India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 145 of 164 · 4,909 total
Rohit Khattar & Anr. v.Cookie Singh
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Rohit Khattar & Anr., finding that the defendant's use of 'CHOR BIZZARE' constituted trademark infringement and passing off against their established brand, CHOR BIZARRE. The court noted that despite a mere misspelling, the similarity was sufficient to create confusion among consumers regarding the origin of the restaurant services. Consequently, the plaintiffs were granted permanent injunctions and awarded damages.
M/s.Cholayil Private Limited v.Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications seeking an ad-interim injunction against alleged infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'Herbal,' was not phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'Medimix.' Furthermore, despite the plaintiff claiming long usage, the court noted that the artistic work relied upon was only assigned in 2008, undermining the claim of continuous use since 1969. Ultimately, the court concluded there were more dissimilarities than similarities, finding no likelihood of deception among ordinary purchasers.
M/s.Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v.M/s.Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar
Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd., the registered owner of the trade mark 'NAKODA' for milk products, filed appeals challenging the dismissal of its applications for temporary injunction. The Respondents argued that they were prior and long-term users of the mark since 1978, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen)
Ten Xc Wireless Inc filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against various defendants, alleging infringement of its registered patent (IN 240893) related to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' used in Bi-Sector Array Antennas. The core dispute revolves around the use of asymmetric beam patterns in wireless communication systems. Although the plaintiffs sought interim injunctions, the court deferred a decision on costs because the defendants had raised credible challenges regarding the patent's validity, which must be examined during the trial.
Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport v.Bhatia Time
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Puma Aktiengesellschaft Rudolf Dassler Sport against Bhatia Time, who was selling products bearing the disputed 'PUMA' trademark. The court found that a prima facie case for passing off and trademark infringement had been made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, the court issued an immediate injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize all infringing goods, packaging materials, and relevant business records.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
This case involves Glaverbel S.A., which filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Mirox New Generation Ecological Mirrors' (MNGE mirrors). The plaintiff sought permission to introduce an amended version of Patent No. 190380, which had been allowed in a previous related suit. However, the court ruled against this request, emphasizing that while the amendment might be clarificatory, it cannot be relied upon in the current litigation unless formally recorded and notified by the Patent Office, as the pleadings in the present case relate only to the unamended patent.
M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. v.P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S Marvel Tea Estate India Ltd. against P.M. Batra (Prop) M/S Gurukripa Traders, finding that the defendant's use of 'MARVEL TOUCH' was likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff under its registered mark 'MARVEL' in Class-30 goods like tea and spices. This ruling underscores the protection afforded to established brands against deceptively similar marks, even during preliminary proceedings.
Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente v.Union Of India And Ors
This petition challenged the Patent Office's refusal to accept Form 18, a request for examination under the Patents Act, citing that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The core dispute revolved around an apparent conflict between Rule 24B of the Patents Rules and the guidelines set forth by WIPO/PCT regarding the commencement date for calculating the 48-month period. Given the ambiguity and potential impact on other applicants, the High Court found it expedient to remand the matter back to the Controller General of Patents for a reasoned consideration.
M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited v.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited
TVS Motor Company Limited filed applications seeking permission to reserve its right to lead evidence concerning the invalidity of Bajaj Auto Limited's Patent No.195904, which was central to a suit challenging infringement by the product TVS Flame. The court found that due to the interconnected nature of the facts and issues in both suits, a joint trial was necessary.
Champagne Moet & Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Champagne Moet & Chandon's appeal against a trademark registration granted to M/s Moet’s. The court found that despite the similarity in marks, the goods were distinct (Class 33 wines vs Class 29 meat products), making confusion unlikely. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish sufficient evidence of prior reputation or dishonest intent by the respondent, leading the court to conclude that the opposition was not within acceptable parameters.
Rainforest CAFÉ, Inc. v.Rain Forest Cafe
The plaintiff, Rainforest CAFÉ Inc., a US-based restaurant chain owner, filed a suit against local defendants for using the identical mark 'RAINFOREST CAFÉ' and its associated logo/tagline in connection with their restaurant business in Delhi. The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the plaintiff's trade marks and copyrights.
Respondents/Plaintiffs v.Applicant/Defendant
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing Indian Patent No.196774 related to the cancer drug EROLTINIB HYDROCHLORIDE (TARCEVA). The defendant subsequently filed an application to revoke the leave granted by the court, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that since the defendant approached the IPA Board in Chennai with a revocation petition, a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.
Polydrug Laboratroies P.Ltd v.Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Polydrug Laboratroies P. Ltd appealed against a judgment where its evidence was not taken on record. The appellant argued that the Controller had the power to extend time for filing evidence under Rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2003. The Supreme Court agreed with this view and set aside the impugned judgment.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its application seeking specific information from the Controller of Patents. The court admitted the petition after hearing counsel for both parties, noting that no interim order was sought at that stage.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Ors.
