India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 133 of 164 · 4,909 total
M/S.Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd against Pureca Laboratories (P) Ltd & Ors, finding that the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. The court held that the defendant's use of similar trademarks and packaging for liver tonic preparations amounted to both copyright infringement and passing off. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from continuing their infringing activities.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Vinod Jadhav
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp sought confirmation of an existing ex parte ad interim injunction against Vinod Jadhav and others, alleging that they were infringing on their registered patent for the drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs established that they held a valid patent (No. 209816) and had previously secured a permanent injunction in a related suit. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly made out a prima facie case and confirmed the interim order, noting the defendants' attempts to delay the matter.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited & Ors.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited for infringement of its trademarks ('TOYOTA', 'TOYOTA INNOVA', 'TOYOTA DEVICE') and passing off using the mark 'Prius'. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, finding that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or market reputation for 'Prius' in India.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited & Ors.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited for infringement of its trade marks ('TOYOTA', 'TOYOTA INNOVA', etc.) and passing off using the mark 'Prius'. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, concluding that Toyota failed to establish sufficient goodwill or reputation for 'Prius' in the Indian market.
Maja Cosmetics & Anr v.Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
Maja Cosmetics filed a suit alleging that Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its registered trademark 'VI-JOHN' in relation to alcoholic beverages. The court ultimately found that the defendant's use of 'V-JOHN' was deceptive and infringed upon the plaintiff's mark, passing a decree in favor of Maja Cosmetics.
Abbott Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Raj Kumar Prasad & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by the plaintiff seeking a stay of infringement proceedings while rectification/cancellation proceedings against the defendant's trademark were pending. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act requires the issue of invalidity to be formally raised and framed in the suit before a stay can be granted. Since the plaintiff failed to press this issue during the framing of issues, the application was dismissed, emphasizing procedural adherence over subsequent actions.
M/s Hotel Swagath v.M/s Hotel Swagath East Court
The appellant, M/s Hotel Swagath (registered partnership firm), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s Hotel Swagath East Court for infringing its registered trademark and passing off. The trial court dismissed the interim injunction application, which was subsequently challenged in this appeal.
Ramesh Mardia & Anr v.M/S Koxan India & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Ramesh Mardia, setting aside a previous single judge's order that had granted an injunction against him. The court recognized the complexity of the trademark ownership dispute concerning 'Mardia Cables,' which involves multiple assignments and prior registrations. To expedite the lengthy litigation, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence on a day-to-day basis, allowing the trial process to move forward.
M & K Technologies v.Hi-Tech Carbons and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
M & K Technologies filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's order cancelling design registration no. 190949. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the High Court due to the appellant failing to appear and filing a memo stating there were no instructions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v.Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation filed a suit alleging that Aprica Pharmaceuticals Private Limited was planning to launch a generic version (ECOGLIPT) of its patented drug SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued this constituted patent infringement and sought a permanent injunction based on the apprehension of future market flooding. The court found the defendant's actions violated Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr.
Vifor (International) Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Dharmendra Vora & Anr. for infringing Indian Patent No. 221536, which covers a novel water soluble iron carbohydrate complex used for intravenous treatment of iron deficiency. The court found that the defendants were violating the plaintiff's registered patent rights.
M/S Kamdhenu Limited v.M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
M/S Kamdhenu Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for infringing its registered design related to TMT steel bars. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant copied the unique double-rib surface pattern of their patented bar, which was protected under Design Act, 2000 (No. 250968). The defendant countered by arguing that the design was based on a public domain British Standard and lacked novelty. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Kamdhenu Limited, finding a prima facie case for infringement.
Vivek Kochher & Anr v.M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vivek Kochher & Anr challenging an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that rectified the trademark 'KYK'. The court upheld the finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the mark since the dates claimed in their registration applications. Consequently, the court affirmed the IPAB's conclusion that the original registration was obtained based on a false statement and fraud, favoring the respondent, KYK Corp.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Mr. Munish Thakur
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mr. Munish Thakur for infringing Indian Patent No. 209816, which covers Sitagliptin. The court found that the defendant's product, GLIPSIT-M1, contained Sitagliptin and thus infringed the patent.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
The plaintiff, Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for patent infringement against Xiaomi Technology. The current application sought the constitution of a confidential club to allow filing of highly sensitive patent licensing agreements necessary for determining FRAND issues.
Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co v.Dsm Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd
The appeal challenged a decree of permanent injunction granted in favor of Sinopharm Weiqida Pharmaceutical Co. The core dispute involved alleged infringement of Patent No. 247301 concerning the 'Process for Preparing Amoxicilin Trihydrate'. The court set aside the previous order, recognizing that questions regarding territorial jurisdiction and the scope of the injunction against foreign manufacturing needed further examination.
