India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 123 of 161 · 4,815 total
Unilever Plc. v.Masqati Dairy Products
Unilever Plc. filed a commercial IP suit against Masqati Dairy Products alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave and decreed the suit, restraining the defendant from using the similar mark 'CHOCO FEAST' in relation to frozen desserts.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Crop Life Science Limited
Sulphur Mills Limited filed a suit against Crop Life Science Limited alleging infringement of its patented agricultural composition (Patent No. 282429). The parties subsequently reached a compromise and settled their disputes before the Madras High Court.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Enzalutamide', citing lack of inventive steps. The petitioner further argued that the rejection was vitiated because the Controller failed to address or refer to crucial expert affidavits and scientific documents presented during the proceedings.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of Patent No.193247, but since the patent had lapsed, the suit was pursued only for damages. The defendant filed a Counter Claim seeking revocation of the subject patent. The core legal issue addressed by the court was whether the written statement to the Counter Claim could be taken on record despite not being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial within the stipulated time.
Dayco Ip Holdings Llc v.Mago Gurupriit S, Prop. Jay Kay International
The Bombay High Court addressed a Notice of Motion concerning the non-compliance by the defendant with specific terms outlined in prior Consent Terms. The court directed the defendant, Mago Gurupriit S., to adhere strictly to the agreed-upon obligations, which included destroying all infringing goods and packaging bearing the plaintiff's marks, as well as unconditionally canceling his relevant trademark registration (No. 3082945). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to court-mandated settlement terms in IP disputes.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Unilever.
Unilever Plc v.Preeti Ice Creams
Unilever Plc filed a commercial IP suit against Preeti Ice Creams alleging infringement and passing off related to the trade mark 'FEAST'. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, imposing perpetual injunctions on the defendant.
M/S. Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
M/S. Lucky Exports challenged an order rejecting its appeal against the cancellation of Design No. 202108, which covered a 'Coaster Brake Sub Assembly'. The core dispute revolved around whether this mechanical component was purely functional and therefore ineligible for design registration, or if it possessed sufficient aesthetic features to qualify. The court examined arguments regarding prior publication and novelty, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
Amrit B Sanghavi v.Dhanraj Surana
The suit involved a dispute over trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered mark 'ITONE' with the use of 'DITONE', and also restrained them from passing off the plaintiff's goods.
International Cycle Gears v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner appealed against the Controller's order allowing the cancellation of Design No. 201728 for a 'Coaster Brake Hub'. The appeal argued that the design was significantly different from known models, particularly those published in February 2005. However, the High Court upheld the Controller's finding, concluding that the design lacked novelty and originality as it was substantially identical to prior publications.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Hari Om Plasters
Ultratech Cement Limited filed a suit against Hari Om Plasters alleging trademark infringement concerning various 'BIRLA' branded products. The court, after reviewing the site report and inventory of seized goods, granted leave to the plaintiffs. Crucially, the court passed a temporary order restraining the defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered 'BIRLA' trademarks, including specific variants like 'BIRLA WHITE' and 'BIRLA PLUS', pending the final hearing of the suit.
Relaxo Footwears Limited v.Aqualite India Ltd.
Relaxo Footwears Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Aqualite India Ltd. for allegedly infringing its registered footwear design No.294938. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product was an obvious or fraudulent imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. During the interim application, the court directed a market survey which revealed numerous third-party products with near identical designs available in the market.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.Satish Reddy
The plaintiffs, holding exclusive rights to Indian Patent No. 215528 for Lorcaserin, filed a suit seeking permanent and interim injunction against the defendants who were planning to commercialize an infringing drug (LHH). The court found that there was a prima facie case of infringement in favor of the plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringing its registered trade marks (SUNLIGHT) and copyrighted artistic packaging/trade dress. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringement and passing off. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions.
