India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 128 of 164 · 4,909 total
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Trustbanq Reality Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim permanent injunction in favor of Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., who holds the registered trademark 'BELLEVUE' for luxury apartments. The court found that the Defendants were using a confusingly similar mark, 'BELLE VUE', for their real estate projects. Consequently, the Defendants were restrained from launching any new projects under this name and faced restrictions on executing new sale deeds in existing projects.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Venkata Reddy Alla
The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Patent No. 209816, along with damages and other reliefs. The case was successfully mediated, leading to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Agarwal Deokinandan Gopiram v.Jagdamba Textiles Pvt Ltd
The petitioner, an owner of a patent related to a specialized fabric dyeing machine, challenged the respondent's use of similar technology. The court examined the technical specifications of the patented machine and found that the applicant had established a strong prima facie case for patent violation.
Jhs Svengard Laboratories Limited v.Ranir Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the unique ornamental design of toothbrushes, where JHS Svengard Laboratories claimed exclusive rights over its 'CURVY' design. The court noted that the Plaintiff sought an injunction against Defendants selling similar products and had previously initiated a trademark cancellation action against one of the defendants. Recognizing the interconnected nature of the claims, the Court ordered the transfer of the pending trademark cancellation petition to be heard alongside the current infringement suit.
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v.Union Of India & Ors
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. challenged procedural orders issued by the Controller General of Patents concerning a post-grant opposition filed against their Indian Patent No. 255964. The petitioner argued that denying them the opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses relied upon by the opponent violated principles of natural justice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding that the denial vitiated the proceedings and set aside the impugned orders.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking to defer or modify the appointment of a scientific expert to determine if the defendant's product, VALSAC, falls within the scope of Claim 1 of their patent (IN 229051). The court accepted the suggestion to appoint an expert from the Roll of Experts and framed a specific question for the appointed Expert Advisor.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
Hindustan Unilever Limited sued Eureka Forbes Limited for infringement of its water purifier patent (IN 198316). The defendants challenged the suit by arguing that an infringement suit is not maintainable against another registered patentee. The court ultimately held that a patentee is entitled to maintain such a suit, deciding the preliminary issue in favor of the plaintiff.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
The Gujarat High Court rejected the application for stay of the suit (C/CS/2/2017) and proceeded to frame issues regarding alleged infringement of a suit patent. The court also issued directions to expedite the recording of evidence, directing the record to be transmitted to the District Court, Vadodara.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The Bombay High Court granted leave, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar logos or marks on detergent powder.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.H. R. Chemical
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against H. R. Chemical alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (Nos. 1486109, 1780462, and 1486107) and passing off in relation to detergent powder. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar logos.
Rajendra Singh Shekawat v.M/S Shrinath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Rajendra Singh Shekawat against an order that denied a temporary injunction. The plaintiff, holding registered trademarks MAHARAJA MAHANSAR and MAHARANI MAHANSAR, alleged infringement by the defendant's use of 'Mahansar D.J. Special.' While the court acknowledged the similarity in the word 'MAHANSAR,' it held that determining whether this commonality constitutes deceptive similarity or infringement is a complex question of fact requiring evidence from a regular trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the defendant was directed to provide production and sales accounts to facilitate potential restitution if the plaintiff succeeds later.
Corum Hospitality v.WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The suit involved allegations that the Defendant was infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademarks by using deceptive names like 'WORLD BAR STOCK EXCHANGE' and 'WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.' The parties reached a settlement before the court.
Corum Hospitality v.WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Corum Hospitality filed a Commercial IP Suit against WBSE IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning its registered trademarks, specifically 'THE BAR STOCK EXCHANGE'. The parties reached a settlement before the Bombay High Court.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh And Anr v.Symed Laboratories Ltd
The execution petition sought to enforce a consent decree from 2015, which restricted Symed Laboratories Ltd from commercially exploiting RIVAROXABAN. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant had obtained a commercial license and made exports. The court addressed jurisdictional objections before disposing of the petition.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Union of India and others
Panacea Biotec Ltd. challenged the grant of its vaccine patent (IN'351) after the Opposition Board provided a recommendation that the Petitioner deemed 'flawed.' The Petitioner sought the High Court to reconstitute a new Opposition Board. The court rejected the petition, holding that the Act provides a self-contained mechanism for expert adjudication and judicial interference is unwarranted at this stage.
