India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 146 of 164 · 4,909 total
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 during the employment of Mr. Chandresh Santosh Kumar Saraswat, who later joined the respondent company. The High Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that the prior publication ground was not properly considered.
Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Bhupinder Jain
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent alleging infringement of registered trademarks ("Pari") and copyright. The lower court rejected the plaint on the ground that the courts in Amritsar lacked territorial jurisdiction. The High Court set aside this order, holding that under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the courts where the plaintiff carries on business have jurisdiction.
K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.K. C. Dass
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd., finding that the respondent, K. C. Dass, was engaging in passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar stylized mark. Although the defendant's business (readymade garments) was different from the plaintiff's (sweetmeats), the court held that adopting the same unique artistic style and font created sufficient confusion in the market. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted an injunction preventing the respondent from using the plaintiff's distinctive stylistic presentation of its trade name.
M/s.Bade Miya v.Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/s. Bade Miya against Mubin Ahmed Zahurislam, finding that the defendant's use of 'Wah Bademiyan' was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks 'BADEMIYA'. The court emphasized the strong goodwill and reputation established by the plaintiffs over decades. While granting the injunction, the court allowed a two-week grace period for the defendant to change its trade name.
Electronic Machine Tools Limited v.Power Engineers
Electronic Machine Tools Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of its registered patents (Nos. 188585 and 190675). The trial court rejected the plaint, finding no cause of action against the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaint did disclose a triable issue.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Union Of India
Nippon Steel Corporation challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents to allow an amendment to its patent application's priority date. The Petitioner, which holds world-class technology in medium-high grade steel, had missed the deadline for filing a Request for Examination (RFE) due to a docketing error at its attorney's office. The Petitioner subsequently sought to amend the priority date to extend the RFE window. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that once an application is deemed withdrawn under Section 11-B(4), the Controller cannot entertain any amendment, regardless of the reason for missing the deadline.
Johnson Enterprises v.Johnson Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Johnson Enterprises, upholding a prior order that granted an interim injunction to Johnson Appliances Pvt. Ltd. The core issue was whether the appellant had used the 'JOHNSON' trademark for electric water geysers since 1999, and if so, when the respondent became aware of this use. The court found that the limited evidence (twelve invoices spanning 1999 to 2006) was insufficient to prove that the respondent had knowledge of the appellant's continuous use prior to 2006, thus confirming the injunction.
Nokia Corporation v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Corporation challenged the Deputy Controller's order which rejected its National Phase Application because it was filed after the stipulated 31-month deadline. The petitioner argued that Rule 138 allowed for a one-month extension and condonation of delay. The High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the application should be decided on merit under Rules 137 & 138.
M/S Bhatia Industries & Others v.M/S Pandey Industries & Others
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that the defendants were infringing their registered trademark 'TIYA' and passing off their goods. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that all their business activities were confined to U.P. The High Court examined the plaint averments and found sufficient grounds to establish territorial jurisdiction, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their suit to clarify the cause of action in Delhi.
Jyoti Jiten Bhatt Trading as Personal Care Systems v.Controller Of Patents And Design & Ors.
The appellant challenged the cancellation of their registered design, which had been cancelled based on a finding of prior publication. The respondents argued that the design was not new or original as it existed in the public domain since 1990. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that no evidence of prior publication regarding the pattern on the underside of the product was produced before the adjudicating Authority.
Jyoti Jiten Bhatt Trading As Personal Care Systems v.Controller Of Patents And Design & Ors.
The appellant challenged the cancellation order of their registered design (No. 191896) passed by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute revolved around whether prior publications invalidated the design's originality. The court found that the registered design was at variance with the evidence produced regarding prior publication, thus upholding its validity.
Dr. Aloys Wobben v.Shri Yogesh Mehra & Ors.
The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from filing applications for the revocation or cancellation of the plaintiff's patents. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was barred by the doctrine of election since they had already pursued their statutory rights elsewhere. The court held that the defendant is entitled to pursue independent statutory remedies, even if overlapping with defenses in a suit.
Tenxc Wireless Inc. v.Andrewcomm. Scope Inc.
The suit was filed by Tenxc Wireless Inc. against Andrewcomm. Scope Inc. for patent infringement concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The defendant challenged an interim stay order, arguing that the plaintiff had made false and misleading statements in the plaint. The court found merit in the defense's arguments regarding the misstatements and vacated the interim injunction.
Pfizer Products Inc & Anr v.Vijay Shah & Ors.
Pfizer successfully sued a competitor for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its popular cough syrup, COREX. The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark SOREX and associated packaging/labels. Furthermore, the court awarded punitive damages to Pfizer, reinforcing the legal protection afforded to registered trademarks in the pharmaceutical sector.
Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Troikaa Pharma Limited
Neon Laboratories challenged the grant of Patent No.231479 held by Troikaa Pharma Limited, arguing that the company was prejudiced because it was not afforded an opportunity to oppose additional claims made during the examination process. The High Court set aside the patent grant and directed the Controller to conduct a fresh hearing on the original and amended claims.
