarity between the designs and finding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for protection.
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents
Intelligent Packaging Pty Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller General of Patents' refusal to grant Indian Patent Application Number No. 156/DELNP/2014. The court issued several interim orders regarding procedural matters such as condonation of delay, exemption from filing documents, and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Hetero Labs Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against Hetero Labs Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its salts/solvates. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting defendants to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
AMPM Designs Thr. Partner Akash Mehta v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Mumbai Bench)
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by AMPM Designs, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its registered trade mark 'AMPM Designs' from the register. The court found that the IPAB erred in law and fact, specifically by failing to consider binding Supreme Court precedents regarding rectification applications. Crucially, the High Court determined that the petitioner's business (interior design services) was materially distinct from the respondent's primary business (fashion apparels), thus negating any likelihood of consumer confusion.
Novartis AG v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 229051, which covers a pharmaceutical composition combining Valsartan and Sacubitril. The dispute centered on whether Natco Pharma Limited's product, described as a supra molecular complex, infringed the patented combination.
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.