India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 141 of 164 · 4,909 total
Levi Strauss & Company v.Shree Ganesh Garments
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Shree Ganesh Garments alleging clandestine manufacturing, storing, distributing, and retailing apparel under deceptively similar trademarks to 'Levi's'. The plaintiff claimed ownership of several registered trademarks related to its clothing line. The court found the defendant guilty of blatant trademark infringement and granted comprehensive relief in favor of the plaintiff.
Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. v.Sandeep Chohan @ Sandeep Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit involving 'Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd.' The court noted the delay (40-50 days) between when the plaintiff became aware of the alleged misuse and when the suit was filed. Despite citing precedents that allow injunctions despite delay, the judge held that because the delay was relatively short, granting an immediate ex-parte order would cause greater mischief to the defendants than waiting for them to be served notice. Consequently, the court denied the interim injunction and directed proper service of summons.
Sandeep Jaidka v.Mukesh Mittal & Anr.
Sandeep Jaidka filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mukesh Mittal & Anr. for infringing his registered patent (No. 231895) related to multi-sensory '4D' effects used in cinema halls. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were willfully using his patented technology, which combines hardware and software to synchronize heating, cooling, and aromatic effects with movie scenes. While the plaintiff asserted infringement, Defendant No. 2 filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity based on prior art. The court denied the interim injunction but expedited the trial, setting conditions for the defendants regarding financial disclosures and security deposits.
Diageo Brands B. v.Sh. Sanjay Jain
The plaintiff, Diageo Brands B., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and dilution of its famous trademark JOHNNIE WALKER. The defendants were manufacturing and selling clothing under the deceptively similar mark 'JOHNY WALKER'.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education v.Time Coaching/Education & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Triumphant Institute Of Management Education (TIME) against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the use of the mark 'TIME' by the defendants was a blatant attempt to ride on TIME's hard-earned goodwill, especially given its extensive reputation in the coaching industry. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunctions, ordering the cancellation of the infringing domain name, and awarding damages.
M/S Manoj Selas And Locks v.The Bihar State Electricity Board
M/S Manoj Selas And Locks challenged an order that blacklisted them for two years and forfeited their Bank Guarantee after they were rejected from a tender. The dispute centered on whether the petitioner possessed a valid design certificate (Design No. 198589) required by the Board, which the Board disputed.
Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Kumar Pratap Anil & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringing Indian Patent No. 189089 related to transformer explosion prevention technologies. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the plaintiff's alleged exclusive license was invalid, back-dated, and unregistered.
Pathiath Babu Rajendran Since Deceased v.Asst. Registrar Of Trade Marks & 2
The appeals challenged the orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which directed the removal of four registered trade marks belonging to the appellant. The appellant argued that it was denied a proper hearing and that the proceedings were improperly handled after transfer under Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the IPAB's finding that the appellant had waived its right due to deliberate inaction.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Lunar Rubbers Private Limited
Nike Innovate C.V. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel several trademark registrations held by Lunar Rubbers Private Limited, citing non-use. Nike demonstrated extensive use and recognition of its 'LUNAR' technology across various footwear lines in India since 2009. The court found that the petitioner had discharged its initial burden of proving non-use, and despite the onus shifting to the respondent, Lunar failed to provide satisfactory evidence of continuous commercial use during the relevant five-year period. Consequently, the trademarks were ordered removed from the register.
NTT DoCoMo Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office; The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office; The Union of India
NTT DoCoMo Inc. challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to revive its Patent Application No.4851/CHENP/2007. The application was mistakenly withdrawn due to a clerical error committed by the petitioner's erstwhile patent attorneys, who interchanged the numbers of two related applications. The court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner was an innocent party and should not suffer injustice.
M/s.Shiva Tobacco Company v.Md.Zaheeruddin
The Madras High Court dismissed a review petition filed by M/s. Shiva Tobacco Company challenging the cancellation of their trademark registration (No. 1330146). The petitioner argued that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) overlooked evidence of prior adoption and use dating back to 1962, citing Supreme Court precedents. However, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record, noting that the IPAB had already concluded there was insufficient material to prove continuous user since 1962, thereby upholding the cancellation decision.
Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. v.Quality Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., confirming the permanent injunction against Quality Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant was illegally using a deceptively similar mark, thereby capitalizing on the goodwill established by 'Nature Fresh.' Furthermore, due to the defendant's deliberate evasion of court proceedings, the plaintiff was awarded damages amounting to Rs. 5.0 lacs.
Venkatraman Das v.M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited
This civil suit was filed by Venkatraman Das seeking permanent injunction against M/s.Vns Innovations Pvt. Limited for allegedly infringing his registered patent on a 'Disposable Armpit Perspiration Pad' (Patent No. 181248). The defendants challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the product was old and lacked novelty or inventive step. After examining the prior art, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any genuine innovation over existing knowledge. Consequently, the suit for infringement and rendition of accounts was dismissed.
Groupon, Inc. v.Mohan Rao And Another
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Groupon, Inc., granting an injunction against Mohan Rao and others for passing off the trademark 'GROUPON'. The court emphasized that priority is determined by earlier use rather than mere registration date when a suit for passing off is filed. Given Groupon's extensive international goodwill and prior usage since 2002, the defendants were restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar variations.
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v.Gharda Chemicals Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain patents belong to Defendant No. 1 and requesting Defendant No. 2 to assign them without compensation. The applicants, who hold shares in Defendant No. 1, sought impleadment as party defendants, arguing the suit was a derivative action benefiting minority shareholders. The court dismissed the Chamber Summons, finding that the interests of the plaintiff and the applicants were not common or rival.
