India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 117 of 164 · 4,909 total
Lupin Limited v.Celon Laboraatories Private Limited
Lupin Limited sought an urgent interim injunction in the Bombay High Court against Celon Laboraatories Private Limited for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The dispute centered on the use of the mark BIVASSA by the defendant, which was deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered anti-cancer drug mark BEVAZZA. The court found a sufficient prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Xiaomi Corporation
Interdigital Technology Corporation filed an application seeking an injunction against Xiaomi Corporation and others, restraining them from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used in cellular handsets. The court allowed the application, making the ad interim injunction absolute.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Salud Care (India) Private Limited
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed an interim application alleging that Salud Care (India) Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a pharmaceutical preparation under the mark PROLOMEK, which was confusingly similar to Sun Pharma's registered trademark PROLOMET. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. v.Tex Tech Industries (India) Private Limited
Machinenfabrik Rieter Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking injunction against Tex Tech Industries for alleged infringement of its registered trademark and Patent No. IN 324406. The defendant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that neither party had a principal place of business in Delhi and that the transaction was merely a one-time trap purchase. However, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, noting that since the goods were delivered and the contract completed in Delhi, the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
A.R.Safiullah v.Daniel
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for infringing his registered patent (No. 198079) related to food grade laminated paper and for passing off their products as the plaintiff's. The dispute was subsequently resolved between the parties.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Musky Couture
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. to proceed with its suit against Musky Couture, which alleges infringement of the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark and copyright in unique artistic garments. The Plaintiff detailed how the Defendant was allegedly manufacturing and selling identical, low-budget imitations while falsely claiming association with the original designer. Crucially, the Court issued a significant interim order allowing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of the Defendant's premises in Mumbai to gather evidence of infringement.
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals v.Arunachala Industries
Good Luck Paints And Chemicals filed a civil suit against Arunachala Industries alleging infringement of its 'GOODLUCK' trademark, passing off, and copyright violation related to the distinctive blue and yellow color scheme and container design used for paints. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions and damages. However, the matter was resolved when the defendant provided an undertaking confirming they had ceased using the label and returned unused materials.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Nova Indus Pharmaceuticals And Anr
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited filed a commercial IP suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Nova Indus Pharmaceuticals. The court examined the extreme phonetic and structural similarity between the marks PANTOCID and PANZOCID, finding that there was a sufficient prima facie case.
Fmc Corporation v.Best Crop Science Llp
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding one of the suit patents. Another related suit is pending before a different bench.
Uyir Agriculture Private Limited v.Ueir Organic Food Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions, restoring an interim trademark injunction previously vacated by the lower court. The dispute centered on whether the petitioner had complied with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC after receiving the initial injunction. The High Court found that the delay in filing the compliance affidavit was excusable due to logistical constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby interfering with and setting aside the order that vacated the injunction.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Apple Energy Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The court restrained the defendants from pursuing a related civil action before the U.S. District Court at Southern District of Texas, as well as preventing them from manufacturing or selling goods using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to UNOCAL and UNOCAL 76 in India. This decision protected the plaintiff's established rights derived from its licensing agreement with UNOCAL.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co. Ltd & Anr.
This order addressed a review petition filed by Defendant No. 2 (Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd.) challenging the denial of framing issues regarding its application for patent revocation. The court noted that the pending revocation proceedings before IPAB were effectively being handled by the High Court's jurisdiction post-IPAB abolition. To resolve this, the court permitted the defendant to withdraw the IPAB revocation petition and file a counterclaim in the suit.
Snapdeal Private Limited v.Godaddycom Llc And Ors
Snapdeal Private Limited filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Godaddycom and others, alleging widespread infringement of its registered 'SNAPDEAL' trademark through the registration and offering of infringing domain names. The court examined the feasibility of granting such a broad injunction, particularly concerning the ability to prevent the registration of any domain name containing the mark. While acknowledging the plaintiff's claims of infringement, the judge required further clarification from the defendant regarding the practical implementability of the requested relief before making a final decision on the interim order.
M/S MATHSTRAMAN MANUFACTURES AND TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED v.Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Kerala High Court granted an interim order in favor of M/S Mathstraman Manufactures and Traders Private Limited. The court directed that the petitioner's registered trademark numbers (1326035 and 1326036) shall not be removed from the register while the Writ Petition is pending final disposal. This stay provides immediate protection to the petitioner against administrative action by the Controller General of Patents.
