India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 129 of 164 · 4,909 total
Mahesh Gupta v.Dheeraj Kumar
This order in CS(COMM) 341/2017 addresses allegations of design infringement concerning the 'AQUA GRANDE' water purifier. Despite the defendants claiming they had stopped using the impugned trademark, the court noted evidence showing the sale of the infringing product through a third party, Mannat Electronics. Consequently, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit clarifying their connection with this seller and detailing their sales turnover for the financial year 2018-19.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial IP suit against Sri Sai Bhavani Handloom House and others alleging passing off of its registered trademark "Meena Prints". The court granted a temporary order restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like "Meera Prints" pending the final hearing.
Sahaya Sujith Kumar v.A.Jordan
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the Patents Act because the respondent's patent rights were pending. The respondent argued the suit was an injunction based on breach of trust and non-disclosure agreement, not infringement.
M/S Khushi Ram Behari Lal (later M/s. KRBL Ltd.) v.M/S Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, favoring the petitioner in a trademark dispute over the 'TRAIN BRAND.' The court found that the respondent failed to prove prior use of the mark, particularly noting discrepancies and alleged forgery in the invoices presented. Consequently, the application for registration of the 'TRAIN' brand for basmati rice was allowed to proceed.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Tata Kumar Swamy and Anr.
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against the respondents alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trade mark 'Meena Prints' and copyright in its artistic work. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks and ordered them to pay damages/costs.
Hotel Panchavati v.Shree Panchvati Veg Restaurant
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants alleging infringement and passing off related to their well-known 'Panchavati' marks. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the Defendants for using similar marks like 'Shree Panchvati'. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 10 Lacs.
Sugen Inc. v.K.V. Prakash & Ors
The petitioner (Decree Holder) filed an application alleging that the respondents (Judgment Debtors), including K.V. Prakash, SP Accure Labs Pvt. Ltd., and Accure Labs Pvt. Ltd., were violating a permanent injunction decree by making, selling, or dealing in products infringing Indian Patent No. 209251. The petitioner specifically cited the marketing of medicines named SUNIT 50 and SPUNIT 25. The court directed JD No.1 to appear in person for further inquiry.
Associated Chemicals v.Associated Chemicals Corporation
In a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court mediated a settlement between Associated Chemicals and Associated Chemicals Corporation. The parties mutually agreed to allow both entities to continue using their respective trademarks—"Associated Chemicals" and "Associated Chemicals Corporation"—without objection. Furthermore, the Defendant agreed to remove the 'sister concern' designation from its website within 45 days, while allowing the Plaintiff to mention its group affiliation.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr
This order addressed preliminary issues in an infringement suit. The court noted that a registered design holder is entitled to sue another registered holder if there is infringement, and suggested this principle should apply to patents as well. It was also informed that the plaintiff applied for patent grant earlier than the defendant.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Uoi & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' decision to refuse examination and treat his patent application as withdrawn due to a delay in filing Form-18 (request for examination). The court examined the relevant sections of the Patents Act, 1970, and held that since the request was made outside the prescribed time limit based on the earlier date (priority date), the petition lacked merit.
S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons v.The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed S.V.Sivalinga Nadar & Sons' writ petition, setting aside a decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The dispute centered on the registration of the 'SVS' trade mark for edible refined oil. The court ruled that the contesting respondents could not claim exclusive rights over the mark based on an ambiguous arbitration award, especially since the award did not specifically allot the mark to them. This decision reinforced the petitioner's right to use and register the mark.
Monsanto Technology Llc Thru The Authorised Representative Ms. Natalia Voruz & Others v.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Thru The Director & Others
This Supreme Court judgment addressed a dispute between Monsanto Technology LLC and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. concerning the use of patented Bt cotton technology ('BOLGARD'). The core issue revolved around whether the defendants' rights were protected under the PPVFR Act, potentially invalidating the patent claims, or if the plaintiffs could enforce their registered patent for infringement. The court ultimately restored a Single Judge's interim injunction and remanded the suit, emphasizing that complex questions of patent validity must be decided after full evidence is adduced during trial.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie v.Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd.
Roderick John Andrew Mackenzie filed a suit alleging that Himalayan Heli Services Pvt. Ltd. was infringing his registered copyright in the artistic work titled 'HIMLAYAN HELI SERVICES'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was illegally using his pictorial representation on various business materials. However, the court examined the history of the company and its logo design, finding evidence suggesting the defendant's original creation and use of the insignia, particularly incorporating the symbol of 'Dorje', leading to the dismissal of the application against the plaintiff.
Arihant Evergreen Agro Plast And Textiles Private Limited v.EPC Industries Limited
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed in 2004 alleging patent infringement. The plaintiff-respondent sought to take product samples on record via Order VII Rule 14 CPC, despite a significant delay of over 11 years. The appellants-defendants challenged this order, arguing the delay was unexplained and irrelevant to determining patent infringement.
