India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 128 of 161 · 4,815 total
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was selling products identical or obvious imitations of their protected designs, including the Aqua Safe bottle and Eco Flip Top bottle. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on the interim relief. Consequently, the court allowed the injunction application for the plaintiff while dismissing other related applications.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr v.Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd & Ors
Dart Industries Inc filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered designs for bottles and caps (Aqua Safe and Eco Flip Top) against Polyset Plastics Pvt Ltd. The plaintiff demonstrated that their unique and popular product designs were being imitated by the defendant. The court examined the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience before deciding on interim relief.
Jasper Motors Private Limited And Another v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw and Others
The applicant (Defendant No.2) filed an application seeking recall of a prior injunction order, arguing that the plaintiff's patent was invalid based on grounds like prior art and lack of inventive step under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found prima facie satisfaction regarding the patent's invalidity and noted the defendant's manufacturing activity, leading to the recall of the interim order.
Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd v.Citi Group Inc & Anr
This appeal challenged a single judge's order that had attached the bank accounts of Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd due to non-compliance with previous injunction orders regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no statutory provision for an appeal against such an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's subsequent failure to comply with a one-month compliance statement made before the judge demonstrated bad faith.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. filed two suits alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 184753, which covers channel decoding technology used in DVD video players. The plaintiff claimed this patent was essential for the industry. Although the suit patent had expired by the time of judgment, the Delhi High Court found that the defendants were infringing the patent and liable to pay royalties at FRAND rates. Furthermore, due to the defendant's conduct as a former employee, punitive damages were awarded against Rajesh Bansal.
Lt Foods Limited v.Heritage Foods (India) Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed a trademark infringement suit filed by Lt Foods Limited against Heritage Foods (India) Limited. The stay was granted because both parties had pending cancellation/rectification applications concerning their respective 'HERITAGE' trademarks before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Crucially, the court clarified that while the main suit is stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, this does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing urgent interlocutory relief, such as an injunction.
Dhanpat Seth And Others v.M/S Nilkamal Plastic Ltd
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking an injunction and damages, alleging that the defendant infringed their Patent No. 195917 for a device used for manually hauling agricultural produce. The court examined the patent's validity and found that the invention lacked inventive step, as it was merely a substitution of bamboo with plastic in a traditionally known item (Kilta).
Syed Zakirali S/o Syed Jawarali v.Syed Zahidali S/o Syed Jawarali & Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal filed by Syed Zakirali against the dismissal of his civil suit concerning trademark infringement. The court held that Defendant No. 2 was illegally passing off goods as those of the plaintiff using disputed wrappers and labels ('322 pucca label' and '322 A.K.'). Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using these marks if the plaintiff renews them, and ordered to pay damages or render accounts of profits.
New Hope Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Pioneer Bakeries (P.) Ltd.
New Hope Industries challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to rectify its trademarks, Milka Wonder Cake. However, before the Madras High Court could rule on the validity of the marks, both parties entered into a Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated March 26, 2018. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petitions as withdrawn, resolving the dispute outside of judicial decree.
Krishnamachari Ramu v.Srinivasa Raja
The petitioners challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's order that revoked their patents (No. 193899 and 200285) concerning a novel method for preparing low glycemic sweets using Levulose/Fructose. The High Court found that the dispute required intricate scientific proof regarding the elimination of browning reactions, leading it to set aside the revocation order and remand the matter back to the IPAB.
Reliance Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Reliance Medipharma
The Gujarat High Court addressed appeals concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand name 'RELIANCE' in the pharmaceutical sector. While the court confirmed the lower court's decision refusing a broad injunction against the defendants using the name 'Reliance,' it partially allowed the appeal by specifically restraining the use of the derivative mark, 'Reliance Rx M,' for pharmaceutical products. This ruling highlights the nuanced approach courts take when balancing established trademark rights with specific usage limitations.
Klassic Wheels Private Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the cancellation of Design No. 229267, which covered a 'Wheel Rim' design. The grounds for cancellation were lack of novelty and prior publication. The court dismissed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence.
Vega Auto Accessories (P) Ltd. v.S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Vega Auto Accessories filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against S.K. Jain Bros. Helmet for infringing its registered design related to helmets. The court examined whether the features of the defendant's helmet were substantially similar to the plaintiff's protected design. After detailed comparison, the High Court found that the defendant's product was an obvious imitation, thus confirming the ad-interim injunction in favor of Vega Auto Accessories.
Unknown v.Yogesh Mehra & Others
The plaintiffs argued that the court should not proceed with the civil suit while a statutory appeal was pending before the Statutory Authority. The defendant relied on a precedent (Dr. Aloys Wobben vs. Yogesh Mehra & others) which established rules concerning counter-claims and patent revocation petitions. The court accepted the defendant's submissions regarding the applicability of the precedent and listed the matter for arguments.
Dabur India Ltd. v.Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria
Dabur India Ltd. filed a suit against Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria alleging infringement of copyright, design rights, and passing off related to its popular brand HAJMOLA Anardana. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing 'KARORPATI Anardana' using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to its own. After proceeding ex-parte due to the defendant's non-appearance, the court found that the plaintiff successfully proved a likelihood of confusion leading to passing off.
