India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 139 of 164 · 4,909 total
Suresh Kumar Garg v.Pramod Kumar
Plaintiff, a sole proprietor manufacturing edible oil under M/s Aggarwal Oil Mills, filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendant for infringing his trade mark numeral 1. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and use since 1981, while the defendant argued that '1' is a common expression and denied any similarity or deception.
M/S.Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant challenged the refusal of design registration (Application No. 233798) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller overlooked previous judicial observations regarding consistent application of registration parameters and incorrectly assessed the originality of the bottle design.
Amit Jain v.Ayurveda Herbal & Ors
Amit Jain filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ayurveda Herbal and others for infringing his registered designs used on plastic bottles and tubes for cosmetic products. The plaintiff claimed ownership through assignment of several design registrations. However, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, finding that the designs were not novel or protectable under Section 30 of the Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff was penalized for failing to disclose details of a prior withdrawn suit.
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd v.M/s.Vignesh Refineries
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt.Ltd filed suit against M/s.Vignesh Refineries alleging infringement of its registered trademark (GOLD WINEER) and copyrighted pouch design. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of 'SKS GOLD' packaging, which was deemed infringing by the plaintiff. Both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise, amicably settling their differences.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
This appeal involved a minority shareholder, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck, challenging Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (Defendant No. 1) and its Managing Director (Defendant No. 2). The core grievance was that Defendant No. 2 had obtained several patents in his individual name despite using the company's substantial research and development infrastructure and investment. The plaintiff argued these patents belonged to the company, asserting a fiduciary duty breach by the MD. However, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the prayer for interim relief, finding no compelling reason to grant protection based solely on apprehension.
Ashim Ghosh v.The Controller Of Patents
The petitioner challenged the Controller's action of treating his patent application (No. 1350/DEL/2007) as 'Deemed to be Withdrawn'. The withdrawal was based on the assumption that the request for examination was not made within the prescribed period, despite the petitioner having filed Form-18 correctly and within the time limit. The court found that the clerical error in the covering letter did not invalidate the timely filing of the substantive examination request.
Rohini Seeds Private Limited v.Reshma Chemicals Private Limited
The appeal challenged an order that granted a temporary injunction restraining Rohini Seeds Private Limited from using numbers 2222 on its seed packings, based on Reshma Chemicals Private Limited's claim of trademark infringement (R.S.2222). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of confusion or irreparable injury.
M/S Bilcare Limited v.M/S Associated Capsules Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a trademark suit (TM-75/2011) against the defendant. The defendant subsequently filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recall previous orders, primarily to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The court dismissed this application, finding it devoid of merits and intended for dilatory tactics.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for an ad interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals regarding the patented drug Sitagliptin. MSD alleged that Glenmark's products, marketed as Zita and Zitamet, infringed upon its patent (Indian Patent No. 209816), which covers a key molecule used to treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, granting an interim injunction in favor of MSD, thereby restraining Glenmark from further selling or distributing the infringing products while the main suit proceeds.
M/s. Sivanesan & Co. v.M/s. Kanchan Home Appliances and others
The Madras High Court granted an absolute interim injunction in favor of M/s. Sivanesan & Co., who held the registered trademark 'Premier'. The court found that the defendants' use of 'Premier Dezire' constituted both infringement and passing off, causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation. This decision underscores the importance of continuous usage and established market presence when enforcing trademark rights.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Intex Technologies (India) Limited for infringing eight patents related to advanced telecommunication technologies, specifically AMR, 3G, and EDGE. The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The court granted several stringent interim orders, including restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing devices and directing Customs authorities not to allow the import of such products.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel & 2
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Arvindbhai Lavjibhai Patel and others concerning Patents Nos. 218301 and 221999. The defendants challenged the validity of these patents by filing a counter-claim for revocation. This order framed various issues, including novelty, inventorship, infringement, and entitlement to injunctions.
Tata Sons Ltd v.Neil Sombuntham & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Ltd, granting a permanent injunction against Neil Sombuntham and others for infringing on the well-known 'TATA' trademark. The court found that the defendant's use of the domain name 'www.tatamassage.com' constituted misappropriation and an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the Tata brand in the global market. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or domain name, and the court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name to the plaintiff.