Schreder S.A. v.Trilok Chand & Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Schreder S.A., the registered proprietor of Design No. 182346 for a lighting apparatus ('Alura'), filed suit against Trilok Chand & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The court examined a catalogue found in the defendant's premises, which displayed a product named VENICE HYT-01. Based on a comparison with the registered design, the court found that the design of VENICE HYT-01 was identical to and an imitation of the plaintiff's protected design.
Ferrero Spa & Anr. v.Shri Maa Distribution (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ferrero Group against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off related to its iconic 'Ferrero Rocher' brand. The court found that the defendant had copied not only the registered word mark but also the unique trade dress, including the crushed gold wrapper and fluted cupcake holder. Given the well-known status of the Ferrero Rocher trademark, the adoption by the defendants was deemed fraudulent, leading to a permanent injunction against all infringing activities.
Talod Gruh Udyog v.Bahuchar Gruh Udyog
The Gujarat High Court disposed of an appeal challenging a trial court's rejection of interim relief in a trademark infringement case. Given the protracted nature of the dispute, the court directed the trial court to proceed with the main civil suit expeditiously, setting a deadline of December 31, 2011. Furthermore, the respondent was mandated to file half-yearly statements detailing the production and sales of the disputed products until the final disposal of the case.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v.Wyeth Limited
The appeal challenged the Single Judge's order which vacated the interim injunction granted to Reckitt Benckiser, allowing Wyeth Limited to proceed despite allegations of infringement of a registered S-shaped spatula design. The core dispute revolved around whether prior registration and publication of the design in foreign countries (UK, USA, Australia) could serve as a valid defense against the infringement claim under Indian law.
Besco Limited (Foundry & Rubber Division) v.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Government of India
Besco Limited filed a petition alleging that its application under Section 11B of the Patents Act, 1970 had not been processed by the Controller General of Patents as required by Rule 24B. The petitioner argued that the statutory duty was neglected. The Court admitted the petition but clarified that pendency would not prevent the respondents from taking necessary steps.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v.TVS Motor Company Ltd.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. appealed against an order directing them (the defendant in the original suit) to start leading evidence, while Bajaj Auto was the appellant. The original suit filed by TVS Motor Company Ltd. claimed that its product, TVS Flame, did not infringe Patent No. 195904 held by Bajaj Auto. The court ruled that since the plaintiff's suit was for declaration of non-infringement and damages, they should have been directed to lead evidence first.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancellation of a design registration (Coaster Brake Hub). The appellant argued that the respondent's design was not novel because advertisements were published publicly before the registration date. The court found merit in this argument, noting the prior public disclosures.
Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors.
Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancelling a design registration held by respondents. The core issue was whether the registered design, Coaster Brake Hub, was novel, considering advertisements published prior to the registration date. The court found that the prior advertisements proved disclosure before the application date.
Aloys Wobben v.Enercon (India) Limited
Aloys Wobben challenged an order passed by the IPAB, seeking quashing of orders and dismissal of Original Revocation Applications. The dispute centered on whether the Managing Director of Enercon (India) Limited had the requisite locus standi to file the revocation petition against Aloys Wobben's patents. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision that all issues must be considered during the hearing of the original application.
PACS CHEMICALS THRO. DIRECTOR, ANJU S BHATT v.UNION OF INDIA & 4
The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated 17/05/2010, which dismissed their opposition and granted registration in favour of Respondent No. 5 for a trademark application (No. 1641653/1641655). The court held that since an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners, the writ petitions could not be entertained.
M/S Escorts Construction v.M/S Gautam Engineeringequipment Ltd
The appellant (Escorts Construction), owner of copyrights and patents/designs for industrial drawings of cranes Hydra-12 and Hydra-14, filed a suit alleging infringement by the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. This appeal challenged that decision.
Marico Limited v.J.K. Enterprises & Others
The dispute centered on whether J.K. Enterprises was passing off its coconut oil, sold under the name "Nihal," as that of Marico Limited (or its predecessor). The court examined the similarity between the two packaging designs and marks, concluding that the defendant's use was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'Nihar'.
M/S. Takkar (India) Tea Company v.Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S. Takkar (India) Tea Company, setting aside an adverse decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The core issue was whether the Petitioner’s trademark 'GOLD LEAF' for tea was deceptively similar to the Respondent’s registered mark 'SONA'. The Court emphasized that marks must be compared as a whole, rejecting the IPAB's approach of splitting 'GOLD LEAF' into 'GOLD' and comparing it only with 'SONA'. Furthermore, the distinct visual depiction of the two marks was noted as a key distinguishing factor.
Rajnikant Devidas Shroff (Chairman Managing Director of United Phosphorous Limited & Anr.) v.Lucky Chemical Industry & Ors.
The applicants (Rajnikant) sought directions to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect the premises of the respondents (Lucky Chemical Industry) to determine if they were producing Phosphorous Pentachloride using the patented method covered by Patent No. 172459, despite an existing injunction.
Yahoo! Inc v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
Yahoo! Inc challenged the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's refusal to entertain its appeal against the Controller's order rejecting a patent application. The petitioner argued that the rejection under Section 25(1) should be construed as a decision under Section 15, allowing for an appeal. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the IPAB to hear the appeal on merits after giving due opportunity to the opposing party.
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.