Rajesh Kalra v.Safeops. Surgical Care & Anr
Rajesh Kalra filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safeops. Surgical Care and others for infringing his registered design of 'Pre-Cut Eye Drape'. The plaintiff claimed novelty in the unique shape and configuration, which included a pre-cut aperture for surgical use. However, the Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, finding that the core feature—the pre-cut aperture—was purely functional and dictated by utility rather than aesthetic appeal.
Christian Louboutin Sas v.Abubaker & Ors.
Christian Louboutin Sas filed a suit against Abubaker & Ors., alleging trademark infringement and passing off based on its registered mark 'RED SOLE,' which refers to the red color applied to ladies footwear soles. The core dispute centered on whether this specific color shade could be protected as a trademark, especially when the defendants were using their own wordmark 'VERONICA.' The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the suit, holding that the use of a single color does not qualify as a trademark under relevant provisions and that Section 30(2)(a) disentitled the plaintiff from claiming infringement or passing off.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the rejection of its Patent Application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant contended that the rejection order failed to objectively test the application or discuss relevant prior art (Exhibit D1).
Sarine Technologies Ltd v.Utpal Mistry
The court heard an application regarding a counterclaim filed by the defendants seeking revocation of a patent. The court held that based on Supreme Court precedent (Aloys Wobben), the counterclaim was not maintainable. Consequently, the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, leading the court to order the original suit be re-transferred to the District Court.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v.Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.
This appeal involved a dispute over the alleged infringement of a registered design for a mixer grinder base unit. The appellant, M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., challenged an order that had granted an injunction against them based on copyright infringement. The court examined both designs side-by-side and found no substantial similarities, noting distinct differences in shape and configuration between the two tripod bases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous interim orders.
M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Registrar, Trademarks Registry
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by M/S.Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg challenging the Registrar's decision to treat its trademark applications as abandoned. The court held that since the impugned orders were passed by the Trademark Registrar, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was not a Writ Petition under Article 226, but rather an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).
Asugar Engineering Services v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition filed by Asugar Engineering Services, directing the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to reconsider a trademark rectification application. The court found that the IPAB's original order was flawed because it failed to provide adequate opportunity for both parties to contest the issues of non-use and classification. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and remanded back to the IPAB for a fresh hearing, ensuring due process is followed.
Shamnad Basheer v.Union Of India
This writ petition challenged the process and implementation timeline concerning changes to the Patents Act, 1970. The court examined issues related to Section 146 and Section 122 of the Act, which govern patent working. After reviewing an affidavit from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, the High Court accepted the detailed sequential timelines proposed by the Union of India for completing the necessary stakeholder consultation and legislative amendments.
Country Inn Private Limited v.Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc. seeking permission to proceed with a trademark rectification petition aimed at cancelling the plaintiff's 'COUNTRY INN' registrations. The court found the defendant's attempt to derail the ongoing infringement suit frivolous and an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with significant costs awarded against the defendant.
Marico Ltd. v.Mrs. Jagit Kaur
Marico Ltd. appealed against the Copyright Board's dismissal of its rectification petition, challenging Mrs. Jagit Kaur's copyright registration for the 'NIHAL UTTAM' label. The court found that the Respondent's artistic work was not original but a substantial and colorful imitation of Marico's established 'NIHAR COCONUT OIL' label. Given this clear infringement and lack of originality, the High Court set aside the Board's judgment.
Canara Bank v.N.G. Subbaraya Setty
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute involving Canara Bank and N.G. Subbaraya Setty concerning the use of the trademark 'Eenadu'. The core legal questions revolved around whether the bank's actions, such as selling agarbathies using the trademark, violated the Banking Regulation Act. Furthermore, the court examined the applicability of res judicata when a prior judgment was based on an assignment deed that was prohibited by law under the Trade Marks Act.
Pradeep Sharma & Anr v.UPL Ltd
The petitioner challenged an order restraining him from infringing the respondent's patents related to synergistic herbicidal compositions (Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron). The dispute centered on whether the composition used by the appellant fell within the scope of the plaintiff's patented claims. The court ultimately upheld the Single Judge's finding that prima facie, the defendant's product was covered by the suit patent.
Vior(International) Ltd v.Maxycon Health Care Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunctions, damages, and rendition of accounts against the defendants for infringing an Indian patent (IN No. 221536) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose, as well as for copyright infringement and dilution of their brand image. The court found that the defendants were engaging in infringing activities despite being treated ex parte and violating interim orders.
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v.Monsanto Technology Llc
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed complex disputes surrounding Monsanto's patented Bt Cotton technology. Nuziveedu Seeds challenged the patent's validity, arguing it fell under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, which excludes plant varieties and essentially biological processes from patentability. The court ultimately held that the subject patent was unpatentable, allowing Nuziveedu's counter claim to succeed. However, while dismissing Monsanto's suit for patent enforcement, the court upheld existing contractual obligations regarding trait fee payments under the sub-license agreements.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A & Anr v.Shree Shankeshwar Utensils & Appliances Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed Nestle's application seeking a stay of its trademark infringement suit against Shree Shankeshwar Utensils. The core issue was whether filing a rectification petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the validity of the 'MAGGISUN' mark required prior permission from the Civil Court, even while the main suit was pending. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court held that approaching the IPAB for rectification is an independent statutory right and does not require leave from the civil court. Consequently, the infringement proceedings were stayed until the IPAB decides on the validity of 'MAGGISUN'.
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.