Atlas Plastic v.C G Enterprise
Atlas Plastic filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against C G Enterprise for infringement of its registered designs. Atlas Plastic subsequently filed an application seeking to amend its plaint to incorporate details regarding the cancellation petition status of one of the defendant's impugned designs.
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Metro International Cardiac Centre & Ors
The plaintiff, Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd, filed a suit seeking an injunction against the defendants for using the 'METRO' trade name/trademark in respect of medical services. The plaintiff claimed extensive goodwill and reputation associated with its hospitals under the METRO brand. However, the court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the plaintiff lacked a prima facie case and there was no evidence suggesting the defendant was a dishonest concurrent user.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB granting a plea of revocation made by private respondents. The dispute involved multiple patent infringement suits and corresponding revocation petitions/counter claims. The High Court addressed whether the Supreme Court's ruling on electing one remedy was affected by ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court.
M/S Reino Industrial Organics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Refnol Resins & Chemicals Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered trade marks (REINOL/RIO-REINOL) and passing off goods under the deceptive mark 'Refnol' or company name REFNOL RESINS & CHEMICALS LTD. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks amounted to infringement and passed off, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Bayer CropScience AG v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bayer CropScience AG appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for long-chain inulin. The rejection was based on a lack of novelty and inventive step, arguing that the compound was merely isolated from artichoke roots. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the specific chain length and higher degree of polymerization achieved by fractionalizing the inulin constituted a novel invention with beneficial results.
Gilead Pharmasset, Llc v.Union Of India & Anr
Gilead Pharmasset challenged an order passed by the Patent Office, arguing that it violated natural justice because the decision considered grounds and material from pre-grant oppositions (filed under Section 25) without giving the petitioner a hearing. The court found that the availability of this opposition material created a potential for bias, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v.RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Blue Cross Laboratories, granting an interim injunction against RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the marks 'CEDON' and 'CEFDON' were deceptively similar, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to combine both causes of action into the suit, dismissing the defendant's attempt to reject the plaint.
Symed Labs Ltd. v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Symed Labs Ltd. filed a suit alleging that Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was manufacturing and selling Linezolid using processes that infringed upon Symed's registered patents (IN '062 and IN '063). The Plaintiff argued that its patented methods were more economical, safer, and commercially viable than the prior art processes. The court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing the infringing activities.
Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. v.Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for amendment of the cause title, recognizing that the rights in the trademark 'ZOLAM' had been transferred from Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited via a sanctioned scheme of arrangement. The court found the plaintiff's case unimpeachable and ruled that the successor company was entitled to continue the legal proceedings without delay.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar of PPVFR Authority which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPV&FR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether the development and sale of hybrid seeds from these parent lines invalidated the novelty claim for the original parental lines.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Novartis Ag v.Cipla Ltd
Novartis AG filed a suit against Cipla Ltd alleging infringement of its patented drug, INDACATEROL Maleate, used for treating COPD. Novartis sought a permanent injunction to restrain the use and sale of the infringing product. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim application, noting that while the defendant had not applied for compulsory licensing, the grounds under the Patents Act were relevant. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining Cipla from manufacturing or selling INDACATEROL Maleate until the final outcome of the suit.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PVPFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as new plant varieties. The core issue was whether the parent lines remain novel if their material is used to produce a distinct hybrid variety.
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. v.Union Of India And Anr
The petitioners challenged an order by the Registrar, PPVFR Authority, which held that parent lines of known hybrid varieties could not be registered as 'new' plant varieties. The core issue was whether these parent lines retained novelty despite the commercial use and sale of resulting hybrid seeds.
Vinod Verma v.State Of Punjab And Ors
The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding alleged patent infringement. The court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate legal remedy for such claims, as the matter required detailed evidence and consideration of facts governed by the Patent Act.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder, filed a derivative action alleging that Defendant No.2 (Chairman/MD) obtained and applied for several patents in his individual name instead of in the name of Defendant No.1 (the company). The court examined whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the company.
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.