India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 125 of 164 · 4,909 total
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.
Shogun Organics Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent (IN-236630) related to the manufacturing process of d-trans Allethrin, an active ingredient in mosquito repellents. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using the patented process despite having different licenses. The court found the patent valid and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.
Astrazeneca Ab v.P Kumar & Anr
Astrazeneca filed suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for marketing generic versions of TICAGRELOR, claiming infringement of three Indian Patents (IN 907, IN 984, IN 674). The core dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff could secure an interim injunction while the patents faced credible challenges to their validity. The court ultimately found that since the defendants raised strong questions rendering the patent vulnerable, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction.
M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic (P) Limited v.Veecare Hospitals and others
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Praba's Vcare Health Clinic, finding that the defendants infringed upon its registered trademark 'VCare'. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'Vee Care' was phonetically and alphabetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting a permanent injunction against further misuse and ordering the defendants to pay costs.
K.Dalpat Singh v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by K.Dalpat Singh challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on whether opposition proceedings against the trademark 'Gold Mehal' had been validly abandoned. The court found no infirmity in the IPAB's decision, which set aside the initial finding of abandonment and remanded the matter for a full hearing on its merits. This ruling emphasizes procedural correctness in trade mark oppositions.
Symphony Ltd. v.Wim Plast Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Wim Plast Ltd for allegedly infringing its registered designs related to air coolers. The dispute centered on the similarity between the plaintiff's protected designs and the defendants' products. Ultimately, both parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the disposal of the suit.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises Private Limited v.M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd.
M/s.Add Print [India] Enterprises filed a civil suit against M/s.Mohan Impressins Pvt. Ltd., seeking perpetual injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks ('Presto INSTANZA') and infringement of their registered design for box type pre-inked rubber stamps. The plaintiff also sought relief related to passing off and surrender of infringing materials. However, before the court could rule on the merits, both parties reached a settlement agreement.
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.
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.