India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 121 of 164 · 4,909 total
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Shiv Chetna Hosiery
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Shiv Chetna Hosiery was manufacturing, stocking, distributing, and selling counterfeit apparels bearing falsified trademarks identical or confusingly similar to Adidas' registered trademark 'ADIDAS'. The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved its case through documentary evidence and market surveys.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Department For Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Ors.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash certain respondent orders and obtain a declaration that patent IN 235625 has lapsed. The court noted the contention regarding delay and latches, which needs to be decided first.
Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. v.M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction favoring Fk Bearing Group Co Ltd. against M/S Kunal Trading Corp & Anr. The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's distinctive trademark (FK/) and associated artistic logo/trade dress for manufacturing and selling bearings. Given that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in its favor, the court issued a restraining order against all defendants from dealing in the infringing goods until further hearing.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the decision of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which rejected its Patent Application. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked reasoning, failed to consider foreign patent grants for the same invention, and did not properly analyze the prior art cited against the claimed invention. The High Court found the impugned order deficient in reasoning.
Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Cleanchem Laboratories Llp
The plaintiffs, owners of Indian Suit Patent IN 209816 for SITAGLIPTIN, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was selling and dealing in SITAGLIPTIN without a license. The court found prima facie evidence of violation and granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
Tv Today Network Limited v.Network18 Media & Investments Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, Tv Today Network Limited alleged that Network18 Media & Investments Limited was slavishly copying its marks, including "DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI" and "AGENDA AAJ TAK." While the court allowed procedural applications for both parties, it also noted disputes regarding the abandonment of certain marks. Crucially, the defendant provided an undertaking to refrain from using the registered mark 'DILLI KE DIL MEIN KYA HAI' pending further judicial review.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.T.V.S.Motor Company Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that the defendant was infringing his Patent No.182682, which covered a specific four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the TVS Flame -125cc. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit due to his severe health conditions.
M/s.Puravankara Projects Limited v.Saurabh Singh
M/s.Puravankara Projects Limited filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against defendants, including Saurabh Singh, Godaddy India, Google India, M/s.Godaddy.com LLC, and Google Inc. The suit alleged trademark infringement (under No.1185286) and copyright infringement related to the name 'PURAVANKARA' and its artistic label, primarily concerning deceptive use of domain names and websites. Although the initial claims sought damages and injunctions, the plaintiff subsequently instructed their authorized signatory to withdraw the suit as the principal claim had been redressed.
New Bharat Overseas v.Kian Agro Processing Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'TAJ MAHAL' used for rice. While the plaintiff holds Indian registration, the court noted that a Saudi Arabian entity also possesses similar trademark rights in its country of origin. The court allowed both parties time to file detailed written statements and granted an undertaking from the defendant not to sell or distribute the product outside India and Saudi Arabia. Crucially, the court directed the plaintiff to array the foreign entity as a party, indicating that the matter requires further examination regarding international trademark rights.
BASF SE v.UPL LIMITED
The plaintiff, BASF SE, filed a suit claiming infringement of its patent (IN-262428) covering the superior anhydrous-II form of the fungicide BOSCALID. The defendant, UPL Limited, appeared and submitted that no valid patent existed for the specific anhydrous-II form at the time they applied for licenses, asserting their use was limited to R&D.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This case involved multiple Commercial Arbitration Petitions challenging arbitral awards related to a licensing agreement for transgenic Bt. cotton seeds. The petitioner claimed rights to royalty fees and technology transfer, while the respondent defended the award which allowed monetary claims made by them. The Court dismissed all arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality in the impugned award.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioners challenged several arbitral awards related to licensing agreements for Bt. cotton seeds, arguing that the respondent failed to transfer technology and was liable to pay royalties. The Bombay High Court dismissed all commercial arbitration petitions, finding no patent illegality or infirmity in the impugned award.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Union Of India
Astrazeneca challenged an order from the Patent Office that directed immediate publication of its granted patent (IN 235625) due to a clerical error. The petitioner argued that this belated direction, after 11 years, would prejudice them by effectively extending the statutory limitation period for post-grant opposition beyond one year as stipulated in Section 25(2).
UPL Limited v.Modern Insecticides Limited
UPL Limited filed a suit alleging that Modern Insecticides Limited was infringing its statutory rights by exporting and intending to manufacture a product covered by patent IN 244551. The composition in question is a synergistic herbicide comprising Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a Sub-Licence Agreement related to the use of transgenic cotton seeds with Bt. traits. The petitioner claims that the respondent has not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and has charged excessive trait values. The petitioner and respondent entered into a Special License Agreement for the sale of Bt. cotton seeds. The respondent alleged patent infringement and sought recovery of trait fees, while the petitioner challenged the validity of the SLA under competition law. The petitioner entered into a Sub-Licence Agreement with the respondent for the use of technology and payment of trait fees. Disputes arose regarding the payment of these fees, leading to arbitration proceedings. The respondent claimed unpaid trait fees from the petitioner under a 2015 service level agreement. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing the monetary claims.
