India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 127 of 164 · 4,909 total
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 The court found the revocation unjustified, noting that the civil dispute had settled and the respondent had withdrawn the post-grant opposition.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.
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.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.ALAMELU MANGA OIL COMPANY alleging infringement of its registered copyright (A-68242/2005) and trademark ('Gold Winner'). The plaintiff claimed the defendant was using deceptively similar trade dress, color scheme, and get up with the mark 'SUN F GOLD' on packing material for refined sunflower oil. Although the suit sought permanent injunctions and accounts of profits, the parties ultimately entered into a compromise.
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 travel, tourism, forex, and advertising businesses.
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India
Supreme Agrofoods Pvt. Ltd. sought judicial direction from the Delhi High Court to compel the Union of India (Trademark Registry) to accept the renewal and/or restoration of its registered trademark, No. 1235463. The court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner a four-week window to submit the necessary renewal request along with the required restoration fee. This order clarifies that once submitted, the Trademark Registry will consider the application according to law.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited v.M/s.Lakshmi Traders
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Limited filed a civil suit against M/s.Lakshmi Traders alleging infringement of its registered copyright (A-68242/2005) and trademark ('Gold Winner'). The plaintiff claimed the defendant was deceptively using similar trade dress and color schemes on packaging for refined sunflower oil. However, during the proceedings, both parties reached a compromise. The court subsequently decreed the suit based on the Joint Memo of Compromise, ensuring the defendant would cease using the offending mark.
Metro Brands Ltd. v.Metro Footwear
The Plaintiff filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging that the Defendant was infringing its registered trademark 'METRO' and engaging in passing off. The Court found prima facie satisfaction regarding the infringement and granted ad-interim relief.
Gopal Ji Gupta v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Gopal Ji Gupta regarding the renewal of his trademark 'BINACA'. The court held that since the Registrar failed to issue mandatory notice (Form O-3) before the mark was removed from the register, the rejection of the renewal application as time-barred was legally flawed. Consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's renewal request, provided late fees are paid.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp challenged an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The petitioner argued that the appeal mechanism was practically unavailable due to the absence of a technical member, and further contended that the rejection of their patent application, which followed a voluntary divisional filing, was erroneous as it failed to consider curative measures.
Lalit Kumar Arya & Anr. / Chaya Devi v.M/S Prabhat Zarda Factory International (Noida) / Family Members
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex disputes over several family-owned trademarks, including 'RATNA' and 'PRABHAT ZARDA'. The core conflict revolves around the ownership of these marks following the death of the original proprietor, Sh. Lalit Kumar Arya, and subsequent assignment to his daughter-in-law, Smt. Chaya Devi. The court has directed that the validity of the trademark assignments and the enforcement of existing injunctions must be adjudicated during the trial, acknowledging the intricate family succession issues.
M/s.Swagath Motels Private Limited v.M/s.Hotel Swagath; Registrar of Trademarks
M/s.Swagath Motels Private Limited filed an Original Petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Hotel Swagath' registered in M/s.Hotel Swagath, citing concerns over register purity. However, on August 8, 2023, the Madras High Court noted that the dispute between the contesting private parties had been resolved amicably. Consequently, the court closed (T)OP(TM) No.486 of 2023 without passing any formal order regarding costs.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International v.Orbicular Pharmaceutical Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner in Telangana High Court. The purpose was to collect documents and testimony from Orbicular Pharmaceutical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which was involved in a U.S. patent infringement case concerning Teva's anti-cancer drug, Bendeka®. The court granted the petition, directing the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to conduct the proceedings under strict confidentiality terms.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trademark related to bottles used for bottling country liquor. The court granted leave, accepted an undertaking from the Defendant, and decreed the suit.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trade mark used on bottles for country liquor. The Court granted leave, accepted an undertaking from the Defendant not to use the marked bottles, and decreed the suit.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited v.Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Meher Distilleries Private Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. alleging infringement of its artistic work and registered trade mark used on bottles for bottling country liquor. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks/works, subject to an undertaking by the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Dhananjay Gruh Udyog
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Dhananjay Gruh Udyog alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered 'SPLAT device mark'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Dhananjay Gruh Udyog
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Dhananjay Gruh Udyog alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered 'SPLAT device mark'. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. The court issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks on detergent preparations and ordered the destruction of all bearing goods.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Ankit Mishra
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a suit against Ankit Mishra and others alleging infringement of its registered trademark No. 1692705 (in class 5) by the use of similar marks like 'MONTEKET' or 'MONTEKET-LC'. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendants for infringing the mark and passing off goods.
Celgene Corporation v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Celgene Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8064/CHENB/2010) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that their invention—a dissolvable tablet formulation for cancer treatment—had novelty and inventive step over prior art, which consisted of enteric-coated tablets. The High Court found the controller's rejection faulty because it failed to consider the technical advancements presented by the appellant.
Symphony Ltd. v.Thermo King India Pvt Ltd
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Thermo King India Pvt Ltd alleging that its air cooler model, 'Thermoking Typhoon,' substantially imitated Symphony's registered design for the 'Symphony Storm 70i.' The court found that the Defendant's product was a substantial imitation of the protected design. Despite the Defendant initially raising defenses regarding prior publication and difference in designs, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Symphony Ltd. v.Life Plus Appliances
Symphony Ltd. filed a suit against Life Plus Appliances alleging infringement of its registered designs for air coolers. The Plaintiff demonstrated that the Defendant's models, 'Tower' and 'Tycoon', were substantial imitations of Symphony's protected designs (Storm 70i, Sumo, and Winter). Despite the Defendant raising defenses regarding prior publication based on advertisements and trademark applications, the court found these claims unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of Symphony Ltd., granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Unilever Plc. v.Lucky Products
Unilever Plc. filed a suit against Lucky Products alleging infringement of its VASELINE trademarks (label and shape marks) and copyright related to personal care products, specifically petroleum jelly. The court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptive marks or artwork and ordered the destruction of infringing goods.
Living Media India Limited v.Lallantop Media And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Living Media India Limited, finding that Lallantop Media and Anr. infringed upon its trademark rights by registering and using the similar domain name 'THELALLANTOP.NET'. The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of the domain and directed the registrar to facilitate the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established online brand identities in the digital media space.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not new and had been in use for decades. The Court ultimately disposed of the Original Applications on terms requiring the Respondent to maintain and submit quarterly accounts related to the sale of similar products.
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J v.Unknown
The Applicants sought an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing their registered designs of operating tables and accessories, and from passing off the Respondent's products as theirs. The Respondent argued that the designs were not novel and had been in public use for decades. The Court found that while the balance of convenience was not clearly in favor of granting injunctive relief immediately, it directed the Respondent to maintain detailed quarterly accounts regarding sales and profits of similar products.
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.