India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 164 · 4,909 total
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit was filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation seeking permanent injunction against Natco Pharma Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. IN269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. During the proceedings, the defendant stated that they have not commercialized any infringing product and their activities are covered under Section 107-A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Parveen Kumar Gulati Trading As Apexseals v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed a Writ Petition filed by Apexseals challenging the removal of its trademark application (No. 746049) without issuing the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse violated established rules. Following arguments from both sides, the Court issued a notice to the Registrar of Trademarks and granted time for filing a Counter Affidavit, indicating the matter will proceed through formal litigation.
Ohr Laboratory Corporation v.Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ohr Laboratory Corporation against Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, irreparable harm would result without intervention, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. Defendants are now restrained from using the 'OHR' mark or similar names/model numbers, as well as from reproducing copyrighted brochure elements.
S Birpal Singh v.Pawandeep Singh Walia Trading As Pawandeep Singh and Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the procedural form of a petition seeking cancellation of four registered trademarks (AKALI PATRIKA). The respondent argued that Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act requires separate petitions for each mark. The petitioner countered, offering to deposit additional court fees or file multiple petitions. The Court found the petitioner's suggestions reasonable and directed the respondent to take instructions before listing the matter again.
Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an impugned order regarding Patent application no. 201621004267. The petitioner asserted that mandatory procedures under Section 25(1) were not followed and the certificate of grant had not been issued despite filing a pre-grant opposition.
Dabur India Limited v.Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' (Registration No. 5509160) in favor of Dabur India Limited, who challenged the mark's validity. Dabur successfully established a prima facie case based on its long-standing use and reputation of the core mark 'PUDIN HARA' since 1930. The court found that the Impugned Mark completely subsumes the Petitioner's mark, creating an irrefutable likelihood of confusion and deception in the market.
M/S Loreal v.M/S Loren Beautifiers Pvt Ltd And Others
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark 'LOREN BORORICH.' The sole ground for the petition was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate any bona fide use of the trademark in relation to Class 3 goods for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use and the respondent's failure to provide evidence, the court directed that the impugned mark be removed from the register.
M/S. Loreal v.Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S. Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark "LOREN HAIR OIL" registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned mark be removed/rectified from the register, reinforcing the importance of continuous commercial activity in maintaining trademark rights.
M/S L Oreal v.M/S Loren Beautifiers Pvt Ltd And Ors
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S L Oreal seeking the cancellation of a similar mark, 'LOREN BOROHERB,' registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted evidence of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned registration be removed from the register, reinforcing the importance of active commercial use for maintaining a trademark.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed petitions seeking the revocation or removal of Indian Patents Nos. 356246 and 397206 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that these patents are part of Respondent No. 1's H.265/HEVC patent portfolio, and accordingly listed the petitions for further hearing.
S Chand And Company Ltd v.Kaushal Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by S Chand And Company Ltd against various booksellers and e-commerce platforms. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court issued an ad interim injunction directing Defendant No. 5 (Flipkart) to immediately take down listings of counterfeit books infringing on S Chand's registered trademarks and copyrighted works. Furthermore, the court provided procedural directions for serving summons and verifying the addresses of the various defendants.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against M/S Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of marks like 'FLY HIGH INSTITUTE' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FLY HIGH'. Given the high reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's mark, the court held that immediate restraint was necessary to prevent irreparable harm from infringement and passing off.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Sankalp Recreation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and others. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'SCHEZUAN CHUTNEY', infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given that the products are edible goods, the Court adopted a stringent approach to prevent consumer confusion and potential health risks. The injunction restrains the defendants from using any identical or similar marks until further proceedings.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant, T.T. Krishnamachari & Co., challenged demands raised by the Department regarding service tax on royalty income received for allowing group companies to use their registered logo 'TTK'. The dispute centered on whether this usage constituted a taxable Intellectual Property Right (IPR) service or was exempt under copyright law.
T T Krishnamachari And Co. v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appellant firm, dealing in consumer durables and healthcare products, was assessed service tax on royalty income received for allowing its group companies to use its 'TTK' logo. The appellant argued that since the logo is registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, it qualifies for exemption. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the demand was unsustainable and citing relevant exemptions and prior judicial decisions.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. v.Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. in its trademark infringement suit against Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal and others. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, recognizing the risk of defendants concealing infringing operations, the court allowed an exemption from advance service, permitting the immediate filing of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of goods.