M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash v.Mr. Roger Aoun
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash against Mr. Roger Aoun regarding the use of the trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND'. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of cosmetics and mehandi products, alleged that the defendant was deceptively adopting their registered mark. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the disputed mark until further hearing.
M/S Aman Engineering Works v.Registrar, Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi & Anr.
M/S Aman Engineering Works challenged the Trade Mark Registry's decision to allow review applications filed years after trademark applications were allegedly abandoned due to non-attendance at hearings. The Petitioner argued that the Senior Examiner lacked jurisdiction to condone delays far exceeding statutory limits, citing Supreme Court precedent. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner and granted an interim stay on the impugned orders while further legal issues regarding the condonation of over 16 years of delay are examined.
Fmc Corporation & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement by Natco Pharma Limited of their Indian Patents IN 201307 and IN 213332, covering the molecule Chlorantraniliprole (CTPR). The defendant challenged the plaint through various applications. This order addressed these interim applications.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Brainlink International, Inc. & Anr.
In a dispute concerning the domain name www.hindustan.com, the Delhi High Court facilitated a settlement between Ht Media Limited and Brainlink International. The court suggested that if the defendants agree to pay an agreed lump sum in costs, they will withdraw all oppositions filed against the plaintiff's trademarks and also drop their suit in the USA. This arrangement aims to bring a definitive end to the ongoing disputes between both parties.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH & Anr. v.Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and its associates filed a suit alleging that Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. was infringing on their patented compound, Rivaroxaban (IN 211300). The plaintiff contended that the defendant was exporting finished pharmaceutical products containing Rivaroxaban to foreign entities in commercial quantities. Despite the lack of domestic launch by the defendant, the court held that such exports constituted 'use in India' under the Patents Act. Consequently, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Bayer.
Sunstar Joint Stock Company & Anr. v.Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court settled a trademark dispute between Sunstar Joint Stock Company and Mr. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal. The parties reached an amicable agreement, leading the court to decree the suit based on specific prayers in favor of the plaintiff. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 was directed to assign its registered Trademark (No. 3750648) for 'Thai Duong' to Sunstar Joint Stock Company, resolving the core ownership conflict.
Astrazenca Ab v.Ajanta Pharma Ltd.
The court heard an application seeking condonation of a 6-day delay by the defendant, which was granted. The court also directed the parties regarding the filing of written statements and clarified the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) held by Astrazenca Ab.
Astrazenca Ab & Anr v.West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd.
The Delhi High Court heard the matter concerning suit patents held by Astrazenca Ab & Anr against West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. The court addressed the validity dates of the two patents (IN '147 and IN '625) and accepted an undertaking from the defendant that they do not manufacture or sell infringing products related to Dapagliflozin.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Volvo, granting permanent injunctions against several defendants for infringing and passing off the 'VOLVO' trademark. The court also ordered the transfer of specific domain names held by other defendants to Volvo. Furthermore, substantial damages were awarded to Volvo against those who willfully used the mark while evading legal proceedings, reinforcing the principle that evasion does not shield commercial gain.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. v.Honour Lab Limited
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp. filed a suit alleging that Honour Lab Limited was infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers the molecule SITAGLIPTIN (an API for diabetes treatment). The plaintiffs sought interim relief against the defendant's alleged commercial supply of the patented API.
M/s Audioplus v.Manoj Nagar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s Audioplus against Manoj Nagar regarding trademark infringement. Audioplus, owner of the registered mark 'STUDIOMASTER' for audio equipment, alleged that Nagar was attempting to capitalize on its reputation using deceptively similar marks like 'STUDIOMIN' and 'STUDIOMAN'. The court found that Audioplus had established a prima facie case and granted immediate relief, restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademarks pending the full trial.
Laurus Labs Limited v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The petitioner seeks to quash an interim order by the IPAB that stayed the revocation of a patent. The case involves a post-grant opposition filed by the petitioner against the patent granted to respondent No.3.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff sought the discovery of two sets of documents from the defendant: those concerning the manufacturing process of optical fibre and sales data. The court allowed the discovery of sales documents, requiring the defendant to file its audited balance sheet. However, the court denied the immediate necessity of discovering the manufacturing process documents, stating that the initial burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.
Shogun Organics Ltd v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the Plaintiff was granted a permanent injunction and compensation for loss of profits. The Defendants were directed to render accounts of profits and pay a specified amount to the Plaintiff.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking action under Contempt of Court because defendant No.1 submitted a tender offering for the sale of Apixaban, despite a prior interim injunction restraining them from dealing in any infringing product covered by Indian Patent No. IN 247381. The court issued show cause notices to the Chairman and Director of defendant No.1 regarding potential contempt proceedings.
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.