India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 150 of 164 · 4,909 total
Parle Products Private Limited v.Surya Food & Agro Limited
Parle Products Private Limited appealed a single judge's order that revoked its leave to sue against Surya Food & Agro Limited. Parle alleged that Surya was pirating its registered biscuit packet designs, which were protected under the Designs Act, 2000. The lower court had denied leave based on jurisdictional concerns and lack of proof of sales within its area. However, the Madras High Court set aside this order, holding that since the suit involved questions of difficulty and importance, these matters could not be decided merely in an application to revoke leave.
ADC GmbH v.Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd.
The plaintiffs, including ADC GmbH and Krone Communication Ltd., filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd. alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling junction box casings identical to those protected by Indian Patent No.164857. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement.
J.Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Asst. Controller of Patents & Desig. & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed the confusion arising from the postponed commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The dispute involved pending pre-grant opposition appeals filed by Span Diagnostics Limited challenging a rejection order by the Controller of Patents.
P.M. Diesel Ltd. v.Patel Field Marshall Industries
P.M. Diesel Ltd. filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Patel Field Marshall Industries, alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning the 'Field Marshal' mark used on diesel engines. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were operating in Delhi and had violated both trademark and copyright rights. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to provide material facts or documentary evidence of commercial sales within Delhi, which is necessary to establish a valid cause of action and territorial jurisdiction under established legal precedents.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal And Ors. v.Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the registrability of the surname 'AGGARWAL' as a trademark for sweets and namkeens. The court clarified that while a surname is prima facie not distinctive, it can be registered if evidence of acquired distinctiveness is provided. Crucially, the High Court found that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had erred by focusing solely on establishing 'user' rather than addressing the core issue of distinctiveness under Section 9 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to allow for a proper assessment of distinctiveness.
Mariappan v.A.R.Safiullah
This Madras High Court judgment addressed appeals concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to food-grade laminated paper resembling banana leaves. The plaintiff, Mariappan, claimed exclusive rights under Patent No. 198079 and a registered design. The court sustained the interim injunction favoring Mariappan, recognizing his established goodwill and potential irreparable loss. However, it noted that the concept was prima facie innovative rather than an invention, confirming the earlier order against A.R.Safiullah.
Adobe Systems Incorporated v.Sh. Rohit Rathi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Adobe Systems Incorporated, finding that the defendant's use of the domain name www.adobeinc.org constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court recognized 'ADOBE' as a well-known mark with trans-border reputation, noting that the defendant's attempt to ride on Adobe's popularity was mala fide. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted permanent injunctions against further use of similar names, a mandatory order for domain transfer, and punitive damages.
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. And Anr.
Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against Pro Laboratories (P) Ltd. for infringing its registered design of a D Shape Tablet. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing tablets with identical shape and configuration, thereby exploiting the unique aesthetic innovation protected under the Designs Act, 2000. After considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, the court granted temporary injunctions to protect the registered design.
Bharat Glass Tube Limited v.Gopal Glass Works Limited
The appeal challenged the Calcutta High Court's order which had set aside the Assistant Controller's cancellation of Design No.190336 registration. The respondent (Gopal Glass Works Limited) claimed exclusive rights over its industrial design applied to glass sheets, marketed as Diamond Square. The appellant argued that the design was not new or original due to prior publication abroad.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Techfab India And 5 Ors.
The petitioner (Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd.), holding a patent for its Synthetic Rope Gabion (SRG Invention), filed a suit alleging infringement by the respondents after they acquired technical know-how from former employees. The appeal challenged an interlocutory order refusing the interim injunction, but the court ultimately dismissed the appeal and confirmed the refusal of the injunction.
Hind Mosaic and Cement Works and Another v.Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation and Another
The court framed issues in a civil suit concerning alleged infringement of Patent No. 203004 held by the plaintiff (Hind Mosaic). The defendant (Shree Sahjanand Trading Corporation) contested the patent's validity and scope, leading to an oral order setting the next hearing date.
Span Diagnostic v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...
The dispute involved an appeal filed by Span Diagnostic challenging a decision made by the Controller of Patents concerning a patent opposition. The core legal question was whether the appeals were maintainable in the High Court or required transfer to the Appellate Board, given subsequent amendments and notifications.
