India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 144 of 164 · 4,909 total
M/S. Pachranga International (Chander Group) v.M/S. Pachranga International Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal challenged an order by the Copyright Board that sought to expunge eleven copyright registrations granted to M/S. Pachranga International (Chander Group). The respondent, M/S. Pachranga International Pvt. Ltd., argued that these registrations were fraudulent and violated procedural rules due to the complex history of partnership divisions. The Delhi High Court upheld the Board's decision, finding evidence of mala fide intent and violation of Rule 16(3) because the respondent had a clear interest in the subject matter but was not properly notified.
M/S Micolube India Limited v.Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries & Ors
M/S Micolube India Limited filed a suit against Rakesh Kumar Trading As Saurabh Industries for infringement of its registered container design. The dispute centered on the similarity of the designs, with both parties holding registrations from the same office. The defendants challenged the validity and scope of the plaintiff's rights, raising complex legal questions regarding concurrent registration and the applicability of passing off alongside statutory design law. Given the judicial inconsistency in existing precedents, the court decided to refer these fundamental issues to a larger bench for an authoritative ruling.
Lt Foods Ltd. v.Sunstar Overseas Ltd. & Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Lt Foods Ltd. regarding the infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'HERITAGE' used for rice. The court found that the marks used by the defendants, 'INDIAN HERITAGE' and 'INDIAN HERITAGE SELECT', were deceptively similar, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using these infringing trademarks until the final disposal of the suit.
M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited v.Piyush Shah
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of M/S Havmor Ice Cream Limited, setting aside a lower court's decision that dismissed its application under Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that since Havmor was a registered proprietor and had commenced action with due diligence by issuing a statutory notice, the suit filed by the respondent could not be deemed a 'groundless threat.' This judgment reinforces the importance of timely legal action by trademark owners to protect their established rights against potential infringement.
Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawhar Thadani v.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declarations regarding patent ownership, transfer orders, injunctions against both parties, disclosure of transactions, and payment of profits earned by the 2nd Defendant from the patents. The Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court based on the valuation of the suit for court fees. The Court ultimately held that it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited
The appeal challenged orders passed by the District Court regarding a patent infringement suit concerning fire systems. The plaintiff claimed its method patent was superior to Defendant No. 1's mechanical device and alleged infringement of its patent by 'SERGI 3000'.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited
The plaintiff (CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited) filed a patent infringement suit against Defendant No. 1 (Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Limited) concerning fire systems patents. The appeals challenged interim orders passed by the District Court, particularly regarding injunctions and sales restrictions. The Bombay High Court quashed these impugned orders, holding them to be ad-interim and subsisting, allowing the original suit to proceed.
Asian Rubber Industries v.Jasco Rubbers, Manpasand Footwear (Original Plaintiff)
Asian Rubber Industries challenged an interim injunction granted against them for passing off, while Jasco Rubbers sought to overturn a refusal to grant an injunction based on design infringement. The court found that the defendants' footwear was identical/deceptive to the plaintiff's registered designs and allowed the appeal challenging the ad-interim injunction.
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers v.Registrar Of Copyrights & Anr.
Kiran Shoes Manufacturers appealed an order by the Copyright Board that sought the expunction of its copyright registration for a side trim device used on 'GOLD STAR' sports shoes. The core dispute revolved around whether this artistic work, which was also registered as a design under the Designs Act, fell within the scope of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The Delhi High Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that since the device was capable of being registered under the Designs Act and had been used extensively, its copyright protection ceased.
Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v.Union Of India
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Rhizome Distilleries, quashing an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that sought to remove its 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark. The court held that the IPAB erred by applying grounds for refusal—which should have been raised at the time of initial registration—to a rectification application filed much later. Given that the petitioner had used the mark and faced prior objections which were withdrawn, the High Court found the subsequent attempt to cancel the mark was legally unsustainable.
R.G. Oswal Hosiery Industries v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge by R.G. Oswal Hosiery Industries against an IPAB order that allowed rectification of its trademarks, DOLLOR (Nos. 249986 and 291763). The court held that the subsequent renewals were vitiated because they were filed by M/s. Kedia Knitwear, a mere licensee, who falsely represented themselves as the registered proprietor. This established a strict requirement under the Trade Marks Rules that only the registered owner can apply for renewal.
John Distilleries Limited v.Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd
John Distilleries Limited filed an appeal seeking a temporary injunction against Shashi Distilleries Pvt Ltd, alleging that the latter was manufacturing and selling liquor in bottles deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered bottle design (Design No. 214542). The High Court examined the matter and found that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Yogesh Mehra & Ors.
Dr. Aloys Wobben appealed a judgment regarding whether the respondents, who were defendants in infringement suits, could pursue their own counter claims for revocation of Dr. Wobben's patents before the IPAB while those infringement suits were ongoing. The court examined the distinction between the current situation and previous legal precedents involving simultaneous remedies.
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises v.Sandeep Gullah
M/S Shree Ganesha Enterprises filed suit against Sandeep Gullah alleging that after his retirement from their partnership, he began using an identical and deceptively similar trademark, 'CITY BANQUETS,' in a nearby location. The plaintiff claimed this constituted passing off and infringement of their established trade mark, 'CITY BANQUET.' The court confirmed the interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a strong case for proprietary rights and that allowing the defendant to continue using the name would cause irreparable loss.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited v.Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Sun Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTEN') and Emcure Pharmaceuticals (owner of 'SUSTINEX'). Although the plaintiff was the prior user, the court ultimately found that 'SUSTINEX' was not deceptively similar to 'SUSTEN'. The judgment emphasized phonetic distinctiveness, noting a clear audible divide in 'SUSTINEX', leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's notice of motion.
