India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 142 of 164 · 4,909 total
Satnam Overseas v.Sant Ram & Co.& Anr.
The Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order that allowed the respondent to use the 'KOHINOOR' trademark across the entire state of Uttar Pradesh, despite the appellant's attempt to have the registration rectified due to alleged non-use. The court found no error in extending the geographical scope, noting that restricting usage to specific cities would create undue commercial and legal complications for the user. This judgment reinforces the principle that practical trade realities can override strict geographical limitations in trademark rights.
M/s.La Renon Health Care Pvt. v.Union of India
M/s. La Renon Health Care Pvt. challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) dismissal of its application to revoke Indian Patent No. 224100, which covered compositions for augmenting kidney function. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the IPAB order and direct the Controller General of Patents to cancel the patent granted to Kibow Biotech Inc. The Madras High Court examined the matter under supervisory jurisdiction, focusing on procedural fairness rather than substituting its own technical findings.
Micromax Informatics Limited v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)
Micromax Informatics Limited filed a complaint alleging that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was abusing its dominant position by demanding unfair, discriminatory, and exorbitant royalty rates for essential GSM patents. The Commission examined the allegations regarding excessive pricing based on the sale price of the product rather than the value of the technology.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v.Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr.
The suit involved Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. seeking permanent injunction against Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl and others for infringing its DVD Disc Patents, specifically Patent No. 218255. The Defendants filed a counter claim seeking revocation of the patent on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to disclose details of corresponding foreign applications as mandated by Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.V.C. Bhutada
The suit was filed by Bristol Myers Squibb Company against V.C. Bhutada and others, seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Indian Patent No. 203937 covering the API DASATINIB (marketed as SPRYCEL). The current application sought to return the plaint for presentation in a different court based on territorial jurisdiction.
Dr.Aloys Wobben v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Dr. Aloys Wobben challenged orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which had cancelled his patents against him. The core issue before the Madras High Court was whether the IPAB possessed the jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, to examine the validity of a resolution used to authorize actions.
Prem Ratan Rathi & Ors. v.Ashish Iron Trading Co. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (trusts representing the Rathi family) who sought to protect their registered trademark 'RATHI'. The court found that the defendants, by using the mark 'GOLDEN RATHI' and incorporating it into their corporate name for steel bars, were committing trademark infringement and passing off. Consequently, a permanent injunction was granted against both defendants, prohibiting them from using the infringing mark, alongside an order compelling them to render accounts of profits.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging that Kaveri Ultra Polymers (P) Ltd was infringing its patented improved screen panel and fixing arrangement. The court, finding the patent valid and subsisting, granted an interim order restraining the respondent from further infringement.
Union Of India v.Dr Ravindranath Pradhan
The Union of India appealed a single judge's order holding that the period of the petitioner's patent should be reckoned from 23.02.2001, not the original filing date of 19.06.1992. The dispute centered on whether procedural delays led to abandonment and how the commencement date should be determined under the Patents Act, 1970.
M/S. Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.M/S. Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. filed a suit against Mascot Drugs Pvt. Ltd. alleging infringement and passing off concerning their registered trademarks OMIDON and EMEDOM in pharmaceutical preparations. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'OMEDO' to confuse consumers and erode goodwill. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting an injunction and damages.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v.Mukesh Kumar P. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (SPIL) against the defendants, finding that their use of the mark AMLOVATE constituted both trademark infringement and passing off against SPIL's registered mark, AMLOBET. The court affirmed SPIL's territorial jurisdiction despite the defendants' objections. Consequently, the suit was decreed with a permanent injunction and an order requiring the defendants to render accounts of profits.
Raj Kumar Saraf, Proprietor M/S. Bindal Food Products v.M/S. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria
This appeal challenged the order by the Copyright Board that expunged a copyright registration (No. A-66496/04) held by Raj Kumar Saraf for an artistic label used on 'Vijay Hingoli' products. The Respondent, M/S. Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamaria, sought rectification based on prior use and ownership of the art work. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to establish valid authorship or continuous rights, particularly concerning alleged assignments and dates of publication.
Sarin Technologies Ltd v.Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & 3
Sarin Technologies Ltd filed a suit against Sanjay Raghav Golakiya & others alleging patent infringement. The court framed multiple issues, including those related to the validity (novelty, inventive step) and infringement of the suit patents. Both parties agreed to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence.
Shogun Organics Ltd. v.Union Of India
Shogun Organics Ltd. challenged the authority's power to grant registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, for manufacturing insecticides (D-trans allethrin and Transfluthrin) using a patented process held by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that CIBRC should not allow 'me too' registrations without consent from the patent holder. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the authority is not obligated to consider patent rights when granting registration under Section 9(3) or 9(4).
N. V. Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) order which allowed the registration of the trade mark 'HERO' for cigarettes. The petitioner argued that the IPAB erred by interfering with the Registrar's discretionary decision and misinterpreting legal principles regarding trademark priority and special circumstances. The High Court ultimately set aside the IPAB's order, confirming the Registrar's refusal to register the mark.
