India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 135 of 164 · 4,909 total
Krishna Plastic Industries v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Krishna Plastic Industries appealed against an order allowing the cancellation of its registered design for a 'plastic seal'. The High Court found that the Deputy Controller failed to properly examine and reason regarding the distinctive surface pattern, which was claimed as the source of novelty. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Aia Engineering Limited v.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (Bhel)
Aia Engineering Limited filed a civil suit alleging that the third defendant infringed its patent (IN'740) related to wear-resistant metal parts used in industrial applications. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the substantial cause of action arose outside Delhi.
Atul Narsibhai Patel v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner appealed against the cancellation of Design No. 211639 (a seal for packaging). The Assistant Controller cancelled the registration finding that the design was not new or original because its features were strikingly similar to prior published and registered designs, specifically nos. 179570 and 205871.
Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Lupin Ltd And Anr
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals against the refusal of interim relief. The dispute centered on alleged infringement and passing off concerning the medicinal preparation DEXORANGE, whose packaging and trade mark were copied by the respondents (Lupin Ltd And Anr). Despite strong claims regarding identical artistic work and deceptive similarity, the court found no immediate case for injunction after an 11-year delay in seeking relief. However, the court directed that the original suit be expedited, keeping all core issues of infringement and passing off open for future adjudication.
Beckman Coulter Biomedical, LLC v.Union of India
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents & Designs which returned its subject patent application (PCT/US2011/035420) on the grounds that the mandatory 31-month deadline for nationalization had expired. The petitioner argued that technical errors led to the delay and sought judicial intervention.
Abhoy Kumar Jain v.Vrajlal Manilal & Company And Others
The Delhi High Court intervened in a dispute over trademark rectification, setting aside an ex parte order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner successfully argued that the original decision failed to consider their statement of defense and material evidence. Consequently, the court restored the petitioner's mark 'Tufan' on the register and remitted the case back to the IPAB for a fair reconsideration, emphasizing procedural fairness over substantive merits.
Park Jeong Tae v.Hem Kund Sprayers
The plaintiff, Park Jeong Tae, sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, Hem Kund Sprayers, for infringing his registered patent (No. 254374) related to an injection moulded cleaning solution pump for chemical sprayers, marketed as 'Super-2000 Gold Sprayer'. The plaintiff also alleged passing off and copyright infringement on packaging. Based on a prima facie case, the court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner.
Atul Narsibhai Patel v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.
The petitioner appealed against the cancellation of his registered seal design (Design No. 200628). The dispute centered on whether the design lacked novelty or originality due to its similarity to features depicted in an earlier tender document published by the Gujarat Electricity Board. The High Court upheld the Assistant Controller's decision, finding that the prior publication defeated the right of registration.
Female Health Company Uk Plc v.Hll Lifecare Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the patent granted for a female condom manufactured by the respondent. The petitioner is contesting the validity and implications of the patent.
M/s. Eris Life Science Pvt.Ltd. v.M/s. Micro Labs Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of staying a trademark infringement suit when a rectification application concerning the registered mark is pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The court clarified that the right to file for trademark rectification is a statutory right and cannot be curtailed by requiring prior leave or prima facie satisfaction from the civil court. Given the similarity between the marks and the pendency of the IPAB proceedings, the suit was stayed.
Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. v.Surya Roshni Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered design for a Hollow Section Pipe. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the design lacked novelty, was common to trade, and was based on pre-existing prior art. The court dismissed the interim application in favor of the defendant.
Tata Sons Limited v.Ram Niwas & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Ram Niwas & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'TATA' and the domain name 'www.tatapackers.com' to associate themselves with the well-known TATA brand in the transport and logistics sector. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to transfer the infringing domain name to Tata Sons Limited.
Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd v.Kalpesh R. Jain And 2 Ors
The Plaintiff, Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd., sought protection for its registered design (No. 224751) concerning copper tubes, alleging that the Defendants infringed this design and engaged in passing off. The Plaintiff claimed the design was novel and original, featuring an expanded bell shape at one end of the tube.
Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd v.Ishaan Overseas
The Plaintiff, Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Ishaan Overseas for using the mark 'EDMODA' on leather goods. The Plaintiff claimed its mark 'ESBEDA' was deceptively similar. However, the court found that the marks were sufficiently distinct visually and phonetically, leading to the dismissal of the motion.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v.P.Ramu Trading as Skylane Pharmaceuticals
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Cadila Healthcare Limited, a major pharmaceutical player, finding that the defendant's use of the trademark PANTOSKY constituted infringement against Cadila's registered mark PANTODAC. The court held that PANTOSKY was deceptively similar to PANTODAC, leading to a decree for permanent injunction and damages. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known pharmaceutical trademarks in the Indian market.
