India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 115 of 164 · 4,909 total
Dfm Foods Ltd v.Ishvi Food Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court formally decreed a trademark infringement suit between Dfm Foods Ltd and Ishvi Food Private Limited after the parties reached an amicable settlement. The settlement agreement confirmed that the defendant violated the plaintiff's 'CURLS' trademark rights by passing off their corn-based snacks as originating from Dfm Foods. In exchange for the defendants agreeing to cease all infringing activities, destroy existing goods, and acknowledge the plaintiff's ownership, the plaintiff waived claims for damages and costs.
Sap Se v.Sanjay Kumar Goel & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning the names 'SAP' and 'SAPPY', the Delhi High Court took two key actions. First, it confirmed an existing interim injunction after the defendants withdrew their trademark applications, thereby protecting the plaintiff's interests temporarily. Second, recognizing the parties' willingness to resolve the conflict amicably, the court directed both sides to participate in mediation, signaling a move towards settlement for the ongoing commercial suit.
L.G. Varadarajulu v.Minit Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing various IP rights, including Patent No. 179607 (related to table top wet grinders), Designs Nos. 163445/163446, and copyright in an injunction manual. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the suit.
Huntington Alloys Corporation v.Union Of India And 3 Ors
The petitioner challenged the rejection orders passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 regarding its patent application for "Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation". The petitioner argued that these orders were passed without hearing them, making the 'prima facie' satisfaction perverse. The court directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Chugai Seiyaki Kabushiki Kaisha v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an ad interim injunction against MSN Laboratories Private Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 294424, which covers Alectinib or its derivatives. The court allowed the application subject to exceptions, permitting the defendant to use the drug for research purposes under Section 107A of the Patents Act, but prohibiting commercial launch without prior court permission.
Dimple Madhulal Bhatia v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Dimple Madhulal Bhatia against the Union of India regarding delays in processing trademark applications. The petitioner sought an urgent direction for the Registrar of Trademarks to schedule hearings and expedite the examination of her pending trademarks. While the respondent argued that matters were being processed according to seniority, the court intervened, directing the concerned authority to deal with the petitioner's applications preferably within four months.
Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Pawan Kumar
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ghantakaran Pipes Pvt Ltd against Pawan Kumar. The dispute centered on the registered trademark 'MONICA GOLD'. Following successful mediation, the parties executed a settlement agreement which the court upheld. Under the terms, the defendant committed to cease all use of the protected mark and any deceptively similar marks, effectively resolving the litigation in favor of the plaintiffs.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd filed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of opposition proceedings against Patent No. 257402, which was granted to Novo Nordisk A/S. The court addressed the procedural delay and directed the respondents to furnish the Opposition Board's recommendations within one week, subsequently rescheduling the hearing.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Union Of India & Ors.
Novo Nordisk A/S filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent Authorities (No. 1 through No. 3) to decide on its request for the cross-examination of witnesses in a pending post-grant opposition against Patent No. IN 257402. The court, after considering arguments from both sides, directed that Respondent No. 2 fix the date for the cross-examination and complete it expeditiously.
Uday Prakash v.Anand Pandit And Another
Uday Prakash appealed against the rejection of his application for a temporary injunction in a suit claiming infringement of his registered copyright ('Highway-39') by defendants who were producing a feature film titled 'Chehre'. The High Court found prima facie that there was no distinctive plagiarism, but directed the trial to be expedited and mandated an acknowledgment if the plaintiff succeeds.
Arun Kumar Murarka v.Rajesh Sultania & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications filed by Arun Kumar Murarka concerning the trademark dispute against Rajesh Sultania & Anr. The core issue involves a petition seeking rectification/cancellation of the 'KAILASA' trademark (Reg. No. 4701472) due to its alleged deceptive similarity to the petitioner's mark, 'KAILASHA'. While an exemption application was allowed, the court proceeded by issuing notice to the defendant and listing the matter for further hearing on October 12, 2021.
M/s.Fast Products v.G.G.Aqua Industries
M/s.Fast Products filed a suit against G.G.Aqua Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'AQUA FAST' and copyright violation concerning the associated trade dress and artistic label design. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions, destruction of infringing goods, and damages. However, on the date of judgment (26.08.2021), the plaintiff failed to appear before the court despite previous proceedings, leading the High Court to dismiss the suit for default.
Kirloskar Aaf Limited v.M/S American Air Filters Company Inc; M/S. AAF - McQUAY INC.; M/S. MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree that partly granted permanent injunction and damages against Kirloskar Aaf Limited for unauthorized use of the 'AAF' trademark. The High Court confirmed the injunction part of the original decree, finding that the appellant ceased to be a permitted user after the Termination Agreement. However, the court set aside the portion of the decree directing daily damages due to lack of evidence.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The appeal challenges a single judge's decision that invalidated the Appellant's patent (IN240893). The Appellant argues that the ground of Section 64(1)(h) was not pleaded or evidenced, while the Respondent seeks to uphold the revocation based on various sections of the Patents Act.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited & Anr v.Micky Metals Limited
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' interim application seeking protection for their trademark 'LUX'. Despite presenting evidence of long-standing use, massive sales figures, and international presence, the court found insufficient grounds to grant relief at the interim stage. The judgment noted that the mark 'LUX' has been used by various entities and pointed to prior legal challenges regarding its registration, ultimately finding no compelling reason to favor the plaintiffs.
