India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 120 of 164 · 4,909 total
Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. v.Sarfaraz Khan
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'TAZA WATER PLUS' while operating in the same trade channel as Tata's registered trademarks. Based on the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm to Tata's goodwill, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Qliktech International Ab v.DCIT (International Taxation)
The assessee, Qliktech International AB (a Swedish company), was assessed income from the sale of its software products (Qlikview) as 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) and Article 12 of the India-Sweden DTAA. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the mere transfer of a copyrighted article does not constitute a transfer of copyright or payment for use/acquisition of rights, and thus is not taxable as royalty.
Sarvasuddi Suryanarayana v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the actions of various respondents, including the Union of India and the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, regarding delays in proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3017984 (Opposition No. 969651). The petition sought a writ of mandamus to reject certain evidence and register the mark.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Pro Bios Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use and copying of the registered trademark 'OMEZ' for the medicinal preparation OMEPRAZOLE. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, noting both trademark infringement ('OMZES') and copying of packaging, thereby preventing irreparable loss to Dr. Reddys.
Minda Corporation Ltd. v.Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Minda Corporation Ltd. against Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's adoption of the 'STAR MINDA' mark was deceptively similar to their registered device marks, leading to a risk of consumer confusion and passing off. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss.
Refread Solutions Private Limited v.Scientific E-Resource
The plaintiff, a company providing digital online libraries (Refread), sued the defendant for infringing its copyright and engaging in unfair competition. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was promoting a similar product ('Read Smart Digital') using the plaintiff's tagline and had copied 87% of the website content and 100% of the product. The court found infringement and granted relief.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.
The plaintiffs filed an application before the Delhi High Court challenging an anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, which sought to restrain them from prosecuting their SEP royalty rate suit in India. The court found a clear case for granting ad interim relief.
Pm Diesels Pvt Ltd v.Thukral Mechanical Works And Ors
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an IPAB order that rejected its request to implead the original trademark assignor. The court held that since the petitioner was questioning both the initial registration and the subsequent assignment as potentially fraudulent, the assignor (M/s Jain Industries) should have been included from the outset. Given the passage of time, the High Court found it inappropriate to allow impleadment at this late stage, thereby upholding the IPAB's decision.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's product infringes their patent for a pharmaceutical composition consisting of sacubitril and valsartan. The defendant claims their product is different and has filed for revocation of the suit patent.
Company v.State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)
The petitioner company filed a writ petition seeking protection for its patent related to the manufacturing process of hazardous waste materials (SPL). The petitioner argued that the SPCB's planned review of criteria could negatively impact its patented process and lead to closure due to insufficient raw material sanction. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the SPCB and CPCB to consider the pending representations and grant a hearing to the petitioner.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The plaintiffs seek an injunction against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, allege that the defendants are infringing their patents related to the compound 'Dapagliflozin', used for treating type-2 diabetes. The case involves requests for injunctions against the defendants for not seeking licenses for the patents.
Worknest Business Centre Llp & Anr. v.M/S Worknests Through Rajesh Goyal
Worknest Business Centre LLP filed a suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement against M/S Worknests, claiming that the defendant's use of 'WORKNESTS' in the co-working space business infringed upon its established mark 'WORKNEST'. While the plaintiff presented evidence of prior domain registration and trademarks, the court found no immediate grounds to grant an interim injunction. The matter was directed to proceed as a full suit for detailed examination.
Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd. v.Culinary Communications Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Culinary Culture India Pvt. Ltd., challenging a restraining order issued by the District Judge regarding the use of the 'Culinary Culture' trademark. The appellant argued that the injunction unfairly restricted its business operations in Classes 38 and 42, where it holds registered marks. While the respondents initially sought restraint only in Class-35, the court allowed both parties time to file comprehensive replies and rejoinders before the matter is heard expeditiously by the Trial Court.
M/s. M.S.Milk Product v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks Intellectual Property Building, et al.
M/s. M.S. Milk Product filed a Writ Petition seeking an order to expedite the registration process for two trademark applications in Class 29. However, during the hearing before the Madras High Court, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that both trademark applications had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous.
