India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 116 of 164 · 4,909 total
Pcm Stresscon Overseas Ventures v.Patil Rail Infrastructure Private
The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendant for allegedly infringing their technology and making threats regarding Patent No. 219099. The defendant agreed not to communicate against the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited successfully concluded its trademark infringement suit against Pure & Cure Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. by reaching a comprehensive settlement agreement before the Delhi High Court. The defendants formally acknowledged Cadila's absolute proprietary rights in the 'AMLODAC' trademark and committed to ceasing all use of the mark, including recalling existing stock and destroying promotional materials. This resolution allows the suit to be disposed of with a decree reflecting the agreed-upon terms.
M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. v.M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of M/S Copenhagen Hospitality And Retails & Ors. against M/S. A.R. Impex & Ors., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar pizza names, proprietary products, and controlling the plaintiff's official social media accounts while the main suit proceeds. This order protects the brand integrity of LA PINO'Z PIZZA against unauthorized commercial use by the franchisee.
Abhishek Kumar v.Union Of India Through Registrar Of Copyrights & Ors.
Abhishek Kumar filed a petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act seeking to expunge the copyright registration of the 'Turbo Plus' label, which was registered as an artistic work. The petitioner also sought the suspension of this registration's effect to protect against potential infringement threats. Given the ongoing proceedings before the Trademark Registry regarding the cancellation of a search certificate, the court renotified the matter for further hearing.
Sandeep Pandey v.Union Of India And 4 Others
The petitioner filed a PIL seeking directions for the vaccination of citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, and also sought directions under the Patents Act, 1970, to acquire necessary patents for vaccine manufacturing. The court dismissed the petition as the issue was pending before the Apex Court.
Moonshine Technology Private Limited v.Tictok Skill Games Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Moonshine Technology Private Limited (Baazi Group) against Tictok Skill Games Private Limited. The court found that the defendant was attempting to piggyback on the goodwill and reputation of Baazi by using confusingly similar marks, such as 'WinZo Baazi'. Given the plaintiff's established presence and registered trademarks in the gaming industry, the court ruled that this usage amounted to infringement and passing off, directing the defendants to immediately cease all use of the infringing brand.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Sms Pharmaceuticals Limited for infringing its patent on Sitagliptin, an anti-diabetic drug. The court initially granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Merck. However, upon considering the defendant's request under Section 107A (Bolar exemption), the court modified the injunction to allow limited export of the API for research and development purposes.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Micro Labs Limited, MSN Laboratories Private Limited, Eris Lifesciences Limited, USV Private Limited, Ajanta Pharma Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses multiple appeals filed by AstraZeneca seeking interim relief to restrain various pharmaceutical companies from infringing its patents. The core issue revolved around whether AstraZeneca was entitled to an immediate injunction while the underlying suits for permanent injunction were pending. The court ultimately dismissed all nine appeals, finding no merit in the appellants' claims.
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd v.Pushpendra Yadav
Kent Ro Systems Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1's product infringes its registered design for a water purifier. The plaintiff asserted that the shape and configuration of the defendant's product imitated their protected design, citing Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. The defense challenged this claim, arguing that novelty resided only in specific portions of the design. To properly assess the complex issue of design infringement, the court permitted both parties to submit comparative charts detailing the similarities and differences between the designs.
Pepsico Inc. v.Parle Agro Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark dispute between Pepsico Inc. and Parle Agro Private Limited. The court granted certain exemptions while noting that the defendant intended to file an application seeking rectification under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The matter was subsequently renotified for further hearing on August 5, 2021.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.S.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company filed a civil suit against S.Muthazhagu Proprietor M.M.Snuff Company alleging multiple infringements, including trademark misuse and copyright violation concerning the design of snuff pouches. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions to stop the use of similar marks and artistic designs. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memo of Compromise.
FMC Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed applications seeking interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited and Best Crop Science LLP for allegedly infringing its patents related to Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The court examined claims of infringement and challenges to the validity of the patents. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court allowed the interim injunctions, emphasizing that in patent infringement cases involving agrochemicals, public interest dictates preventing the perpetuation of an invention that is prima facie infringing.
Dhanam Textiles v.N.Varadaiah Trading as Ganesh Lungi Company
Dhanam Textiles filed a suit against N.Varadaiah for alleged infringement of its registered trademark '360 BRAND,' copyright violation, and passing off concerning textile goods (lungies). The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant's use of deceptively similar labels like '3600, 361, 369 BRAND.' Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise memo which was accepted by the court, leading to the suit being decreed in terms of that settlement.
Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited v.Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting that the plaintiff holds a registered mark 'FLY HIGH' and claims extensive usage rights. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing names or registering similar domain names until further hearing.