Yonex Co., Ltd. v.Sumit Girdhar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of Yonex Co., Ltd. against Sumit Girdhar and others regarding counterfeit goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case showing that defendants were dealing in counterfeit badminton equipment using the protected YONEX mark. This interim order immediately restrained the defendants from selling or advertising any products bearing the YONEX mark or similar variations, pending further proceedings.
KAIRA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD & ANR. v.REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ORS.
The Delhi High Court issued several directions in this trademark dispute involving the 'AMUL' brand. The court allowed an application seeking to implead a specific applicant as a respondent, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to file an affidavit detailing the current status of advertisements related to the mark. This ongoing litigation focuses on clarifying the scope and validity of the registered trademark.
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited v.Ms Yum Yum Chi
Tusaj Lifestyle Private Limited successfully sought an ex parte injunction against Ms Yum Yum Chi in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff, which operates restaurants under registered trademarks like 'Yum Yum Cha,' alleged that the defendant's use of 'Yum Yum Chi' was deceptively similar to its established brand. The court granted the interim relief, restraining the defendants from selling or advertising services under the disputed name pending further proceedings.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company v.Micro Labs Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Micro Labs Limited for infringing their registered patent (No. 247381) related to Apixaban, an anticoagulant drug. The court considered the prior history of similar cases and granted an ex-parte ad- interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling generic Apixaban under any brand name, including 'APIVAS'.
Atotech Deutschland GmbH v.Grauer & Well (India) Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a commercial appeal filed by Atotech Deutschland GmbH seeking urgent interim relief in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'TRICHROME' mark. The initial refusal of the injunction was based partly on procedural delays. However, the Appellate Bench clarified that under the statutory scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, immediate protection for registered trademarks should be prioritized over minor delays. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with directions allowing Atotech to request an early hearing and have its ad-interim relief application reconsidered on its merits.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Honda Motor Co. appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 380/CHE/2015) by the Controller of Patents and Designs on grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the original order was flawed due to a deprivation of fair opportunity regarding sufficiency of disclosure, and lacked proper justification for concluding lack of inventive step.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Novartis AG, seeks to restrain the defendant from manufacturing Pazopanib Hydrochloride, claiming it infringes their Indian patent. The defendant has obtained approval to manufacture the product, raising concerns of imminent patent infringement.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
This litigation involves Communication Components Antenna Inc. challenging Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.'s alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. IN240893, which relates to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' in wireless communication systems. The core dispute revolves around the validity of this patent, as raised by the defendant through a counterclaim. While the court analyzed grounds of revocation under Sections 64(d), (e), and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970, it ultimately decided to list the suit for further consideration, indicating that the matter remains unresolved.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Matrix Laboratories Limited for infringing Indian Patent No.196774, which relates to a pharmaceutical or chemical compound product. The court ultimately disposed of the suit as no further orders were necessary due to the rejection of leave to institute the suit by the Division Bench.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
The petitioner (Nokia Technologies Oy) filed an application seeking temporary injunction and disclosure of assets against the respondent (Guangdong Oppo Mobile). The court, while addressing various interlocutory applications, granted a direction for the defendants to furnish specific disclosures regarding their sales and revenues related to the alleged infringing devices.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Novartis Ag & Anr. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant their Indian Patent Application No. 10611/DELNP/2015. The court allowed an interlocutory application regarding document filing and issued notice to the Defendant, setting the matter for further hearing.
Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp v.P Singh & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Indiyaa Distribution Network Llp against P Singh & Ors. The Plaintiff, a prior user of the Ayurvedic joint pain relief oil 'SANDHI SUDHA', successfully argued that the Defendants' use of similar marks and imitation of packaging constituted passing off and copyright infringement. The court recognized the Plaintiff's established market presence and sales history to protect consumers from potential confusion.
Mr.T.G.Arumugam v.Mr.T.G.Harigopal & Mr.T.S.Ganesan
This Madras High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the registered trademark 'UMBRELLA BRAND' between family members. Initially filed seeking to invalidate an assignment deed and secure exclusive proprietorship, the parties ultimately reached a compromise. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit based on the Memo of Compromise, which allows all involved parties to coexist in the business and share the use of the trademark.
Yoshida Kenji v.The Asst.Controller Of Patents
This writ petition challenged the deemed abandonment of a Japanese national's patent application. The core dispute revolved around whether the 12-month statutory period for responding to the examination report should be calculated from the date the report was issued or the date it was actually received by the petitioner. The court ruled that the time limit must be counted from the date of receipt, finding that the petitioner had submitted a valid response within the extended timeframe.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
The suit alleged infringement of Plaintiff's patent (IN'429) related to a novel agricultural composition used as a fertilizer. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No.1 was manufacturing and selling infringing products under brand names 'SUFFAR 90' and 'COZY WET 90 WDG'.
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.