Benden Limited v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a commercial IP suit filed by Benden Limited against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The dismissal occurred because the Plaintif had previously received an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) directing the cancellation of its trademark registration, 'Perfect Radiance.' Since the mark was removed from the register, the court found that the Plaintiff was no longer interested in pursuing the suit, leading to its dismissal for want of prosecution.
Gebi Products v.Rose Industries
Gebi Products filed a suit against Rose Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark and copyright related to the packaging and mascot used on brooms. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and designs, and ordered the payment of damages.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Amit Apparels & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Under Armour, Inc. against Amit Apparels & Anr., finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the defendants were allegedly adopting and using the identical trade mark 'UNDER ARMOUR' and copying its artistic features on apparel goods. Given the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in the infringing goods until further orders.
Laila Nutraceuticals v.Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF)
Laila Nutraceuticals challenged an arbitral award requiring it to pay Rs. 84,00,000/- to Vittal Malya Scientific Research Foundation (VMSRF). The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's patent claims lacked novelty and that the license agreement was invalid because it was not registered with the Patent Office. The court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the arbitral award.
A.S. Hameed v.P. Maharajan
The dispute centered on a registered trade mark ('No.10 A.S. PHOTO BEEDI') used for beedies and tobacco products, with the plaintiff seeking an injunction against alleged infringement by the defendant. However, the case progressed to an application by the defendant seeking revocation of the 'leave to sue' initially granted to the plaintiff. The court ultimately held that neither party resided nor conducted business within its territorial jurisdiction, leading to the successful revocation of the leave and the dismissal of the main suit.
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s.Kasthuri Traders
M/s.Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against M/s.Kasthuri Traders alleging infringement of its registered trademarks ('Gold Winner') and copyrights related to packaging for sunflower oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'Kasthuri Gold'. Both parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
Hotel Panchavati And Anr. v.Hotel Panchavati Pure Veg Family Restaurant and Ors.
The suit was filed regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's registered trade marks, PANCHAVATI / PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted leave to the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, issuing a perpetual injunction against the defendants.
Sri Bishnupada Biring v.Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Biring
The Calcutta High Court noted a prima facie case raised by the petitioner concerning procedural flaws and patent discrepancies in the commissioner's report. Consequently, the matter was directed to be heard as a contested application. An interim order granting a stay on the impugned order and related proceedings was issued.
Snj Distillers Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks
Snj Distillers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to issue a registration certificate for their trademark application. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the trademark certificate had already been issued. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
Colgate Palmolive Company v.Personal Brushes Pvt. Ltd.
Colgate Palmolive filed a suit against Personal Brushes Pvt. Ltd. alleging passing off and infringement related to their toothbrush products. The court passed an interim order granting reliefs restraining the defendants from imitating the trade dress, get up, and infringing specific registered designs.
Metco Polymers Private Limited v.M/s.AnB Healthcare Products
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their registered patent related to 'water beds'. However, the counsel for the plaintiffs subsequently moved an application to withdraw the suit.
Texmo Industries v.Mr.Kantilal Solanki
The Madras High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Texmo Industries against Mr. Kantilal Solanki, finding clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that since both parties used the identical mark 'TEXMO' on the same product—agricultural pumps—the use by the defendant constituted a direct violation of the plaintiff's registered trademarks (Nos. 315049 and 315050). Consequently, the suit was decreed granting permanent injunctive reliefs to protect Texmo Industries' brand integrity.
Riyaz Chowdhary v.Parfums Parour And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark rectification dispute concerning the mark 'LOMANI'. The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to remove the trademark, arguing that he was denied natural justice because the application for rectification was not served upon him until seven years after it was filed. Recognizing this procedural lapse, the Court set aside the IPAB's order and mandated a fresh hearing, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to contest the removal of his registered mark.
Rajeshbhai Gokulbhai Sojitra v.Registrar Of Trade Marks Boudhik Sampada Bhavan
The Gujarat High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajeshbhai Gokulbhai Sojitra concerning the prolonged delay in deciding his trade mark registration application for 'Krinal Double Filter Chuno'. The petitioner alleged inaction by the Registrar of Trade Marks, noting that the application had been pending since 2008. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive to the Respondent Authority to finalize the decision on Application No.1688346 within eight weeks from the date of the order, without examining the merits of the underlying trade mark dispute.
Red Bull Ag v.C. Eswari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Red Bull Ag, declaring its 'Double Bull Device' and 'Single Bull Device' trademarks as well-known marks in India. The court found that Red Bull's extensive global presence, massive sales figures (controlling 97.3% of the Indian energy drink market), and widespread promotion satisfied the criteria for a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This declaration provides strong legal backing to prevent unauthorized use by defendants in related goods.
Unilever Plc v.Glint Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
The Plaintiffs, Unilever Plc, sought interim relief against the Defendant, Glint Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks SUNSILK and CLEAR in the personal care industry. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks and ordered disclosure of relevant documents.
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.