India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 119 of 164 · 4,909 total
Unilever Plc v.Ashok Kumar (Unknown Person)
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against the defendant, Ashok Kumar (an unknown person), for infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrights, combined with an action for passing off. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was marketing and selling counterfeit goods using pirated artworks of SURF EXCEL detergent preparations.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v.Visat Beverages (Od)
The plaintiff, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd., filed an interim application alleging that the defendant, Visat Beverages (Od), was infringing its registered trademarks and copyright related to its popular fruit drink 'JEERU'. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's product bore a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's mark and label. The court granted temporary relief in the form of an injunction and appointed a Court Receiver.
Pharmacyclics Llc. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a commercial suit filed by Pharmacyclics Llc. against Alkem Laboratories Ltd., alleging infringement of Patent IN 262968. The court noted that the plaintiffs had other related suits pending before different benches regarding the same patent. Consequently, the court ordered the listing of the current suit for further consideration.
H Lundbeck A/S v.Hetero Drug Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their patent (IN 227963) by manufacturing and exporting substantial quantities of the anti-depressant drug Vortioxetine. The court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, considering the allegations of export and potential use under Section 107 of the Patents Act.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The commercial suit for patent infringement regarding the drug Sitagliptin was settled between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Plaintiffs) and Achemic Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1). The court accepted the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1.
Browns and More India Pvt. Ltd. v.Brown Wall Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The applicant/plaintiff filed an interim application against the defendants. The court heard arguments and accepted a statement from the counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 3 that the FIR registered on their behalf, which formed the basis of the suit invoking Section 60 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 read with 106 of Patents Act, would not be pursued.
M/S Sami -Sabinsa Group Limited v.Union Of India
M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited filed a writ petition seeking an interim order to stay the execution of a notice and requesting that respondents refrain from opposing their pending patent applications. The court subsequently granted leave for the petitioners to withdraw the petition.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the procedural actions taken by various respondents, including the delayed service of Counter Statement and taking on record evidence in an opposition proceeding (Opposition No. 969651). The petitioner sought directions to reject the opposing evidence and register their trademark application.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
Interdigital Technology Corporation sued Xiaomi alleging infringement of several Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The current judgment addresses an interlocutory application regarding the establishment and structure of a Confidentiality Club necessary for handling commercially sensitive documents during the patent infringement proceedings. The Court constituted the club, accommodating Xiaomi's objection to a 'two-tier' system.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Balaji Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed an Interim Application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Balaji Enterprises for alleged trade mark infringement and passing off related to flour products. The court found a sufficient prima facie case, noting that both marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally indistinguishable, leading to inevitable consumer confusion.
Chutraram Nemaram Gehlot v.Rajaram Magharam Tak
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking ad-interim relief against the Defendant for infringement of registered Trade Marks ('Prem Dulhan') and copyrighted artistic work ('PREM DULHAN GREEN LABEL'). The court found prima facie evidence establishing that the Defendant's use of 'DABANG DULHAN' is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks. Consequently, the court granted an ad-interim injunction.
Ajanta Pharma Limited v.Saphnix Life Science
Ajanta Pharma Limited filed an interim application seeking relief against Saphnix Life Science for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark, ARTEFAN. The court examined the evidence showing that the defendant was using an identical trade mark on similar pharmaceutical preparations. Based on the prima facie case established by the plaintiff, the ad-interim injunction was granted.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. v.Vintage Distillers Ltd.
Radico Khaitan Ltd. successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Vintage Distillers Ltd. in a trademark infringement suit concerning alcoholic beverages. The dispute arose from Vintage Distillers' adoption of the mark 'VINTAGE MOMENTS,' which Radico Khaitan argued was confusingly similar to its established and widely used brand, 'MAGIC MOMENTS.' The Delhi High Court found that Radico Khaitan had made out a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an interim injunction to prevent irreparable loss until the final hearing.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The core dispute revolved around procedural violations in Opposition No. 969651 concerning Trademark Application No. 3017984, specifically regarding the delay in serving documents and taking on record evidence.
S.D. Containers Indore v.M/S. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd.
This Supreme Court appeal challenged a High Court order that had directed the transfer of a design infringement and cancellation suit from Indore to Calcutta. The suit involved registered designs for containers and lids, where the defendant sought cancellation based on lack of originality. The core legal question was whether the Commercial Court in Indore or the High Court held jurisdiction over such matters. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court's order, holding that since the entire cause of action arose within Madhya Pradesh, the suit must be heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, affirming the competence of the local court.
