India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 147 of 164 · 4,909 total
Dr. (Miss) Snehlata C. Gupte v.Union Of India
The petitions challenged the dismissal of pre-grant oppositions by the Controller of Patents on the ground that they were time-barred. The court examined whether the mere rejection of an opposition coupled with a statement 'I hereby order to grant patent...' constituted the actual date of patent grant.
Vivek Kochher And Another v.M/S Kyk Corporation Limited And Others
The dispute involved a claim by Vivek Kochher and others that they were the rightful proprietors of the trade mark 'KYK' for automobile parts, which was being deceptively used by M/S Kyk Corporation Limited. The defendants claimed prior user rights dating back to 1952. The court issued an interim order to prevent confusion.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Britannia Industries Ltd appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered biscuit packet design. The appellant argued that the design lacked novelty due to prior publication in magazines and a textbook, which the Deputy Controller failed to consider.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Britannia Industries Ltd appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered biscuit packet design. The appellant argued that the design lacked novelty due to prior publication in magazines and a textbook, which the Deputy Controller failed to consider during the initial proceedings.
Dabur India Limited v.Gautam Burman
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Gautam Burman and others for alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trade mark KESHRAJ (hair oil). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were using the identical mark, causing public deception. However, the court ultimately held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claims regarding infringement and passing off.
A.P.Shajahan & Ors. v.M/S Gulf Gate Hair Fixing Pvt.Ltd.
The Kerala High Court upheld a temporary injunction granted to the plaintiffs, who held a registered trademark for 'Gulf Gate Hair Fixing.' The court found that despite the defendants being related parties and operating similar businesses (hair fixing), their use of names like 'Gulf Brothers' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. Citing principles of consumer confusion, the court ruled that the similarity in services and the shared regional context made it highly likely that the public would mistake the establishments for one another, thereby sustaining the injunction.
Low Heat Driers Pvt.Ltd v.Biju George
The petitioner, Low Heat Driers Pvt.Ltd, sued Biju George for infringement of its patented device for smoke drying agricultural products (Patent No. 176771). The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction and damages. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove infringement by the defendants.
J & P Coats Ltd. v.New Green Ways
J & P Coats Ltd. filed a suit for permanent injunction and account of profit against New Green Ways, alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing stitch kits and tatting materials under the trade mark ANCHOR in connection with goods unrelated to the plaintiffs' business. The court found that the defendants were wrongfully selling and passing off goods as those of the plaintiffs.
Jolen Inc. v.Shobanlal Jain & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Jolen Inc., setting aside previous decisions by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. The court recognized that Jolen's mark had acquired significant trans-border reputation and goodwill due to its extensive international use, which spilled over into India. By establishing Jolen as the first party in both international and domestic markets, the High Court mandated the registration of the trademark for the Petitioner.
Asian Electronics Ltd. v.Havells India Limited
Asian Electronics Ltd. filed a suit claiming infringement of its Patent No. 193488, which covers a conversion kit for changing fluorescent lighting units from inductive to electronic operation. Asian alleged that Havells India Limited was manufacturing and selling identical products under the brand Prodigy. The court dismissed the application for temporary injunction due to lack of prima facie merit and failure by the plaintiff to substantiate claims of widespread use.
Servewell Products Pvt Ltd v.Dolphin
Servewell Products Pvt Ltd filed a suit against Dolphin, alleging infringement of its registered copyrights in artistic works and its registered design for serving trays. Initially, the court granted an interim injunction favoring Servewell based on prima facie evidence of copying. However, upon considering Dolphin's counter-arguments regarding the novelty and public disclosure of the design, the court found that Dolphin had a reasonably arguable case to challenge the registration. Consequently, both the injunction related to the artistic works and the design was vacated.
M/s. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.Vinod Kanji Shah & Nitin Kanji Shah
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against a trade mark office decision. The core issue was whether the first respondent's use of the identical word 'Nandini' for agarbattis and doops would cause confusion with the appellant's well-established milk product brand. The court ruled that due to the phonetic similarity and the exact matching style of writing, the offending mark is deceptively similar, thereby protecting the goodwill of the established dairy producer.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Deepak Mangal & Others
The Delhi High Court set aside an interim ex parte injunction granted to Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha against Deepak Mangal & Others. While Toyota argued passing off based on its global reputation and the use of 'PRIUS,' the court found that Toyota had suffered from an unexplained delay in bringing the matter before the court, which was over six years. The court also questioned whether 'PRIUS' was a coined word or merely a common English term, ultimately favoring the defendant due to the balance of convenience.
M/S. N.Ranga Rao & Sons v.Koya'S Perfumery Works
The appellant, a leading manufacturer of agarbathies, filed a suit claiming infringement of their registered trade mark 'WOODS' and copyrighted artistic work. The appeal challenged an order directing the respondent to change its trade mark usage. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that 'WOOD' is a publici juris ingredient for agarpathies, and noting differences in color scheme and font between the products.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ericsson challenged the decision by the Controller of Patents which declared its patent application 'deemed to have been abandoned' under Section 21(1) after repeated objections. The petitioner argued that it had complied with all requirements and was denied an opportunity of being heard. The Court found that the basic condition for abandonment was non-existent, setting aside the order.
