India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 132 of 164 · 4,909 total
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'.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a patent infringement suit against Diyora and Bhanderi Corporation, claiming that their machines infringe Patent No. IN271425, which covers automated technology for locating inclusions in rough gemstones. The plaintiffs argued this invention was crucial for maximizing the value of diamonds by optimizing cutting and polishing processes. However, during the hearing on the temporary injunction application, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit seeking protection against the infringement of its patent (No. 271425), which covers automated technology for locating inclusions in rough diamonds. The plaintiffs claimed their invention revolutionized the diamond industry by providing accurate 3D imaging and cutting plans to maximize stone value. While the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient for granting a temporary injunction, it issued specific interim restraints against the defendants regarding bubble removal devices and sales of infringing machines.
Snecma v.Union Of India And Anr.
Snecma challenged two communications from the Union of India's Patent Office, which rejected its request for patent examination. The initial rejection cited incorrect fee payment methods (cheque instead of demand draft), while the second communication claimed the request was filed beyond the 48-month statutory limit. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Snecma, quashing both communications and directing the Patent Office to process the request for examination.
M/S Okaya Power Ltd v.M/S Aqua Healer & Ors
M/S Okaya Power Ltd filed a suit against M/S Aqua Healer & Ors alleging infringement of its registered trademark, 'MINJET', along with claims of passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using similar names or designs. After reviewing the pleadings, the court found that there were no prospects for the defendants to successfully defend the claim. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was allowed, and the suit was decreed in favor of M/S Okaya Power Ltd.
Dolby International Ab v.Das Telecom Private Limited
The suit concerns patent infringement related to High Efficiency Advanced Audio Coding Technology. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to introduce a defense claiming that they were authorized users because the plaintiffs had licensed the technology to M/s Google INC, from whom the defendants obtained licenses. The court dismissed this amendment application.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries v.M/S Pearl Thrmoplast Pvt. Ltd.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging violation of its registered design (No.245-249) concerning a 'Jug'. The defendant challenged the suit, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as their primary business operations were outside Jodhpur. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that since the infringement and sale of the goods occurred within the court's jurisdiction (Jodhpur), part of the cause of action arose there, thereby establishing the court's competence to hear the matter.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. v.Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., finding that the defendant, Sri Sai Apollo Pharmacy, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('Apollo', 'Apollo Pharmacy') and committed passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks or services. Furthermore, the plaintiff was awarded costs and directed the defendant to surrender all infringing materials and render accounts of profits.
M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.Ultra Tile Pvt. Ltd., finding that the defendant, Shri Ganesh Tiles & Granites, had infringed upon its registered trademarks ('ULTRA') and committed passing off. The court held that since both parties operate in the same market (tiles) and target similar consumers, the use of a deceptively similar mark was unacceptable. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions, orders for destruction of infringing materials, and directions for accounting of profits.
Upl Limited v.Pradeep Sharma & Anr
Upl Limited filed a suit claiming infringement of three patents related to a stable synergistic herbicidal composition (Sulfosulfuron + Metsulfuron Methyl WG). The defendants challenged the validity of these patents. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Kalpesh R Jain And 2 Ors v.Mandev Tubes Private Limited
Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit alleging that Hariom Metals & Tubes (the appellants) infringed its registered design for copper tubes, specifically claiming imitation of the unique bell-shaped ending. The plaintiff asserted substantial goodwill and market presence under trademarks like 'MT ECO SELF CONNECT'. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, upholding the single judge's finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Lupin Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Lupin Ltd and others. The court found that the defendant's trade mark, TRI-VOBIT, was structurally and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, TRIVOLIB. Despite arguments regarding prior use of 'VOBIT,' the court ruled that the full marks must be compared, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off.
Sphaera Pharma, Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to restore its Indian Patent Application (No. 3584/DELNP/2015) for examination, which had been treated as abandoned due to failure to file the request within the prescribed time limit. The court examined the mandatory nature of the statutory deadlines and ruled against the petitioner's plea for restoration.
Aquapump Industries & Aquasub Engineering v.Texmo Industries
This Madras High Court judgment records a settlement reached between Aquapump Industries, Aquasub Engineering (Plaintiffs), and Texmo Industries (Defendant) regarding trademark infringement. The original suit sought permanent injunctions against the unauthorized use of the 'TEXMO' mark on various pump products and claimed damages/accounts of profits. Both parties successfully mediated their dispute, leading the court to decree the suit based on the terms of the Mediation Agreement dated February 21, 2017.