Apex Laboratories Limited v.India Pharmaceuticals
Apex Laboratories Limited filed suit against India Pharmaceuticals alleging infringement and passing off concerning its 'ZINCOVIT' product label. The core dispute centered on whether the defendant's 'BICAL' label was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered artistic work. The court found that the labels were absolutely identical, applying the time-honored test for comparison. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of Apex Laboratories Limited, granting permanent injunction and damages.
Novartis Ag v.Atoz Pharmaceuticals Pvtltd
Novartis Ag filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Atoz Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and Zota Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd for alleged infringement of its Indian Patent No. 212815 concerning Vildagliptin API/formulations. The court noted that the defendant had cancelled the product 'VILDAPIN-50' as requested by them, leading to the plaintiffs withdrawing most reliefs.
Flamagas, Sa v.Sunder & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Flamagas, Sa, finding that the defendants were infringing upon its trademarks and designs related to 'Clipper' lighters. The court noted that the defendants failed to participate in the proceedings despite being served, leading to them being proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the suit was decreed for permanent injunction and punitive damages, emphasizing that non-participation by infringers should not allow them to escape liability.
Sangeetha Caterers And Consultants v.S.M.Subbaiah
The Madras High Court addressed a trademark dispute where Sangeetha Caterers And Consultants sought permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing and passing off their registered mark 'APOORVA'S SANGEETHA'. Although the defendants remained ex parte, the court found sufficient evidence to grant injunctions restraining further use of the offending word 'SANGEETHA' and directing the surrender of related materials. However, the claim for damages or accounts of profits was dismissed due to a lack of conclusive evidence from the plaintiff demonstrating direct financial loss.
Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Sanjay Jain
The plaintiffs, Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland and its subsidiary, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of their patent (IN 203937) covering the anti-cancer molecule DASATINIB. The defendants were proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance in court.
Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appeal challenged the Controller's order dated March 28, 2008, which cancelled three design registrations (184135, 184136, and 184137) belonging to Reckitt Benckiser. The appellant argued that the cancellation proceedings were flawed due to denial of cross-examination. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice and upholding the Controller's decision.
3M Innovative Properties Ltd v.Venus Safety & Health Pvt Ltd
The appellant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing their patent related to flat folded personal respiratory protection devices. The lower court had vacated an interim injunction based on prior art cited by the respondents, but the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants established a strong prima facie case and overturning the order.
DLF Limited v.G Webbook And Anr
DLF Limited successfully concluded its trademark dispute against G Webbook And Anr through an out-of-court settlement. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit based on this compromise, where the defendants acknowledged DLF as the prior adopter and registered proprietor of 'CAMELLIA' and 'CAMELLIAS'. Furthermore, the defendants committed to refraining from using similar marks like 'GRAND CAMELLIA', effectively resolving the infringement claims.
M/s. INPHASE POWER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED v.M/s. ABB INDIA LIMITED
The appeal was filed by the defendants (M/s Abb India Limited) challenging the trial court's order that allowed temporary injunctions against them regarding patent infringement and misappropriation of confidential information. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, dismissing the appeals.
Mr. Subramanian Venkataraman v.Precision Automation and Robotics India Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, along with damages, against the defendants for infringing their patent (No. 224911) related to multilevel car parking. The parties subsequently filed a joint withdrawal memo.
Mr. Subramanian Venkataraman v.Precision Automation and Robotics India Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions, along with damages, against the defendants for infringing their patent (No. 224911) related to multilevel car parking. The parties subsequently filed a joint withdrawal memo before the court.
Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd v.Centek Limited
The suit concerning patent infringement was pending between Eneroil Offshore Drilling Ltd and Centek Limited. The parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement, which involved the plaintiff undertaking not to use Boron steel or its equivalent for manufacturing single piece centralizers.
M/S Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. v.H.E. Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Johnson Appliances, finding that the defendants infringed upon the registered trademark 'JOHNSON' in relation to electric water heaters. The court extensively reviewed the historical chain of title, confirming the plaintiff's continuous ownership and rights over the mark since 1960. Despite the defendant's reliance on an alleged license agreement, the court held that the defendants lacked any valid rights to use the mark for these specific goods, granting a permanent injunction.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its application to cancel Design No. 187706 (a 'Container'). The appellant argued that the design was not new because it had been previously published in October 1997 and registered earlier. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Controller's order, finding no sufficient evidence of prior publication or novelty.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the registration of Design No. 180660 ('Container Lid'), arguing that it was neither new nor original, having been previously registered (Design Nos. 177677 and 177678) and prior published in 1997. The respondent argued that Design No. 180660 possessed distinct features making it novel compared to the earlier designs. The High Court upheld the lower authority's finding, concluding that Design 180660 was new and original.
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.