Bayer Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the Bolar provision. The court examined whether patented products could be exported for clinical trials and regulatory submissions outside India without constituting patent infringement. The bench affirmed that sale or use under Section 107A is legal both domestically and abroad, provided the end purpose is reasonably related to research and development for regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that disputes regarding the legitimate scope of this exemption should be adjudicated in civil suits rather than public law proceedings like writ petitions.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Shree Shyam Udyog and Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Shree Shyam Udyog for infringing its trade marks (SUNLIGHT) and copyrights related to detergent packaging. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit, issuing permanent injunctions.
Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. v.BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras)
This civil suit was filed by Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. against BV Quality Certification Private Limited and Kesharia Agencies (Madras) seeking perpetual injunctions for infringing their registered mark 'Eagle' and committing copyright violations. The plaintiffs sought relief including damages, surrender of materials, and a preliminary decree for accounts of profits. However, the parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Jayalakshmi Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Jayalakshmi Enterprises alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyrights, and trade dress concerning its detergent products. The court granted the injunctions sought by the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from using infringing marks or artwork.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt Ltd v.Time Plus Institute & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management (T.I.M.E.) against Time Plus Institute, recognizing the strong likelihood of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the respondent's use of similar marks was likely to deceive the public and dilute T.I.M.E.'s established goodwill in the coaching industry. Furthermore, a local commissioner was appointed to seize infringing materials, reinforcing the protection of T.I.M.E.'s statutory and common law rights.
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited v.Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, which was seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off. The court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the order, primarily based on the principle that the defendants themselves had applied for registration of a similar mark (CONCRETA). This ruling reinforces the legal doctrine against 'approbation and reprobation,' preventing parties from contradicting their own prior actions in litigation.
Speciality Restaurants Limited v.Deepika Hospitalities Pvt.Ltd.
Speciality Restaurants Limited filed a suit against Deepika Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. regarding alleged trademark infringement. The court disposed of the suit and notice of motion based on minutes of order, accepting undertakings from the defendants.
Flexituff International Ltd v.M/S Tirupati Sprinklers
The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging infringement of its registered dripper design. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over the design developed since 2010. The defendant countered that the design was generic, not novel, and had been obtained from a third party (Mr. Uri Alkalay) prior to registration. The court dismissed both injunction applications.
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S v.La Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Anr
Pharmacosmos Holding A/S filed a suit for infringement against La Renon Healthcare Private Limited and others regarding Patent No. 291100 ('RAPIFER'). The court granted permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 based purely on the defendant's binding statement, despite disputes over the plaint's merits. Similarly, the suit against Defendant No. 2 (Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.) was disposed of by binding them to their reply stating they were not infringing.
Natco Pharma Ltd v.Union Of India & Ors.
Natco Pharma Ltd challenged the actions of the Controller regarding a pending patent application (No. 3865/KOLNP/2007). The petitioner argued that since the Controller had reserved judgment without deciding on their request for cross-examination, they would be seriously prejudiced if the patent was granted without hearing their objections fully. The Court ruled that in adversarial proceedings before the Controller, the right to cross-examine is an indefeasible right under natural justice.
J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order that revoked Patent No. 251037, citing lack of disclosure regarding ongoing civil suit and a PCT application in Australia. The court found the revocation unjustified, noting that the civil dispute had settled and the respondent had withdrawn the post-grant opposition.
D. Baskaran v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a dispute over the lapsed registration of the 'TAJMAHAL' trade mark. The petitioner sought directions to compel the Trade Mark Registry to accept his renewal application, which had been refused due to the lapse of time. The court ruled that mere expiration is insufficient for removal; the statutory procedure, specifically issuing Form O-3 notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, must be followed scrupulously before a mark can be removed from the register.
Dart Industries Inc. v.K.K.Plastics
Dart Industries Inc. filed a civil suit against K.K.Plastics and others, alleging infringement of its registered bottle and cap designs (Registration Nos. 221424 and 221425) and passing off related to its 'Aquasafe' brand. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the defendants for manufacturing or selling imitative products. Given that the defendants failed to appear and contest the suit, the Madras High Court passed a summary judgment in favor of Dart Industries Inc., confirming the infringement claims.
Kesari Trust v.Kesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to various businesses.
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.