Indoco Remedies Ltd. v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Indoco Remedies Ltd. filed an application seeking permission to sell approximately 58,000 strips of its generic product APIXABID (Apixaban), which had been manufactured prior to a restrictive injunction being passed by the Single Judge. The court dismissed the application, holding that without a decision on the merits, it could not reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge.
M/S Emco Thr. v.Union Of India Thr.
M/S Emco Thr. approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking intervention against the Trade Marks Registry's inaction regarding a trademark correction application for 'MADHUVAN'. The petitioner argued that due to administrative errors, they were not recognized as the registered owner despite having exclusive rights via an assignment deed and continuous use since 1982. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authority to adjudicate the pending representation/appeal within a stipulated period of three months.
M/s. Cothas Coffee Co. v.Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'Cothas'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'Cotha Giri' on coffee products. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
BASF SE filed a suit against UPL Limited seeking permanent injunction for infringing its India Patent No. 262428, which covers Boscalid anhydrous Form-II. The court considered affidavits from both parties regarding infringement and R&D activities. Ultimately, the court decreed the suit in favor of BASF SE, granting a permanent injunction.
Carneige Institute Of Washington v.Fenix Diamonds Llc
The application sought to execute a Letter Rogatory from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York, requesting deposition testimony, facility inspection, and document production related to patent infringement litigation concerning CVD diamonds. The court partially granted the request by appointing a Principal District Judge in Surat to record witness evidence.
Astrazeneca AB & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The plaintiffs presented an overview of their case. Since the defendant challenged the validity of the suit patent (IN-235625), the court directed the defendant to present arguments on that matter.
FMC Corporation v.Modern Insecticides Limited
FMC Corporation filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its valid Indian Patent (IN 201307) related to the insecticide Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The plaintiffs, who are co-owners of the patent, claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and exporting the compound, thereby violating their intellectual property rights. Based on the prima facie case presented by FMC Corporation, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Jindal Industries Private Limited v.Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jindal Industries Private Limited against Panther Pipes Private Limited & Anr. The court rejected an application seeking to delete a defendant, noting that the defendant was involved in filing the relevant trademark application for 'JINDAL POWER.' Furthermore, the court disposed of another procedural application regarding the plaint's filing requirements and maintained the existing ex parte ad-interim injunction until further orders.
M/s Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. v.S.D.Containers
M/s Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. filed a suit before the Commercial Court at Indore against S.D.Containers for infringing their registered designs related to rigid plastic packaging lids and containers. The respondent attempted to transfer the civil suit to the Calcutta High Court under Section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that due to the establishment of Commercial Courts at the District level in MP, the Commercial Court at Indore possessed the necessary jurisdiction and was competent to hear the matter.
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. v.MICRO LABS LIMITED
The plaintiff, AstraZeneca, filed a suit alleging infringement of its genus (IN 147) and species (IN 625) patents for the drug DAPAGLIFLOZIN (brand name FORXIGA). The defendant, Micro Labs Limited, was accused of manufacturing, selling, and seeking approval for generic versions. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Kumar Garments
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kumar Garments alleging that the latter was engaged in the wholesale business of counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas's registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys, leading to the decreeing of the suit.
Astrazenca Ab v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
Astrazenca filed a suit alleging that West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. was manufacturing the drug Dapagliflozin, which is protected by Astrazenca's patents (IN '147 and IN '625). The defendant entered an undertaking acknowledging the validity of the patents and agreeing not to infringe them.
M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries v.Pramod Kumar & Anr.
In a significant resolution for brand owners, M/S Bhagyalaxmi Industries successfully secured a decree against Pramod Kumar & Anr. through a comprehensive mutual settlement. The defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's proprietary rights over the 'ROBOTOUCH' trademarks and agreed to cease all use of the mark or deceptively similar marks in relation to wellness products. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 committed to withdrawing existing trademark registrations and opposition filings related to ROBOTOUCH, ensuring peaceful conduct of the plaintiff's business.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs sought revival of an earlier interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations comprising 'Ceritinib'. The court noted that the initial order was suspended due to the suit patent being revoked. However, since the IPAB subsequently stayed the revocation order, the court revived the original ad interim relief.
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.