Mohammed Mohideen (representing M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece) v.M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade
The Madras High Court dismissed the interim injunction applications filed by M/s.Kalanjiyam Cut Piece against M/S.New Kalanjiyam Readymade, despite allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted a significant delay in filing the suit after receiving cease and desist notices from the defendant. Consequently, the judge found it inappropriate to grant an interim injunction at that stage, allowing the main suit to proceed for trial.
M/s Crocs Inc.Usa v.M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s Crocs Inc.Usa, filed suits seeking permanent injunction against various defendants for infringing its registered designs (Nos. 197685 and 197686) related to footwear. The court heard and disposed of the interim injunction applications in favor of the defendants.
Unilin Beheer B.V. v.Balaji Action Buildwell
The dispute involved a suit for patent infringement filed by Unilin Beheer B.V. against Balaji Action Buildwell. The defendant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that they had initiated revocation proceedings before the IPAB under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the issue of concurrent jurisdiction and granted liberty to the defendant to withdraw the IPAB proceedings and file a Counter-Claim in the suit.
M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited v.M/s.Balarama'S Incense Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.N.Ranga Rao & Sons Private Limited, finding that the defendant's use of the mark 'WOOD' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff's registered word mark 'WOODS'. The court affirmed that since both marks were used for identical goods (incense sticks) within the same trade channel, deception was inevitable. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions, ordering the surrender of infringing stock, and directing the defendant to render accounts.
Kleenage Products (India) Pvt.Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Kleenage Products, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew the trademark 'KLITOLIN'. The core issue was whether the mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been issued before the mark's removal. Since the respondents could not provide documentary evidence proving the issuance of this critical notice, the Court held that the removal was illegal and allowed the petitioner to renew the trademark.
Ansari Bilal Ahmadlal Mohd. (Appellant) v.Shafeeque Ahmed Mohammad Sayeed (Respondent-Plaintiff)
The Bombay High Court dismissed the defendant's commercial appeal, upholding the original plaintiff's claim of passing off. The court found that a strong prima-facie case existed for passing off, despite differences in calligraphy and design elements. Considering the target audience—laborers with imperfect recollection—the court ruled that the defendant's use of 'SUKOON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, thereby protecting the plaintiff's proprietary rights.
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Arora Stationers
Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design (No. 263172) for ball point pens against M/S Arora Stationers, seeking permanent injunctions and damages. The court was asked to consider an interim injunction application based on the alleged infringement under the Designs Act, 2000. However, the Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial newness or originality in their design.
Kellogg Company v.Pops Food Products (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kellogg Company's appeal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to remove its 'POPS' trademark from the register. The core issue was non-use, as the petitioner failed to provide evidence of bona fide use in India since 1989, despite claiming international adoption and goodwill. The court upheld the IPAB's finding that a prolonged lack of domestic commercial activity negates the right to maintain registration under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act.
M/S. Orient Bell Limited v.M/S. Royal Marketing
The plaintiff, M/S. Orient Bell Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s. Royal Marketing and M/s. Orient Cera Tiles for infringing its trademark 'Orient' and copyrighted logo 'Orient Tiles'. The court found that the defendants were engaging in passing off and infringement of the plaintiff's mark. Consequently, the suit was decreed with relief granting injunctions and awarding damages.
M/S Bombay Plaster Industries v.M/S Jagdamba Plaster
M/S Bombay Plaster Industries appealed a trial court order that rejected its application for a temporary injunction against M/S Jagdamba Plaster, alleging infringement of its 'Hi-Tech' trademark and copyright. The appellant claimed its label had acquired significant goodwill and was being deceptively copied by the respondents using similar labels like 'Hi-Techi' and 'I-Tek'. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no manifest error in the trial court's decision regarding the temporary injunction, while directing the lower court to expedite the main suits.
J.C. Bamford Excavators Limited & Anr. v.Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant alleging imminent infringement of copyrights in component drawings and registered designs related to their 3DX Backhoe Loader. The defendant filed applications seeking dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it lacked a cause of action, particularly after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew an injunction order. The court dismissed the defendant's applications, noting that the issues required a full trial.
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.