Michele Caboni v.Union Of India And Anr.
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of certain sections and rules of the Patents Act, 1970, primarily arguing that the rules did not provide an opportunity to be heard before rights were closed, and that no appeal was prescribed against orders under Rule 137. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the statutory provisions.
Mohd Anesur Rahaman v.Mosarraf Hossain And Ors
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff, Mohd Anesur Rahaman, to amend his plaint in a trademark dispute. The amendment was necessary because the plaintiff had successfully registered the 'ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL' trademark during the pendency of the suit. This allows the plaintiff to formally pursue infringement claims based on the newly secured registration. The court emphasized that such amendments are allowed under principles of justice and equity to ensure all rights are properly adjudicated.
Ahuja Radios v.H K Sound Electronics & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ahuja Radios, finding that the defendants were engaged in trademark infringement and passing off by selling counterfeit Public Address Systems (PAS) under a deceptively similar mark. The court emphasized that the defendants' deliberate evasion of court proceedings warranted punitive damages. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions and an award of ₹3,00,000/- in damages.
Muthukani Diravidakani & Rakkappan Muthukani (Trading as M/s Anil Appalam & Chips) v.K.S.Raja, The Registrar of Trade Marks, and The Registrar, Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Madras High Court allowed the petitioners, who trade as M/s Anil Appalam & Chips, to file a Review Petition against an adverse order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2013. The court granted this permission and further directed the IPAB not to strictly enforce the limitation period if the review petition was filed within two weeks of the High Court's order. This procedural relief allows the petitioners to challenge the original decision regarding their trade mark registration.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Anr v.Sandeep Chohan Alias Sandeep Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Drs Logistics regarding the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'AGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS' and associated domain names. The court granted a mandatory injunction directing the deletion or transfer of an offending domain name to the plaintiff. Furthermore, due to the defendants evading court proceedings while continuing their infringing activities, the court awarded punitive damages of ₹3,00,000/- plus interest.
Suru International Pvt. Ltd v.B.Braun Melsungen AG
Suru International Pvt. Ltd filed a Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 210062. The Madras High Court set aside the IPAB's order to the extent that it had remanded the matter back to the Controller General of Patents & Designs, directing the IPAB to decide the issue de novo.
M/S All Well Formulations v.M/S Swathi And Co.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal, upholding the trial court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of M/S All Well Formulations. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Turky Plus Olive Oil' and its unique tin design by the defendant. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar, noting that the plaintiff's current suit was based on a registered mark, unlike a previous unsuccessful attempt concerning an unregistered mark. Consequently, the trial court was directed to expedite the final decision of the underlying infringement suit.
Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd. v.Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Central Park Estates Pvt. Ltd., upholding a limited interim injunction granted to Keystone Realtors Pvt Ltd. The court found that while the appellants held registered rights in 'Central Park', the respondents demonstrated bona fide prior use and substantial investment in their project, balancing equities in favor of the defendants. Consequently, the court allowed the respondents to continue using 'Rustomjee Central Park' provided the prominence of 'Central Park' was maintained.
M/S Instapower Ltd. v.M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd & Ors.
M/S Instapower Ltd., a company specializing in energy-efficient lighting systems, filed a suit alleging that M/S Alpha Interiors Pvt Ltd and others were infringing its registered design patents for aviation warning lights. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive market presence and proved that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products. Despite the defendants failing to contest the case effectively, the court found infringement.
BDA Ltd. v.National Industrial Corporation Ltd.
The appellant filed an application before the Controller of Patents and Designs for cancellation of Registered Design No.182771 under Section 19 of the Act. The Registrar had previously rejected this application, and since more than ten years had passed, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals v.Union Of India
M/S. Reata Pharmaceuticals challenged an order passed by the Controller of Patents, arguing that the authority failed to consider superior data regarding their improved product version. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the impugned order was statutorily appealable, the petitioner must utilize the available statutory remedy.
K.Manivannan v.The Chairman Intellectual Property Appellate Board, The Controller of Patent & Designs, M.Mani
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 204322, granted to M.Mani (the third respondent), arguing that the invention was already publicly available or anticipated by his own earlier work. The petitioner sought revocation of the patent before the High Court.
M/S.Spc Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd v.M/S.Ameya Laboratories Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Patent No.265920 in the Commercial Court. Due to the defendant filing a counter-claim for revocation, the suit was transferred to the High Court. The core issue before the court was whether this transferred patent dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Bhushan Goyal (Proprietor, Chanda Softy Ice Creams) v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Mars Incorporated
The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Bhushan Goyal against the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and Mars Incorporated. The petitioner had sought to quash an order related to the renewal of a trademark registration granted to Mars Incorporated. However, before any substantive ruling on the merits, the petitioner voluntarily moved to withdraw the petition, leading to its dismissal.
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.