Ykk Corporation v.Kc Sapra & Ors.
In a significant settlement order, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favor of Ykk Corporation against Defendant No. 3 based on an amicable agreement reached during litigation. The defendant admitted to the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress rights (including 'YKK'), agreed not to use deceptively similar marks or counterfeit goods, and committed to handing over seized infringing products. Furthermore, the settlement included a payment of damages/costs by the defendant and established strict compliance mechanisms, including future audits.
Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Guru Soya Foods Pvt. Limited, directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew the trademark 'CRISPRO'. The court found that the failure to send the mandatory renewal notice (FORM RG-3) to the Petitioner's updated address constituted a violation of statutory rules. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and mandated the timely completion of the renewal process.
Filmtec Corporation & Anr. v.Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani Owner At Messrs Jal Blue Impex & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the suit between Filmtec Corporation and Anil Kumar Ashok Bhaivaswani and others following a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged ownership of Filmtec's trademarks (FILMTEC®, DUPONT, etc.) and copyrights, agreeing to cease all infringing activities. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included injunctions against Defendants 2 and 3 and payment of litigation costs by Defendant No. 1.
Castrol Limited v.Vivek Pratap Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Castrol Limited's appeal, recognizing that the respondent was engaged in blatant counterfeiting of its motor oil brand. The court emphasized the severe public safety risk associated with substandard counterfeit engine oils. Consequently, the court directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inventory and take custody of the infringing products, granting immediate relief to protect the appellant's market and consumers.
Akashdeep Enterprises Through Lrs & Anr v.Ella Foundation
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Akashdeep Enterprises against Ella Foundation. The suit, filed under the Trademark Act, sought protection against groundless infringement threats. The court found that the likelihood of confusion between the parties' distinct goods (household products) and services (medicine/research) was minimal. Consequently, the Defendant was restrained from taking coercive steps, such as de-listing Plaintiffs' products on e-commerce platforms, until the final hearing.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas v.M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas filed an application seeking the rectification of a Copyright Registration held by M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr., alleging that the registered label was deceptively similar to their own trade name and infringed upon their rights. The petitioner claimed the registration was obtained surreptitiously without notice. Given the respondent's willingness to have the matter heard afresh after proper notice, the Court cancelled the impugned registration and remanded the case back to the Copyright Registrar for a fresh decision.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bigbear Pharmaceutical (Lao) Co., Ltd
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 related to Ruxolitinib compounds. The court passed several orders granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the alleged infringing activities.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds (JAKAVI®). The court passed several orders granting exemptions to the Plaintiffs regarding mediation, identity masking, and advance service, while also directing the execution of Local Commissions to investigate the alleged infringement.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lucius Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 concerning Ruxolitinib Compounds. The court granted various exemptions sought by the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation, and proceeded with appointing Local Commissioners for the execution of the patent.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN'697) covering Semaglutide, a GLP-1 analogue used for diabetes and obesity. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from importing or dealing in the compound. The Court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of relief.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/s. Salus Pharmaceutical & anr.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited filed a commercial appeal against an order, seeking condonation of delay due to initial incorrect nomenclature. The court allowed the delay condonation, noting that procedural rules are handmaids of justice. Subsequently, the court set aside a single judge's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits, emphasizing continuous infringement.
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court allowed the commercial suit filed by XX against Y, which alleges infringement of trademarks and designs related to 'HERO Genuine engine oil.' The court granted several procedural reliefs, including masking party identities and exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises, seize infringing stock, and ascertain its value, paving the way for immediate interim protection.
Ganraj Enterprises v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing the Respondent No. 1 to file several additional documents in the ongoing trademark litigation. The application sought modification of a prior order, primarily to bring on record evidence concerning the change of ownership of trademarks and detailed arguments regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the parties' marks. This procedural step allows the court to consider complex issues related to assignment dates and examination objections.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order listing the issues in a suit for infringement and a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patent. The court framed multiple issues concerning whether the defendant infringed the patent and whether the patent is liable to be revoked under various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970.
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.