Shrinivas Suggandhalaya v.P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi And Anr
Shrinivas Suggandhalaya filed a suit against P.S.Lakshmi Kalavathi and others alleging infringement of its intellectual property rights related to scented agarbatti. The plaintiff claimed ownership over the distinctive packaging design, which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as the trademark 'NAGCHAMPA'. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing and selling spurious goods by copying both the unique label/packaging and using the identical trademark. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of Shrinivas Suggandhalaya.
Gilead Sciences Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Gilead Sciences Inc challenged the IPAB's order rejecting its application for condonation of delay in appealing a patent rejection. The core dispute revolved around whether an appeal against a pre-grant opposition was maintainable under Section 117A of the Patents Act, and whether the Board had the power to relax the limitation period despite initial reluctance.
Suresh Kumar Jain v.Union Of India & Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Suresh Kumar Jain challenging the rectification order passed by the IPAB against his trademark 'Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)'. The court upheld the finding that the registration was obtained on a false basis because the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his claim of using the mark since 1995. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the name is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness, reinforcing the principle that trademark registrations must be based on truthful representations.
M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. v.Abhipray Securities Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S Abhipra Capital Ltd. against Abhipray Securities Private Limited and others. The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity between 'ABHIPRA' and 'ABHIPRAY'. Despite the defendants arguing lack of jurisdiction or non-similarity, the court upheld the injunction, emphasizing that confusion in business warrants protection even if adopted innocently.
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged a tender requirement stipulating that all participants must obtain Transfer of Technology (TOT) from DRDO to supply DEPA 20% Spray and DEPA 50% lotion. The Division Bench upheld this condition, finding that the petitioner's formulation was distinct from the DRDO technology. The review petition sought to overturn this decision.
M/S Metal Impacts Pvt Ltd v.M/S Impact Metals Pvt Ltd
The dispute involved a registered design for easy open end lids used in aluminum containers. The defendant challenged the registration, arguing that the design was not new or original, had been publicly disclosed globally long before the filing date, and was based on an invention by Mr. Ermal Fraze. The court found that the plaintiff suppressed material facts regarding the global prior art and lack of novelty/originality.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Banka v.The Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that revoked a patent granted to him. The sixth respondent sought revocation under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging lack of novelty based on prior art. The High Court admitted the petition but declined to grant any interim stay.
M/S S M K A Enterprises v.M/S Suchita Industries
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of M/S S M K A Enterprises, granting a permanent injunction against M/S Suchita Industries for infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Tiny Care'. The court found that the defendant's use of similar marks and products was deceptive, causing confusion among consumers. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting established brand goodwill in the competitive FMCG market.
Unknown v.S.K.Maingi
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774, which covers Erlotinib Hydrochloride. The core legal issue before the Madras High Court was whether it had the necessary territorial jurisdiction to try the infringement case, given that the plaintiff was not a resident of Delhi and the alleged sales were isolated.
Natural Remedies Private Limited v.Indian Herbs Research & Supply Co Ltd
The plaintiff, Natural Remedies Pvt Ltd, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling 'Livoliv-250', alleging infringement of their protected Patent No. 186857 for 'A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Antihepatotoxic Composition' (Zigbir). The court found that the defendants did not follow the same patented process, and furthermore, the invention lacked an inventive step, leading to the patent being revoked.
Matrix Laboratories Limited v.F.Hoffman La Roche Ltd.
This appeal involved Matrix Laboratories Limited challenging an order that granted leave to sue regarding alleged infringement of Patent No. 196774, which covers Erlotinib Hydrochloride. The core dispute centered on whether the appellant's filing of a revocation petition before the IPA Board in Chennai created sufficient territorial jurisdiction for the Madras High Court to hear the suit. The court ultimately ruled that merely approaching the IPA Board does not automatically confer cause of action or jurisdiction, especially when the appellant's primary operations are elsewhere.
Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v.Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Others
LG Electronics filed a suit challenging actions taken by Customs officials (Defendants No. 2 and 3) who were restricting the clearance of its goods based on a patent infringement complaint filed by Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff argued that the impugned patent lacked novelty and inventive step, and that Customs action was contrary to government circulars regarding border measures for patents.
Malhotra Book Depot v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malhotra Book Depot, mandating the Union of India to restore and renew its trademark registration. The court found that the removal of the mark was illegal because the Registrar failed to issue the mandatory 'O-3' notice required under Rule 67 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. Furthermore, the court held that restoration should not be viewed as a penal measure and that procedural lapses by the government do not bar the petitioner's right to renewal.
Federation Of Industries Of India v.Mr. G. Kesavalu Naidu @ Kesavan
The plaintiffs, representing manufacturers of steel pipes, filed a suit against the defendants who had obtained copyright registrations for drawings of these pipes. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using these registrations to threaten and extract money from them. The court ultimately ruled that no valid copyright subsisted in the mere concept or idea of the pipe drawing.
Alaknanda Cement Private Limited & Raghav Cement v.Ultratech Cement Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Alaknanda Cement and Raghav Cement, upholding the single judge's order granting a temporary injunction to Ultratech Cement Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ULTRATUFF CEMENT,' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ULTRATECH CEMENT.' Furthermore, the defendants were deemed not to have approached the court with clean hands due to presenting prima facie fabricated invoices.
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.