India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 122 of 161 · 4,815 total
Regarding Hike In Prices Of Generic Medicines Medicines. v.Ex Parte
During a Lok Sabha debate, Shri T. N. Prathapan highlighted that patented medicines are sold at high prices, leading to exploitation of common people. He demanded that patent medicines be brought under Price Regulatory Authority or production should be allowed under compulsory license.
M/s.Vaibhav Foods v.Narendra Kumar Mali / M/s.FOOD INDIA
M/s. Vaibhav Foods filed a suit against Narendra Kumar Mali and M/s. FOOD INDIA alleging infringement and passing off related to their unique chocolate packaging design. The Plaintiff demonstrated that they had successfully registered two designs (Nos. 274667 and 274668) for the specific arrangement and color combination of chocolates. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling chocolates using a similar and identical design, leading to confusion in the market.
Dart Industries Inc v.Vijay Kumar Bansal
Dart Industries Inc. filed a suit against several defendants alleging infringement of their registered design (casserole lid) and passing off related to their Tupperware products. The court examined the scope of protection, noting that while the lid is independently registered, the plaintiffs claimed passing off for the entire casserole set. The court ultimately issued an interim order directing the defendants to furnish detailed sales particulars.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Ms.Seema Rathi
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429) against Ms. Seema Rathi and Balaji Agro. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, which the court recorded and decreed.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged an interim injunction restraining it from infringing Indian Patent IN No.247381, which was held by Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiaries. The appeal focused on whether the Single Judge had properly considered the merits of the case before issuing a restrictive order. The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the impugned interim injunction, directing that the application for interim relief be heard again on merits.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. and its subsidiaries for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, titled "Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency." The Plaintiff alleged that two specific models of antennae manufactured by the Defendants infringed upon their patented technology used in telecommunications. Although the validity of the patent was challenged by the Defendants, the court directed them to deposit Bank Guarantees covering the value of infringing sales made both before and during the pendency of the suit. Failure to comply with these financial directions would result in a permanent restraint on manufacturing or selling the infringing antennae.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Bayer Healthcare Llc
This appeal challenged an interim injunction restraining Natco Pharma Limited from infringing Bayer Healthcare Llc's Indian Patent No. 240207, which covers the drug Regorafenib. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient clarity and did not adequately consider the parties' submissions regarding infringement. Consequently, the court set aside the interim injunction and directed that the application for interim relief be heard afresh on its merits by the Single Judge.
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Suresh
Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Mr. Suresh, alleging multiple infringements related to its detergent products. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was infringing upon their registered trademark (XXX label) through manufacturing and distribution of similar goods, as well as committing copyright infringement regarding the artistic work on the packaging. Furthermore, the suit included claims of passing off based on trade dress similarity.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani' constituted passing off and trademark infringement. The court recognized the plaintiff's long-standing reputation and exclusive use of the name since 1957. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Thalappakattu Chicken Briyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, which had acquired distinctiveness through long-standing usage since 1984. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel against Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Halal Thalappakattu Biriyani' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, 'Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel.' Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel v.Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel, finding that the defendant's use of 'Thalappakattu Briyani Fast Food & Indian Chinese Thandoori' constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court held that the defendant willfully adopted a phonetically and deceptively similar name to capitalize on the plaintiff's established goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited v.M/S.Ribock Industries
Cavinkare Pvt.Limited filed a civil suit against M/S.Ribock Industries alleging multiple infringements, including unauthorized use of Cavinkare's registered trademark 'ZOYO,' copyright violation concerning the 'NYLE' label design, and passing off. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, which was formally recorded by the Madras High Court and incorporated into the final judgment.
Oramed Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Oramed Ltd. challenged a decision dated February 25, 2019, made under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority erred by proceeding on Section 3(d) instead of Section 3(e), and that the order was based on conjectures rather than conclusive findings. The court found infirmities in the impugned order.
Anurag Sanghi v.M/S Knitpro International
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a request by Anurag Sanghi to consolidate several related intellectual property suits. The petitioner sought to have three separate suits—one for design infringement (CS 867/2018), one for passing off (TM No.178/2017), and one for copyright infringement (TM No.179/2017)—tried together in a single court. The Court held that since the causes of action are based on the same facts—the sale or offer for sale of rival knitting needles—they must be tried jointly to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, citing precedents like Carlsberg Breweries A/S.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Ztt India Private Limited
The plaintiff has sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its patents related to optical fibre technology. The court is considering interim arrangements to balance the rights of both parties until a final determination is made.
Unilever Plc. v.Punjab Food Products
Unilever Plc. filed suit against Punjab Food Products alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trade mark, FEAST. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant regarding the use of 'Choco FEAST' on frozen desserts. Furthermore, the Defendant was ordered to deliver up all infringing materials for destruction and agreed to pay Rs. 2 Lacs towards costs/damages.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v.Gnanasekaran Paramsivan Trading as Mahindra Lifts and Anr.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd filed a suit against Gnanasekaran Paramsivan for infringement of its registered trademarks, copyright, and passing off related to the mark 'MAHINDRA' and domain name www.mahindralifts.com. The Bombay High Court disposed of the suit by decreeing the prayers in favor of the Plaintiff, granting perpetual injunctions and ordering the destruction of infringing goods.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/s Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against M/s Arora Stationers alleging fraudulent imitation of its registered pen design (Design No. 263172). The respondents challenged the validity and novelty of Pentel's design, claiming it was a combination of known designs. However, the High Court ruled in favor of Pentel, emphasizing that since the respondents themselves had applied for registration of a similar design, they could not simultaneously argue against its originality. Consequently, the court found a prima facie case of piracy and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from marketing the infringing product.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trademark. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit in favor of Unilever, and issued perpetual injunctions against the defendant.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, issuing perpetual injunctions against the use of the impugned mark 'CHOCO FEAST' and ordering the destruction of infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trade mark. The court granted leave, decreed the suit, and issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark on their ice-creams and frozen desserts.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trade mark, FEAST. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc v.L. N. Ice Mill
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against L. N. Ice Mill alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products under the impugned mark 'CHOCO FEAST' or any deceptively similar mark, and ordered the destruction of all infringing materials.
Unilever Plc v.Kanha Dairy and Food Products
Unilever Plc filed a Commercial IP Suit against Kanha Dairy and Food Products alleging infringement and passing off related to the 'FEAST' trademark. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and ordering the destruction of all related materials.
Rallis India Limited v.Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr.
Rallis India Limited filed a suit against Rallis Pharmaceuticals & Anr. alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the trade mark 'RALLIS' in medicinal preparations, website domains, and business names. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendants and ordering them to transfer the infringing domain name.
Unilever Plc v.Deluxe Ice Cream Factory
Unilever Plc filed a suit against Deluxe Ice Cream Factory alleging infringement and passing off related to its well-known trademarks, specifically FEAST and CORNETTO. The court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like CHOCO FEAST, CONATTO, and CONETO in relation to ice creams and frozen desserts.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Halberd Chemicals
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Halberd Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress, registered trademarks (Nos. 1486109, 1780462, 1486107), and passing off using its well-known logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Halberd Chemicals
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Halberd Chemicals alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress and registered trademarks. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for infringing these rights and passing off.
Unilever Plc. v.Masqati Dairy Products
Unilever Plc. filed a commercial IP suit against Masqati Dairy Products regarding the alleged infringement and passing off related to its registered trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
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.