Hindustan Unilever Limited challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs which allowed the patentee to submit a reply statement after missing the statutory deadline. The petitioner argued this contravened the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court admitted the petition and stayed further proceedings pending its final hearing.
M/s.Aravind Laboratories v.Modicare
The plaintiff, M/s.Aravind Laboratories, filed applications seeking an interim injunction against Modicare for infringement and passing off related to their cosmetics trade marks, specifically 'EYETEX DAZLLER'. The defendant argued that 'Daily Dazzler' was a bona fide descriptive mark under Section 35 of the Act. The court ultimately upheld the defense, finding no infringement or passing off.
Sergi Transformers Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited v.CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited
The applicant challenged the District Judge's order which prevented them from filing a counterclaim seeking revocation of a patent. The dispute involved an infringement suit filed by respondents against the applicant. The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, holding that the trial judge erred in interpreting Section 104 of the Patents Act.
M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing ex parte interim injunction, ruling in favor of M/S. M.K. Petro Products India Pvt. Ltd. against M/S. M.K. Bitumen Products. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MK' and its similar firm name was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, despite the defendant claiming trademark registration. This decision reinforces the principle that established goodwill and reputation can outweigh subsequent registrations if consumer confusion is a risk.
Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd v.M/S Bonjour International & Anr
The plaintiff, Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd, claimed that the defendant was infringing its registered design (Design No. 194990) used on water jugs sold under 'Nayasa'. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages against the defendant, M/S Bonjour International & Anr, who contested the novelty of the design. The court found prima facie evidence of infringement and restrained the defendant from using the impugned design.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.B.P.Singh Tyagi
Pfizer successfully sued B.P.Singh Tyagi and his company for trademark infringement and passing off related to their cough syrup product. The Delhi High Court found that the defendant's mark, OREX, was phonetically and deceptively similar to Pfizer's registered mark, COREX. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark and awarded punitive damages.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Controller's dismissal of its application to cancel several registered toothbrush designs. The appellant argued that these designs lacked novelty, were prior published, or were merely functional/trade variants. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that design 176343 was original and new based on its unique combination of shape, configuration, ribs, and etchings.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to uphold the registration of several toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked novelty and were merely trade variants. The court found that certain registered designs were not original or new, particularly when compared to earlier published designs, leading to the setting aside of the Controller's order.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant filed an appeal seeking cancellation of several registered toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked originality, were mere trade variations, or were prior published. The respondent argued that the designs possessed novelty in their shape and configuration, particularly when combined, and that the Controller's original finding was correct. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the registration.
Mayil Traders v.Thiyagarajan
Mayil Traders, a long-established firm, filed an appeal against a judgment that favored its opponent, Thiyagarajan. The core issue revolved around whether the defendant's use of 'RAGAM' and similar packaging for cigars constituted trademark infringement against Mayil Traders' registered mark 'RATHAM'. The court found that the marks were visually and phonetically too close, leading to potential consumer confusion.
Champagne Moet And Chandon v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Champagne Moet And Chandon's appeal against an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decision regarding trademark registration. The dispute centered on whether Respondent No. 3 could register the mark 'MOET’S,' which was similar to the Petitioner's established brand, MOET & CHANDON. The Court ultimately accepted the defense of acquiescence, finding that the Petitioner had failed to challenge the use and subsequent registrations by the respondent over a long period, thereby allowing the registration to proceed.
United Brothers v.Aziz Ulghani
The Delhi High Court addressed two complex trade mark disputes involving the identical mark 'UNITED' used by United Brothers (UB) and Aziz Ulghani (AU). In one matter, UB sought to cancel AU's registration for electric flat irons, but the court upheld the IPAB's dismissal of this petition, citing laches and acquiescence. Furthermore, regarding AU's application for household appliances like mixer grinders, the Court concurred with the earlier finding that there was a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace due to the similarity of goods sold by both parties. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed both petitions, allowing both registrations to continue.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Mr Anant Kanoi-Partner & 5
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunction and account of profits against the defendants under the Patents Act, 1970, alleging patent infringement. The court noted that twenty-three issues had been framed and agreed to allow parties to appoint a Court Commissioner to record oral evidence to expedite the final disposal of the suit.
Pathiath Babu Rajendran Gowari Rajendran and Another v.Asst. Registrar of Trade Marks & 2
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeals challenging orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the rectification of trade mark 'PRIYA'. The court found that IPAB had properly appreciated the facts and evidence, noting that the petitioner waived their right to introduce belated documents due to laches. Consequently, the petitions seeking to quash the IPAB's orders were dismissed, and the interim stay granted in favor of the petitioners was vacated.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application for their registered design. The core issue was whether the design, which was created while Mr. Saraswat (a director) was employed with the appellant company, could be considered prior publication when he later used it for his respondent company.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created while its director, Mr. Saraswat, was employed with them, making the subsequent use by his new company improper.
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.