RB Health (Us) Llc v.Dabur India Limited
RB Health (US) LLC filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Dabur India Limited, alleging infringement of their registered soap bar design (No. 271671) and the tort of passing off through similar trade dress and taglines. The plaintiffs sought to prevent Dabur from manufacturing or selling a competing soap bar under the brand 'SANITIZE'. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the application for an injunction, noting that such cases heavily depend on specific facts rather than merely analogical precedents.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Xiaomi Inc & Ors.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patents concerning UMTS enhancement (HSPA, HSPA+) and LTE technologies used in mobile phones by Xiaomi Inc & Ors. The court issued several orders regarding interim applications, including granting an ad-interim injunction request and directing the defendants to maintain Rs. 1000 crores in bank accounts.
Anil Rathi v.Sanjog Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued several interim orders in the dispute concerning the 'RATHI' trademark. The court restrained Defendant No. 4 from granting new licenses related to the mark until further hearing, providing immediate relief to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court mandated that certain defendants maintain and file detailed accounts of sales made under the 'RATHI' trademark during a specified period, while also allowing for the impleadment of proposed parties.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order passed during Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act. The respondent argued that the patent was already registered and other remedies, including Post-Grant Opposition, were available.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Micro Labs Limited, Zydus Healthcare Ltd., ERIS Lifesciences Ltd., USV Pvt. Ltd., MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought permanent and temporary injunctions against various defendants for infringing their patents related to Dapagliflozin. The court found that the defendants had laid a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, leading the court to decline the grant of interim injunction.
ASTRAZENCA AB & ANR v.AJANTA PHARMA LTD.
The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging infringement of their patent IN '625. The present order addressed the defendant's request for an early hearing, noting that in connected suits, the court had previously declined interim injunctions.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others regarding alleged patent infringement (Patent No.282429). The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the suit fell within the court's territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the state. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding that the revocation of leave to sue was incorrect due to jurisdictional concerns.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited appealed against an order that revoked its leave to sue M/s.Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Limited and others for alleged infringement of Patent No. 282429. The core issue revolved around whether the court had territorial jurisdiction, given that the defendants operated outside the local limits. The Madras High Court allowed the appeals, restoring the suit to the Commercial Division.
Havells India Limited v.Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd.
Havells India Limited filed a suit against Yash Fans Pvt. Ltd. for infringement of its design and passing off. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which was recorded by the court.
Unilever Plc. And Anr. v.Ashok Kumar (unknown person/s)
Unilever Plc. filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against an unknown defendant for the infringement of its registered trade marks (including LAKME and U-Logo), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to its FMCG products. The court granted immediate relief, empowering Additional Special Receivers to seize and seal all infringing goods.
Dhaval Diyora v.Union of India And Ors
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had directed the Controller to issue a patent to Pfizer Products Inc. The petitioner argued that this order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard regarding his pre-grant opposition. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioner's conduct questionable and holding that the pre-grant opposition was not maintainable in law.
Unilever Plc & Anr. v.Vikas Sachdeva
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc & Anr., filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs in a suit for infringement of their registered trademarks and copyrights. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was clandestinely marketing and selling cosmetic preparations bearing counterfeit marks (LAKME, LAKME 9 to 5, LAKME EYECONIC) and infringing artworks. The court granted an interim order appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
Astrazeneca sued Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and Alkem Laboratories Limited regarding two patents, IN 147 (genus) and IN 625 (species), covering the SGLT2 inhibitor Dapagliflozin (DAPA). The core dispute was whether DAPA, which is used to treat type-II diabetes, falls within the scope of the genus patent. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' applications.
Unilever Plc. v.Ranbir Narang
Unilever Plc. filed an Interim Application concerning the counterfeiting of its goods, which bear multiple registered trade marks (like POND'S, HUL) and copyrighted artistic containers. The court granted ad-interim injunctions against both defendants to prevent further infringement and directed a receiver to seize all infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Rahul Goyal
Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc (and its subsidiary Plaintiff no.2), filed an interim application seeking ad-interim reliefs against Rahul Goyal for infringement of their trademarks (LAKME, U-Logo, etc.), copyrights in artistic works, and passing off related to cosmetic preparations. The court granted the interim relief, appointing an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal the infringing goods.
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.