Yasmin Khalique And Ors. v.Mukhtar Alam
This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses an appeal concerning a partnership dissolution and the associated registered trademark, 'Musa ka gul'. While the core dispute involves the validity of the arbitration award dissolving the firm, the court specifically addressed the use of the valuable trademark. The court clarified that ownership rights are not its immediate concern but issued a crucial interim order preventing either party from transferring or assigning any rights related to the mark until the appeal is finally decided.
Ms. Mallika Singh Daughter Of Mr. Narendra Singh and Mr. Parth Pareek Son Of Mr. Prem Prakash Pareek v.Union Of India, State Of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan
Petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the respondents to ascertain if any vaccine is covered by patents, issue compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, share manufacturing trade secrets, and increase vaccine production capacity. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the issues involved relate to policy decisions to be taken by the respondents.
Willowood Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Indo-Swiss Chemicals Ltd & Anr.
The defendants filed an application seeking permission from the court to sell their existing stock of a fungicidal composition, which was previously restrained by an ex-parte injunction. The plaintiff strongly opposed this request, arguing that the defendants had continued manufacturing and selling the infringing product despite being aware of the patent rights and prior objections. The court dismissed the application.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Q-Chem Sealers Pvt Ltd
Pidilite Industries Ltd filed a suit seeking protection against infringement and passing off concerning its various marks, labels, and the unique design of its DR FIXIT storage containers. The court addressed an interim application regarding service of notice and combined the causes of action.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v.Healthyraj Wellness Enterprises & Anr
The Plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendants for using the competing mark DIABIT. The court found that the Defendants' mark was structurally, visually, and phonetically almost indistinguishable from the Plaintiff's registered mark DIAVIT, leading to a significant likelihood of confusion.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Symed Labs Limited
The dispute concerned the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 227963 by Symed Labs Limited regarding Vortioxetine/Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. The parties amicably resolved the matter, leading to a decree in terms of the settlement agreement.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Amoli Organics Private Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Amoli Organics Private Limited for allegedly making, selling, or dealing in products that infringe its Indian Patent No 209816. The dispute centered on the Sitagliptin API and its salts.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.M/S Jbmr Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Khadi And Village Industries Commission against M/S JBMR Enterprises. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant was using identical marks ('KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT') and copying the entire trade dress and packaging of the plaintiff's eco-friendly paints. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling infringing products and directed to take down associated online presence.
El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A. v.Arsalan Wahid Gilkar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of El Baik Food Systems Co. S.A., a popular restaurant chain, against defendants accused of trademark infringement and copyright violation. The court found that the defendants were using the 'ALBAIK' trademarks and logos to fraudulently offer unauthorized franchises across India. Recognizing both the trademark rights and the artistic nature of the logos, the judge restrained the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or offering fake franchise opportunities until the final hearing.
Anil Rathi v.Barhi Concast Llp & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anil Rathi against Barhi Concast LLP and others. The court found that the defendants were attempting to circumvent a previous injunction by adopting the deceptively similar mark 'BCLLPRATHI' while dealing in TMT bars and steel products, which are identical to the goods covered under Mr. Rathi's registered trademark 'RATHI'. This interim order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under this contested mark until the final hearing of the suit.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed for an ex-parte injunction against the defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 related to SITAGLIPTIN. They seek an injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing products.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition challenging the procedural approach of the Patent Controller, arguing that its application for cross-examination of expert witnesses had not been decided. The court observed the long pendency and directed the Controller to first dispose of Natco's cross-examination application before proceeding with the merits of Novartis' patent application.
UPL Limited v.Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd & Anr.
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Bhaskar Agrochemicals Ltd was manufacturing and intending to launch a product comprising Acephate 50% + Imidacloprid 1.8% SP, infringing UPL's registered patents (IN 194211 and IN 211250). The court decreed the suit in favor of UPL Limited, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant for the validity period of the patents.
Fmc Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
FMC Corporation filed suits alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited regarding the product Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR), protected under Indian Patents IN 307 and IN 332. The core dispute revolved around whether these specific patents remained valid, especially since CTPR was covered by an expired genus patent (IN 978). While FMC argued for a permanent injunction against the launch of CTPR, Natco contended that the validity of the suit patents was questionable due to the prior coverage by IN 978. The court disposed of the interim applications but scheduled further hearings to conclude the complex arguments on the merits.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd.
Kamdhenu Limited sued Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered design for steel bars featuring a double-ribbed surface pattern. The defendant challenged the validity of this registration, arguing that the design was merely a common feature found in industry standards and prior publications. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's design lacked novelty because it reflected established industry practices and known standards.
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.