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Bafna Biotech
M/s.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a civil suit against Bafna Biotech alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the 'ZINCOVIT' brand. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendant using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA on pharmaceutical products. Both parties ultimately reached a compromise, leading the Madras High Court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Memorandum of Compromise.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Nk Singh & Ors.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. sought an ad interim injunction against Nk Singh & Ors., alleging that the defendants were openly offering for sale a patented anti-hyperglycemic agent, REMOGLIFLOZIN ETABONATE. The court found that the plaintiff held exclusive rights and granted the injunction.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing its patented pharmaceutical composition, Valsartan + Sacubitril (Patent No. 229051). The dispute centered on whether Natco's product, VALSAC, was identical to the claimed invention. The court found prima facie merit in Novartis' contentions and appointed an independent Expert Advisor to determine infringement.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Vahini Enterprises And Anr.
The plaintiff, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Vahini Enterprises and others alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'Meena Prints' (Reg. No. 967504) and copyright in the mark. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off goods using similar marks.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ngk Spark Plug Co. Ltd. sought to rectify the corporate name of NTK Bearings Private Limited, arguing that the company's use of 'NTK' infringed upon Ngk's registered trademark. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, upholding the Regional Director's rejection. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory limitations, finding that the petitioner failed to act diligently and waited too long after becoming aware of the opposition and subsequent rejections.
M/s.Bombay Pen Depot v.M/s.Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark infringement suit between M/s. Bombay Pen Depot and M/s. Linc Pens And Plastics Ltd by accepting a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC). Under the terms, the Plaintiff assigned its registered trademarks (PENTONIC) to the First Defendant for a consideration of INR 15 lakhs. In exchange, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw oppositions against the defendant's trademark applications and cease using the mark after a specified date.
Institute For Inner Studies & Ors v.Charlotte Anderson & Ors
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute concerning the exclusive rights over the name and practices of 'Pranic Healing'. The defendants argued that these terms and concepts were pre-existing since 1904, forming part of traditional knowledge available in the public domain, and thus incapable of protection under existing IP laws. The court directed specific defendants to file an affidavit detailing their position before further arguments.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Golden Glue and others
Pidilite Industries Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Golden Glue and others alleging passing off related to its FEVICRYL product line. The court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and also passed an interim order granting specific injunctions.
M/S Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd & Ors
Crocs Inc filed multiple suits alleging infringement of its registered designs (No.197685 and No.197686) by various defendants, including Bata India Ltd. Crocs claimed exclusive rights over the unique shape and pattern of its footwear designs, supported by extensive global trade and goodwill. The present appeal challenged the dismissal of Crocs' applications in these pending suits. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, directing that all related suits be listed together for further proceedings.
DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Netherlands B.V & Anr. v.Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co (WQD) & Anr.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a process patent related to 'Amoxicillin Trihydrate'. The application before the court sought contempt proceedings due to alleged violation of an earlier interim order. The court found that the defendant's manufacturing process was virtually identical to the patented process, thus violating the interim restraint.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr v.Mn Reddy & Anr
The dispute involved allegations of patent infringement concerning the drug RIVAROXABAN (Patent No. 211300). The parties reached a settlement, leading to a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v.Rshyamala Ranganathan
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringement of their registered patent. The defendants stated they have never manufactured the products in question and agreed to the decree.
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh v.Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee
Bayer sought execution of a prior judgment restraining Dr. Abhijit Mukherjee and others from commercially launching 'RIVAROXABAN' during the lifetime of Patent IN 211300. The court accepted an undertaking from the defendants, including representatives of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, that they would not make commercial use of the product until the patent expires.
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.