Franco-Indian Remedies Pvt Ltd v.Unihelix Biotech Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its mark FINATE used in cholesterol control formulations. The Defendant was using the mark FERINATE XT. The Court found a prima facie case due to the confusing similarity between the marks, leading to an interim injunction favoring the Plaintiff.
M/s Bharat Salt Company v.M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd
M/s Bharat Salt Company filed a suit against M/s Bhagyalaxmi Brinechem Pvt Ltd seeking injunction and enforcement of its rights under the Patent Act, 1970. The defendant challenged the plaint by arguing that the plaintiff firm was unregistered, making the suit non-maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. However, the High Court dismissed this plea, noting that the firm was subsequently found to be registered and citing Supreme Court precedents which held that the bar under Section 69(2) does not apply to IP infringement suits.
Swatch AG v.Suresh Kumar
Swatch AG filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Suresh Kumar for infringing its well-known trademark 'SWATCH' by adopting the domain name www.swatchclub.in to sell similar goods. The court found that the impugned domain name was identical and deceptively similar, leading to huge losses for the plaintiff.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Uniray Life Sciences
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application alleging that Uniray Life Sciences was using the competing mark ACNO GEL, which infringed upon Ajanta's registered trademarks (ACNO and ACNO-C) used for acne treatment. The court found a sufficient prima facie case and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Pfizer Products Inc v.Unichem Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patents. The parties reached a settlement and withdrew the suit and counter-claim.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Controller's order rejecting its pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, which led to the grant of a patent in favor of the respondent. The court addressed arguments regarding whether a writ petition is an efficacious remedy against such rejection.
Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v.Beton Tile Company, Iqbal, Nazmuddin, Mr. Huzaiffa Zoeb, Mrs. Bani Mufaddal, Mr. Kuzema Zainuddin, Indian Ceramic Company, Ali Akbar
The plaintiff, Indcon Structurals Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against a trial court judgment after losing a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. The suit alleged that the defendants were passing off their imitation tiles under the name 'Diana', confusing the public regarding the plaintiff's unique tile 'MONALISA'.
Novartis Ag v.Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Novartis AG claims that Windlas Biotech Pvt Ltd is infringing on their Indian Patent No. 229051 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising Sacubitril + Valsartan. The court has previously issued an interim order restraining the defendants from using the infringing product.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Novartis AG claims that Eris Lifesciences Limited is infringing on their Indian Patent No. 229051 related to a pharmaceutical composition comprising Sacubitril + Valsartan.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
The suit sought an injunction against Hetero Drugs Limited concerning Indian Patent 227963 for Vortioxetine Hydrobromide. The parties reached a settlement regarding IA No. 2333/2021, allowing the defendant to export products under Section 107A of the Patents Act, provided strict conditions are met.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd
The plaintiff, an insurance consultant operating under various names including Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy, sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant, a private limited company, for using a deceptively similar domain name (www.katariainsurance.co.in) to his established mark. The court found that the similarity was too great and ruled in favor of granting immediate injunctive relief.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Indilina Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (Plaintiff) filed a suit seeking an injunction against Indilina Pharmaceuticals (Defendant) for infringing their patent (IN'816) covering the compound Sitagliptin. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was offering tablets of Sitagliptin for sale in tenders. The Court granted interim relief restraining the Defendant from any infringing activities and directed disclosure of profits.
Dr.Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Eros International Media Limited And Anr.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the release of a feature film, 'Haathi Mere Saathi,' alleging that its brand mark 'DRL' was being used in a derogatory manner within the movie plot. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that Dr. Reddy's failed to meet the three-pronged test for granting an injunction. The court held that the balance of convenience favored the defendants due to their substantial investment in the film production.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling a pharmaceutical composition that allegedly infringes their patent.
H. Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drugs Limited
The dispute involves H. Lundbeck A/S challenging Hetero Drugs Limited's export activities, which are claimed by the defendants to be permissible under Section 107A of the Patents Act for R&D purposes. The court issued an interim order allowing the defendants to continue exports to seven specified entities while addressing objections raised by the plaintiff.
Larsen & Toubro Limited v.Radheshyam Singh
The plaintiffs (Larsen & Toubro Limited and General Industrial Controls Private Limited) filed a suit alleging that the defendants were infringing their trademarks (including Larsen & Toubro, L&T, LT, etc., and GIC/GIC) and violating copyrights related to their product labeling. The court found the defendants guilty of infringement and passing off.
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.