India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 112 of 164 · 4,909 total
Sotefin Sa v.Indraprastha Cancer Society And Research Center
Sotefin Sa filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against Indraprastha Cancer Society and others for the alleged infringement of its Indian Patent 214088, which covers the 'Silomat Dolly' used in automatic car parks. The Plaintiff contended that Defendants were importing 'Smart Dollies' from China that closely resembled and infringed upon their patented technology. After considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunction.
Mr. Sanjay Chadha Trading As Eveready Tools Emporium and Another v.Union Of India And Another
The Delhi High Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to cancel a registered trademark. The petitioners, who owned the 'EVEREADY' word mark for hand tools, challenged its removal by the respondent, Eveready Industries India Limited. However, the court found that the IPAB had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the petitioners' adoption and use of the mark were dishonest and lacked continuous user. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the importance of maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v.Karan Holiday Inn Private Limited & Anr
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court noted that while the defendant had largely removed the disputed mark from various sources, some instances persisted on third-party websites. The court allowed the plaintiff to issue notices to these specific sites demanding the takedown of the infringing trademarks and associated photographs. Furthermore, the parties were directed to continue mediation proceedings, indicating a potential path toward an amicable settlement.
Capital Food Private Limited v.Radiant Indus Chem Pvt. Ltd
In this commercial suit concerning trademark infringement of 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY,' the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to introduce crucial subsequent evidence. The court ruled that the take-down notices and market surveys were necessary for a fair adjudication, despite the defendant's objections regarding late filing. This order allows the case to proceed with expanded evidentiary material.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
This case involves a Review Petition filed by Defendants No. 1 & 2 against an earlier order passed by the Delhi High Court. The defendants challenged the court's directions requiring them to produce third-party agreements, arguing that these documents were irrelevant to determining the essentiality of the suit patents and constituted an erroneous understanding of the facts.
Indus Tmt Industries Ltd v.M/S Mega Steel Industries
This case involved Indus Tmt Industries Ltd filing Original Suits against M/S Mega Steel Industries alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks and design. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages for the unauthorized use of similar marks like 'Index Gold'. During the proceedings, the court permitted the plaintiff to delete the prayer pertaining to the Designs Act, 2000, leading to the suits being remanded back to the Trial Court to resolve the remaining disputes.
Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v.Novartis Ag
This appeal before the Telangana High Court concerned an infringement suit filed by Novartis Ag against Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding patent IN 229051, which covers a specific Valsartan/Sacubitril combination drug. The respondents (Novartis) had secured an interim injunction based on prima facie evidence of infringement due to the appellant's (Msn Labs) manufacturing approval for a similar formulation. The court examined the statutory provisions of the Patents Act and CPC, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the injunction granted in favor of Novartis.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca Ab, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited, was infringing their Indian Patent IN 297581, which covers the anticancer drug Osimertinib (marketed as Tagrisso). The plaintiffs claimed the defendant was soliciting large orders to manufacture and sell the infringing product without authorization.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Sham Bansode
The dispute between Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Sham Bansode regarding the 'Dream11' trademarks was amicably settled through mediation. The parties agreed that the court would decree the infringement suit based on the settlement terms. Key provisions included the defendant acknowledging ownership of the plaintiff's listed trademarks, agreeing to cease all use of similar marks, transferring the domain name www.mydream11.in, and paying a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Levi Straus & Company v.Braint Denims
The plaintiff, Levi Straus & Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademarks (including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design') by the defendant, Braint Denims. The court found that while exact damages were difficult to calculate, it awarded punitive damages of ₹2,00,000/- against the two defendants due to their evasion of court proceedings.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd
The dispute concerned the validity and potential revocation of Patent No. IN240893. Although the court had previously found the patent invalid under Section 64(1)(h) in an earlier judgment, the matter was carried out in appeal. The core issue before this bench was whether the patent could be revoked based on grounds like insufficient disclosure (Section 64(1)(h)).
M/S Mold Tech Packaging Limited v.S.D. Container Proprietor Patwari
The appeal was filed by M/S Mold Tech Packaging Limited against an order rejecting its application for a temporary injunction. The plaintiff claimed that the respondent was pirating and infringing their registered designs of containers and lids. However, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff's designs were not new or original as they had been in use globally prior to registration.
Ajanta LLP v.Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal concerned an attempt by Ajanta LLP to modify a consent decree reached with Casio Computer Co. Ltd., alleging a typographical error regarding the scope of the settlement agreement. The original suit involved claims of design piracy related to scientific calculators, citing specific registered designs. Although the parties had settled and the High Court decreed the suit based on this settlement, Ajanta LLP sought rectification, arguing that the agreement incorrectly specified trademark elements. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that a consent decree cannot be modified merely due to misunderstanding unless the mistake is patent or obvious.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Sharmila Lalit Vyas And Anr.