Mohan Lal Proprietor Of Mourya Industries v.Sona Paint & Hardwares
This judgment addresses complex legal questions arising from two suits concerning intellectual property rights. Specifically, it examines whether a holder of a registered design can sue for infringement against another party who also holds a registered design. The court also deliberated on the interplay between statutory remedies under the Designs Act and common law actions like passing off, particularly when the design is used as a trademark.
F Hoffman La Rochee Ltd & Anr v.Cipla Ltd.
This appeal involved disputes between Roche and Cipla regarding Patent No. 196774, which covered a cancer treatment drug ('Polymer A'). While Cipla had raised counterclaims seeking revocation based on non-disclosure (Section 8), the Division Bench addressed whether to stay the IPAB proceedings pending the outcome of cross-appeals in the High Court.
Jagdale Industries Limited v.Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Jagdale Industries Limited appealed an order dismissing its application for leave to sue Halewood Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and others regarding alleged infringement of Patent No. 247946, which covers a fruit juice based electrolyte energy drink. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence or causal link showing that a part of the cause of action arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Wockhardt Limited
Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. appealed against the dismissal of its interim injunction application, alleging that Wockhardt Limited was infringing their registered trademark "METO" with "METOX". The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not maintain the suit because the required assignment deed procedure under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had not been completed.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, alleging infringement of its patent on the molecule SITAGLIPTIN. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's product infringed their patented composition and brand names (JANUVIA/JANUMET). However, the court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead necessary circumstances regarding prior unsuccessful applications for related patents.
M/S Harjee Foods & Anr v.M/S Barbino Enterprises Pvt Ltd. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute over the confectionery marks KIDO and KIDCO. While finding that the defendant's use of the unregistered mark KIDCO constituted passing off due to high likelihood of consumer confusion, the court did not find infringement against the registered mark KIDO. Consequently, the suit was decreed in part, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants using KIDCO in India, but dismissing the claim for damages because an interim injunction had already been in place.
Novartis Ag v.Union Of India & Ors
This landmark Supreme Court judgment addressed the critical interplay between Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, and the definition of 'invention.' The case centered on Novartis's claim for a patent covering the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate (marketed as Glivec/Gleevec), a life-saving drug. The Court was tasked with balancing the need to encourage pharmaceutical research and development against India’s commitment to ensuring affordable access to essential medicines, particularly in developing nations.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Shivani Label
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Shivani Label alleging clandestine manufacturing and supply of apparel under deceptively similar marks, including LEVI'S. The court found the plaintiff's claims substantiated by un-rebutted testimony and documents.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Prateek Trading Co.
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Prateek Trading Co. alleging clandestine manufacturing and supply of apparel under deceptively similar marks, including LEVI'S. The court found the plaintiff's case to be true based on un-rebutted testimony and documents.
Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation v.Indus Biotech Private Limited
Vittal Mallya Scientific Research filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against Indus Biotech Private Limited for manufacturing and selling products (soluble double metal salt of HCA and anti obesity beverages) in violation of several process patents. The plaintiff subsequently moved to withdraw the suit as 'not pressed', which the court accepted, dismissing the case.
Sugen Inc. v.A. Rao & Anr.
The plaintiffs sued for injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No.209251, which covered the drug SUTENT. Although the Supreme Court initially set aside a revocation order, the Assistant Controller subsequently revoked the patent again. The court ultimately held that since the patent was revoked, the basis for the interim injunction disappeared, and the plaintiffs' application for continued relief was dismissed.
Bharatbhai Khushalbhai Patel Trading as Harikrishna Industries v.Delux Bearing Limited
The Gujarat High Court set aside an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that had removed the petitioner's trademark, 'SUPER DELUX BEARING,' from the register. The court found that the IPAB failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by raising and deciding the issue of genericness without providing the petitioner a proper opportunity to defend their mark. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the lower authority for a fresh hearing.
M/S. Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v.Gautam Industries & Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Hindustan Pencils Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Gautam Industries & Anr for infringing on their intellectual property rights. The court found that the defendant had dishonestly copied the distinctive color scheme, artistic design, and slogans used on the plaintiff's NATARAJ product packaging. This judgment affirms protection not only for registered trademarks but also for the original artistic work embodied in trade dress/packaging under copyright law, preventing passing off.
Hindustan Uniliver Limited v.Sree Annapoorna Foods
This Madras High Court judgment addressed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking to reject a civil suit on grounds of re-litigation. The respondents, Sree Annapoorna Foods, sued Hindustan Unilever Limited over alleged trademark infringement concerning 'Annapoorna' and 'Annapurna'. The appellant argued that the claim was barred by prior litigation and relinquishment of rights. However, the court found that since the cause of action for the second suit arose from subsequent events not covered in the earlier plaint, the suit could not be rejected at the initial stage.
Umesh Kumar Gupta And Another v.M/S Shree Girraj Food Products
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a revision filed by M/S Shree Girraj Food Products, which sought to stay an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The defendants argued that their application for rectification (cancellation) of the plaintiff's 'Chacha Chaudhary' trademark was pending before the Appellate Board. However, the court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act is inapplicable because the original suit was not for trademark infringement but rather a suit for injunction based on passing off. Consequently, the stay could not be granted.
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.