Philip Morris Products S.A & Anr v.Sameer & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Philip Morris Products S.A., finding that the defendants were engaged in both counterfeit and grey market sales of MARLBORO cigarettes, constituting trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions to protect the brand's goodwill and awarded nominal damages against the infringing retailers. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to established global brands against unauthorized use, even by small vendors.
Yahoo Inc. v.Firoz Nadiawala & Ors
Yahoo Inc. successfully sued Firoz Nadiawala & Ors for infringing its well-known trademark 'YAHOO!' by releasing a film under the same title. The Delhi High Court ruled that Yahoo! had acquired the status of a household name in India through extensive use and advertising, making the defendant's use highly likely to cause public confusion and association with the plaintiff. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions against the defendants regarding the use of the mark.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Teva filed suit alleging Natco infringed its process patent (IN.190759) by manufacturing and exporting glatiramer acetate under the brand 'Glatimer'. Natco challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the alleged infringement related to export outside India, not local sales.
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods (P) Ltd. v.Aachi Aappakadai Chettinad A/c Restaurant
The Madras High Court dismissed the applicants' requests for an interim injunction, ruling that the trademark 'AACHI' is a common Tamil word associated with Chettinad cuisine. The court held that since the mark was deemed common, the applicants could not prevent others from using it in their restaurant business unless they could prove secondary meaning through evidence during trial. While the respondent was allowed to use the name 'AACHI', they were prohibited from adopting the applicant's registered oval-shaped label mark.
Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v.S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors.
Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors., alleging infringement of its registered helmet design (No. 241153). The core dispute revolved around whether Steelbird's design was novel and original, and if the defendants' product copied essential features. The court examined evidence showing that similar 'beak shaped' designs were already available in the market from competitors like STUDDS and AIROH prior to Steelbird's registration date.
M/S Parimal Mandir v.Bharat Vasi Sugandhit Dhoop & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Parimal Mandir, a leading manufacturer of incense sticks, finding that the defendants were engaging in passing off and intellectual property infringement. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar trade dress, packaging, and branding for their Dhoop products created an overall visual impression likely to mislead consumers into believing the goods originated from the plaintiff. Consequently, a decree was passed granting permanent injunctions against the defendants and ordering the destruction of infringing materials.
Teijin Limited v.Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Industry, Ministry of Industry and Commerce
Teijin Limited filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders that declared its Patent No. 207883 as ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees (annuities). The Petitioner argued that payments for various annuities, including the 3rd to 9th and 10th year, were made but incorrectly recorded by the Patent Office. The Court found in favor of the Petitioner, directing the restoration of the patent.
National Research Development Corporation v.M/S Industrial Carbon And Ors.
The dispute arose from a license granted by NRDC (a public sector enterprise) to M/S Industrial Carbon for manufacturing SIG contacts. The parties contested an arbitration award dated 28.05.2009 regarding royalty payments and damages. The Delhi High Court partially sustained the award, while setting aside the portion that denied NRDC's claim for royalty during the initial production period, remitting those claims back to the arbitrator.
M.C.Jayasingh v.Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (Midhani)
M.C. Jayasingh filed a suit alleging infringement of his registered Patents and Designs concerning 'Custom Mega Prosthesis' (CMP), specialized medical implants used in limb salvage surgery. The plaintiff claimed unique features, such as pivotal hinge mechanisms and thrust bearing pads, provided superior articulation and durability to the prostheses. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish actual infringement against the defendants, concluding that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove similarity in shape or configuration.
Intex Technologies (India) Limited v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)
Intex Technologies (Informant) alleged that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Opposite Party), a major SEP holder in mobile communication, was demanding excessive and unfair royalty rates for licensing its patents. The Informant also complained about the use of NDAs and foreign jurisdiction clauses which restricted their ability to seek redressal.
U. Varadaraya Nayak v.S.K. Anand & Ors.
The suit involved U. Varadaraya Nayak, an individual inventor, seeking a permanent injunction against several companies (the Defendants) for infringing his patented invention: a twin blade razor (Patent No. 184118). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were manufacturing and selling razors using his technology despite having previously been approached by him regarding licensing opportunities in 2003. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Mercury Electronics & Anr.
Ericsson filed an application seeking permission to file affidavits and a claim chart mapping in a sealed envelope, arguing that this was necessary to demonstrate how its patented AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies were infringed by Mercury Electronics and Micromax. The court permitted Ericsson to file the documents while keeping them under safe custody for joint inspection.
Pawan Deep Singh Bahl v.Princep Supply Agency
Pawan Deep Singh Bahl filed a suit against Princep Supply Agency alleging infringement of his registered industrial design (No. 182353) and copyright, along with claims of passing-off regarding 'Mercury in Glass Thermostats'. The plaintiff claimed the defendant copied his compact thermostat design. However, the court ultimately dismissed the suit not on the merits of IP infringement, but because the plaintiff failed to implead the Research Design and Standards Organisation (RDSO), which was deemed a necessary party for determining the culpability of piracy and infringement.
M/S. Nico Quality Products v.M/S. N.C. Arya Snuff And Cigar Co.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's applications for interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The core issue revolved around an assignment deed transferring trademarks from the respondent firm to the petitioner. However, the court ruled that because this crucial assignment deed was insufficiently stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, it could not be admitted as evidence in the suit. Consequently, the injunctions were vacated, allowing the respondent to continue its operations.
Lakha Ram Sharma v.Balar Marketing Private Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court of India overturned the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision that dismissed a trade mark rectification petition due to delay. The appellant, who had been using the 'Kundan' mark since 1980, argued that his efforts to challenge the registration were timely, despite initial jurisdictional issues in the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that procedural delays caused by lack of jurisdiction should not prejudice a bona fide applicant seeking to protect their established rights, remanding the case for fresh consideration on merits.
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.