Louis Vuitton Malletier filed an Interim Application seeking an injunction against the Defendants to prevent them from manufacturing, selling, or distributing products featuring the impugned LV mark or deceptively similar marks. The court directed the Applicant/Plaintiff to serve the proceedings on the Defendants before considering any ad-interim relief.
Schaeffler Technologies Ag And Co Kg v.Ms Gangason Enterprises
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Schaeffler Technologies (FAG) against Ms Gangason Enterprises for alleged trademark infringement. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute through an amicable settlement, which the court formalized into a decree. Under the terms of this settlement, the Defendant acknowledged FAG's exclusive rights and agreed to cease all use of the mark 'FAG,' withdraw related trademark applications, destroy infringing products, and provide an apology for the violation.
Dfm Foods Limited v.ITC Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark dispute between Dfm Foods Limited and ITC Limited. While the suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, the court immediately directed both parties toward mandatory mediation. This order sets the stage for amicable resolution while allowing procedural steps like filing additional documents and exemptions from pre-institution mediation.
Astra Zeneca Ab And Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The dispute concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patents IN 205147 and IN 235625 by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the drug Dapnat/Dapagliflozin. The present application sought to release the defendant from a bank guarantee obligation, but the court declined this prayer.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P v.Sandeep Arora & Anr.
The Polo/Lauren Company L P filed a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, challenging the copyright registration of 'SPORTS POLO' held by Sandeep Arora & Anr. The petitioner argued that the respondent's logo substantially reproduced its well-known trademarks and artistic marks. The court found that the respondent's artwork was an imitation of the petitioner's registered marks, lacking originality, and therefore wrongly registered. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the impugned copyright registration.
L'OREAL v.Haridas Pa
The plaintiff, L'Oreal, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks ('L'OREAL', 'L'OREAL PROFESSIONNEL', 'L'OREAL PARIS') and passing off. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (LOERA, LORA) in relation to beauty care products and services, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited v.Galatea Limited
Sahajanand Technologies Private Limited approached the Gujarat High Court seeking procedural directions concerning an ongoing Trademark Suit. The petitioner specifically relied upon Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, to influence the trial court's proceedings regarding a Counter Claim (Exhibit 28). After mutual consent from both parties, the High Court disposed of the petition while directing the Trial Court to decide Exhibit 28 within four weeks.
M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited (Madura F and L Division)
M/S. Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd filed an Original Suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against M/S. Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited for allegedly infringing the plaintiffs' granted patent (No. 306901) related to 'Stay Dry Period Panty'. However, the plaintiffs subsequently moved to withdraw the suit.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Montessori & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd. against M/S Fly High Montessori & Ors. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark, 'GOLDEN FRANKFINN,' for educational services, thereby infringing on and passing off its registered trademark 'FRANKFINN.' The court found that a prima facie case was made out, immediately restraining the defendant from using the disputed marks in any manner to prevent further infringement and unfair competition.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound APIXABAN. The defendant is accused of manufacturing and selling APIXABAN API without authorization.
S Bant Singh Sole Proprietor M S Vishavkarma Engineering Works v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of a registered trademark, 'PUNNI,' in Class 35. The plaintiff argued that another party had registered the identical mark on a later date, leading to a conflict. The court initiated the proceedings by issuing notice to the defendant and setting a timeline for filing pleadings.
Novartis Ag v.Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Novartis Ag, filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning the drug Eltrombopag Olamine. The court found a clear prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, noting that the rights to the patent had been confirmed previously.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringed its patent by launching a product containing Eltrombopag Olamine without a license. The court granted an ex parte injunction against the defendant's product 'REBOPAG'.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr.
The appeal was filed challenging the Assistant Controller's order dated August 24, 2021, which rejected Indian Patent Application No. 201817006495. The appellants argued that the rejection based on multiplicity of inventive concepts violated principles of natural justice as no specific objection was raised in the examination report.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd was infringing five of its patents related to telecommunication standards (UMTS, LTE, etc.). The current application sought discovery through interrogatories and production of license agreements with chipset providers like Qualcomm and MediaTek. The court partly allowed the application, directing the defendants to answer specific questions and provide relevant third-party agreements in a sealed cover.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Combitic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd
In this Delhi High Court order, Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited sought time to challenge the validity of a trademark registered by Combitic Global Caplet Pvt Ltd. The court allowed the application and granted an adjournment of three months. This procedural step allows the plaintiff to formally apply for the rectification of the defendant's trademark registration before the IP Division.
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co Ltd filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting Indian Patent Application No. 8198/DELNP/2013. The appellant argued that the notice of hearing failed to cite all relevant prior arts ('D2' and 'D3') which were used as grounds for rejection.
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.