Shabbir Medical Hall v.Mohammed Naseer
Shabbir Medical Hall filed a suit alleging that Mohammed Naseer infringed its registered trademark, 'ISPAHANI TEA,' by using the deceptively similar mark 'FAMILY TEA' along with an imitation color scheme and get up. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for this alleged infringement. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, confirming a single judge's order that revoked the leave granted to the plaintiff. The court held that the plaint failed to establish any part of the cause of action within its local jurisdiction.
Camino De Vera S/N v.Union Of India Through The Secretary
The petitioner challenged the order by the Patent Office (Respondent No.3) that deemed its patent application abandoned and subsequently rejected a review petition. The petitioner argued that the Controller failed to provide adequate opportunities for being heard, especially when exercising quasi-judicial powers. The Bombay High Court found both orders without jurisdiction.
Rajnikant Devidas Shroff v.Pharma Chem
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants regarding the patent rights related to the manufacturing process of Phosphorous Pentachloride. The court framed several issues, including infringement, entitlement to injunction and damages, and the validity/revocation of Patent No. 172459.
Marie Stopes International (MSI) v.Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS)
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim temporary injunction in favor of Marie Stopes International (MSI) against Parivar Seva Sanstha (PSS). The dispute centered on the unauthorized use of the 'Marie Stopes' word mark and associated 'Door Device' logo by PSS, which had previously operated as a licensee. MSI successfully argued that after the termination of their license agreement in 2003, PSS continued to use the marks, leading to a strong likelihood of confusion among customers. The court found the resemblance between the two marks too striking and close, thus protecting MSI's goodwill.
Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. v.Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court intervened in a trademark dispute, setting aside an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that had allowed a potentially biased statement by a Senior Examiner to remain on record. The court emphasized that the Registrar must maintain strict neutrality and objectivity when dealing with IP matters under Section 98 of the Trade Marks Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires immediate scrutiny of any evidence, especially those provided by registry officials, if they appear to exceed their statutory scope.
NEW NANDI SEEDS CORPORATION v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS & 3
The petitioner challenged the actions of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, alleging that the authority acted without jurisdiction and violated natural justice. Specific grievances included the lack of notice before transferring proceedings (Application No. 1328538) and issuing a Certificate of Registration while an opposition was pending.
Country Inn Private Ltd. v.Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc.
The Delhi High Court disposed of interim applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off between Country Inn Private Ltd. and Country Inns And Suites By Carlson, Inc. While the plaintiff asserted prior rights over the 'Country Inn' trademark, the court ultimately denied an injunction against the plaintiff, citing that stopping its 17-year-old business would cause irreparable loss. Instead, the court imposed strict conditions on the plaintiff, requiring transparent financial reporting and restricting new licensing agreements until the suit is resolved.
M/S UCB FARCHIM SA v.M/S Cipla Ltd.
The petitions challenged orders passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting patent applications or related documents. The court examined the statutory scheme of the Patents Act, particularly concerning pre-grant and post-grant opposition procedures introduced by the 2005 Amendment Act.
M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v.Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty.Ld.
The appeal challenged the Delhi High Court's decision regarding its jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, which cancelled several registered designs for 'Insecticide Coil'. The Supreme Court held that since the cause of action arose in Kolkata (where the cancellation occurred), the Calcutta High Court, not the Delhi High Court, had the proper jurisdiction.
Glaverbel S.A. v.Dave Rose & Ors.
Glaverbel S.A. filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against Dave Rose & Ors., alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling copper-free mirrors infringing Patent No. 190380. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the innovative process and product, which lacked a copper layer.
Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v.N. Kheri Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application filed by Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. against N. Kheri Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr., concerning the alleged infringement of its trade mark 'Pachrangas Farm Fresh'. While declining to grant a blanket restraining order at that stage, the court issued several critical directions. These include mandating the defendant to maintain and file quarterly accounts of sales, allowing conditional use of certain design elements, and permitting the temporary use of 'CHAMPION PACHRANGA' to mitigate market confusion until the final trial.
Pachranga Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v.Som Nath & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed interim applications filed by both parties regarding alleged infringement and passing off of the 'Pachranga' mark. While declining to grant a definitive injunction at that stage, the court mandated an expedited trial. Crucially, it allowed the defendants to continue using their label under strict conditions—specifically requiring them to use different fonts/scripts and background colors to prevent market confusion, while also compelling them to maintain detailed quarterly sales accounts.
Micolube India Ltd. v.Maggon Auto Centre & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a trade mark infringement suit due to pending rectification proceedings. The court ruled that while the suit claiming infringement of a registered trademark must be stayed until the validity of the registration is determined, the separate claim for 'passing off' can continue independently. This nuanced decision clarifies the scope of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing parties to pursue related claims even when one aspect of the litigation is paused.
Kishore Kumar v.M/S. L. Chuni Lal Kidarnath & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Kishore Kumar, against the defendants regarding the use of the trademark HOMELITE. The court found that the plaintiff had established prior adoption and usage of the mark for electric torches and flashlights, giving him a prima facie strong case on the merits. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend his suit, enabling him to incorporate crucial facts about a disclaimer imposed by the Trademark Registrar.
Dashmesh Mechanical Works v.Hari Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking declaration and injunction against groundless threats related to Patent No. 213823. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction by filing an application for return of plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
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.