India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 124 of 164 · 4,909 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Sanjeev Gupta
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 for the drug Sitagliptin by manufacturing and selling a product named 'Swizglipt' containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (SPM). The dispute centered on whether manufacture solely for export fell under patent infringement, and the court ultimately confirmed the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
M/s Elofic Industries (India) v.Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Elofic Industries (India), a long-standing partnership concern dealing in filters, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Mr. Viney Kumar Rai trading as Elofic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., was infringing its trademark ELOFIC and passing off goods under similar names. The court found that the plaintiff successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding infringement.
Arun Chopra v.Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court modified an existing interim injunction in the trademark infringement suit filed by Arun Chopra against Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt Ltd. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's prior use and reputation in Delhi, the court balanced this against the Defendants' established presence in Nashik. The final order permits the Defendants to continue operating their existing outlets under certain names but strictly prohibits them from opening new branches or using the name 'Kaka-Ka Hotel', ensuring a status quo while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v.Sangeetha Food Corner
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP against Sangeetha Food Corner for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SANGEETHA FOOD CORNER' was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark 'SANGEETHA'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse of the mark.
M/s. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed a civil suit against Bajaj Auto Limited seeking permanent injunction, accounts of profits, and damages for infringing Patent No.195904 related to 2/3 wheelers. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the Civil Suit.
Mr.P.Radhakrishnan v.Bajaj Auto Limited
Mr. P. Radhakrishnan filed a civil suit alleging that Bajaj Auto Limited infringed his Patent No. 182682, which covers a four-stroke internal combustion engine technology used in vehicles like the Pulsar series. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v.Kotak LLC
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed a Notice of Motion against Kotak LLC alleging infringement and passing off concerning the registered trademark 'KOTAK'. The court granted temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the Defendant from using similar marks, names (like KOTAK LLC), apps (App KOTAK), and domain names (www.kotakapp.com) that are deceptive or identical to the Plaintiff's mark.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Ace Technologies Corp. And Ors.
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where the plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringed their patent. The court issued an injunction and required the defendants to deposit a percentage of sales during the pendency of the suit.
K.P.Selvah @ Panner Selvam v.Atlee
K.P.Selvah filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Atlee and M/s. AGS Entertainment Pvt., Ltd., claiming copyright infringement over his story 'Kalki', which was registered with the South Indian Film Writers' Association. After facing procedural hurdles in the trial court, Selvah sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The Madras High Court intervened via revision petition, holding that the trial court erred by allowing withdrawal but denying the crucial liberty to institute a new suit on the same subject matter.
Meto Polymers Private Limited v.Hindustan Healthcare Products
The civil suit was filed by Meto Polymers Private Limited against Hindustan Healthcare Products seeking a permanent injunction and damages for infringing a registered patent related to 'water beds'. However, the court noted that the plaintiffs had repeatedly indicated their intention to withdraw the suit but failed to prosecute it.
Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over the alleged abandonment of a registered trademark due to non-renewal. The petitioner argued that the mandatory O-3 notice for renewal was improperly backdated and uploaded using an outdated form (RG-3), making it invalid. The court recognized serious inconsistencies in the Trademark Registry's process, directing senior officials and the concerned Examiner to appear in court with explanations and documentation regarding the improper uploading of notices. Crucially, the court granted interim relief, ensuring the trademark would not be treated as abandoned pending a full inquiry.
M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, M/S Clean Tech Corrosion Chemicals, sought a writ of mandamus compelling the State of Andhra Pradesh to implement instructions mandating the use of its patented anti-corrosion admixture inhibitor liquid, CONCARE, in RCC structures. The state argued that it only recommended 'CONCARE or equivalent products' and was not bound to procure from the petitioner alone. The court ruled that while policy decisions are generally beyond judicial interference, the respondents must ensure that if they choose to use an anti-corrosion agent, it must be a licensed product.
M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s. Sai Agrotech, F.M.D. (Farm Machinery Division)
M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. filed applications for review against a previous judgment that had allowed a license request for Light Trap Equipment to be rejected by NCIPM. The court reviewed the matter, considering the involvement of the review applicant in an earlier agreement with ICAR regarding the licensed technology.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) IP Limited; Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) Trading Limited; Smithkline Beecham Limited
Steer Engineering Private Limited (appellant) filed a commercial appeal seeking an interim injunction against Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (respondents). The appellant claimed infringement of its copyright and trade secrets related to proprietary extrusion technology used for nutritional beverages. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for granting temporary relief.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Raisen Marketing Private Limited
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed an interim application alleging that Raisen Marketing Private Limited was infringing its registered trade mark and copyrighted artistic design used on its country liquor bottles. The court found a strong prima facie case for infringement.
Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors v.Shogun Organics Ltd
The appeal was filed by the original defendants against a decree that found them infringing the plaintiff's patent for the process of manufacturing d-trans Allethrin. The appellants argued that the process was already known due to its registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that product registration does not equate to disclosure of the manufacturing process required for patentability.
Rui Boutique v.Nidhi Arora
The plaintiff, Rui Boutique, a manufacturer and trader of ready-made women's garments under the trade mark 'RUI', filed an application alleging that the defendant was using the impugned mark 'RUI INDIA' for similar goods. The court found a strong prima facie case regarding the identity/deceptive similarity between the marks and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's order regarding a patent application, arguing that prior arts were not adequately considered. The court examined the matter and held that since there are efficacious alternative statutory remedies (post-grant opposition or revocation), the writ petition would not be entertained.
M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. v.M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Psychotropics India Ltd. to appoint Local Commissioners in the execution phase of a trademark infringement suit against M/S Syncom Healthcare Ltd. Despite initial rejection by the Trial Court, the High Court emphasized that permanent injunctions related to pharmaceutical products require strict enforcement due to public interest and consumer safety. The appointed commissioners were directed to seize infringing goods bearing the mark CTZ-10 and inspect sales accounts.
Pfizer Inc v.Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed a suit against Actiza Pharmaceutical Private Limited alleging infringement of its patents covering Sunitinib and Axitinib. The parties subsequently reached a settlement through mediation before the Delhi High Court.
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics Inc. challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents' orders that restricted its right to cross-examine expert witnesses during a post-grant opposition filed by Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether the patentee, having filed objections under Rule 58, was entitled to challenge the veracity of the opponent's experts through cross-examination. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Onyx, quashing the restrictive orders and allowing the cross-examination without imposing any condition regarding the filing of evidence by the patentee.
Durga Dairy Ltd. v.M/s.Laxmi Food Products
Durga Dairy Ltd. filed a civil suit against M/s.Laxmi Food Products seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits for alleged trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning their 'DURGA' brand. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'LAXMI DURGA'. However, despite being granted sufficient time, the plaintiffs failed to file an application to amend the cause title due to a change in company name. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the civil suit for default.
Reliance Life Sciences Private Limited v.M/S Genentech Inc And Ors.
This case involves a dispute between Reliance Life Sciences (the appellant) and Genentech/Roche (the respondents) concerning the launch of the biosimilar drug TrastuRel. The respondents sought an injunction against TrastuRel, alleging inadequate testing under Indian regulatory guidelines despite the original patent having lapsed. The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, granting an interim stay on the restrictive order, thereby allowing Reliance to continue its manufacturing and marketing operations.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Somasundaram Ramkumar
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Flipkart Internet Private Limited against Somasundaram Ramkumar for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'FlippingKart' with mala fide intent to deceive consumers and spoil Flipkart's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions against the use of the infringing mark and declaring 'FLIPKART' a well-known trademark.
Mr.T.Chitty Babu v.M/S.Sakthivel Builders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Mr. T. Chitty Babu and M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendants' use of the 'SB' logo constituted infringement and passing off against their registered 'AH' trademark. The court held that the similarity in color scheme and stylized script created a likelihood of confusion among the public, leading to the decree of permanent injunctions and an award of damages.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. v.Varun Sood
Kent Ro Systems Ltd. filed a suit against Varun Sood and others alleging infringement of their design rights and passing off related to water purifier products. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages concerning the use of deceptively similar designs (ESSENCIA/SPARKLE) compared to their registered designs (KENT WONDER/EKNT SUPREME). Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual settlement, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit in terms of the Joint Memo of Compromise.
Cargill India Pvt Ltd v.Gati Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Cargill India Pvt Ltd's application to frame an issue concerning the validity of Gati Ltd's registered trademark, 'GATI Nature Fresh Apples.' Despite Gati Ltd arguing that Cargill was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the registration, the court rejected these objections. The judgment clarified the procedural mechanism under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, allowing the plaintiff time to pursue rectification proceedings before the IPAB, thereby keeping the core validity question alive in the litigation.
Apex Laboratories Private Ltd. v.Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apex Laboratories Private Ltd., declaring them the exclusive proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT against Hezen Pharmaceuticals Limited. The court found that despite a past manufacturing agreement, which was subsequently terminated, the defendant had no right to claim ownership or make false propaganda about the mark. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from making such claims and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for its patented drug, Ceritinib. Natco Pharma challenged this by relying on an order from the Controller revoking the patent due to lack of novelty. The Court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the infringement action could not be maintained, suspending the existing interim manufacturing restraint.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.HOTEL NAMMA AACHI
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd., finding that the defendant's use of 'HOTEL NAMMA AACHI' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant adopted a name visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, AACHI, with malicious intent to capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions and awarding costs to the plaintiffs.
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.