Rana Steels v.Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the ex parte interim injunction granted in favor of Rana Steels against Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd., despite the defendant's application for vacation. The court found that Rana Steels was entitled to protection regarding its registered trademark 'RANA' used on steel rolled products. While acknowledging the existence of a similar mark ('RANA tor') held by the defendant, the court upheld the injunction, limiting its scope specifically to Class 6 goods and related products. This decision reinforces the immediate protective measures available to a plaintiff seeking relief against alleged trademark infringement.
Nirma Limited v.Nirman Plast (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Nirma Limited appealed against the rejection of its three trade mark oppositions (AMD-190624, AMD-190625, and AMD-190626) filed against Nirman Plast's applications for 'NIRMAN'. Nirma argued that the opposition was timely despite receiving the Trade Marks Journal late. The IPAB ruled that based on the statutory requirement to use the date the Journal is made available to the public, the opposition was beyond the prescribed time limit and dismissed the appeal.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Cipla Limited
This case involves F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. seeking an ad-interim injunction against Cipla Limited for allegedly infringing its patent on the cancer drug Erlotinib (marketed as Tarceva). The court examined the balance between protecting the innovator's intellectual property rights and ensuring public access to a life-saving generic medication. Ultimately, the court dismissed the request for an immediate injunction, prioritizing the public interest in patient access.
Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Crossword Agro Industries And ...
Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha appealed an order from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad. The appeal concerned Nissan's opposition to a trade mark application filed by Crossword Agro Industries for goods related to engines and pumps. The IPAB allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant's evidence be taken on record and the matter decided on its merits.
Merck Kgaa v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Merck Kgaa appealed an order from the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks regarding its trade mark 'CANDISTAT'. The core issue revolved around whether the appellant could be granted sufficient time to file necessary evidence in support of its opposition, despite procedural delays. The IPAB set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that opportunity must be granted to the applicant.
Amit R. Trivedi Trading As Active Health v.Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks And ...
The appellant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, appealed against the Assistant Registrar's refusal to register the trade mark SEREN. The appeal argued that since the product was a prescription drug, there was no likelihood of confusion. However, the IPAB found the marks (SEREN and SERENE) to be patently identical phonetically and structurally, concluding that the likelihood of deception was imminent.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, The Trade ...
Pidilite Industries Limited appealed against an order rejecting its interlocutory petition seeking to take further evidence in opposition proceedings. The dispute centered on the use and protection of their well-known trade marks ('FEVI', 'FEVICOL') against a similar mark ('FEVIDIP').
Rolic Ag Et Al v.The Controller General Of Patents And ...
The appeal challenged the Patent Office's refusal to grant a patent for 'Topologically Structured Polymer Coating.' The appellants argued that the invention was novel and inventive, citing acceptance by the European Patent Office (EPO). The IPAB found that the Controller's refusal order lacked clarity and explicit reasons, leading to the remand of the case.
Michigan State University v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...
Michigan State University appealed the decision of the Patent Office to abandon its divisional patent application (No. 1699/DEL/1996). The Patent Office had maintained objections that the claimed expression cassette did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) and was non-patentable. The IPAB found the abandonment order unsustainable due to a violation of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided.
M/S. Shand Pipe Industries Ltd v.M/S. Hind Mosaic & Cement Works & Ors
The petitioner appealed against an interim relief granted by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench failed to analyze the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, specifically Sec. 13(4) read with Secs. 47 and 48, concerning the effect of a counter claim and patent registration. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Wipro Limited v.Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited
Wipro Limited appealed against a single judge's decision to reject suits filed for trademark infringement ("Chandrika") and copyright infringement. The core issue was whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction, as the respondents were located outside its territorial limits. The court held that when challenging jurisdiction via demurrer, the allegations in the plaint must be accepted as true.
Wipro Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial ... v.Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) ...
The plaintiffs (Wipro Limited) filed suits alleging infringement of their registered trade mark 'Chandrika' and associated copyright by the defendants. The lower court rejected these suits on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that no essential part of the cause of action arose within its territory. The High Court appellate bench overturned this decision, holding that when jurisdiction is challenged via demurrer, the allegations in the plaint must be taken as true.
Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Ms. Alka Gupta Trading As Guide Men Tape
The appeal challenged an order that allowed a trade mark application for 'CANON' label in Class 9, despite opposition from Cannon Kabushiki Kaisha. The appellant argued its prior use and ownership of the famous mark 'CANON'.
Shri Kanishk Gupta v.Liberty Footwear Company
Shri Kanishk Gupta filed an application before the IPAB seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Liberty Footwear Company. The core dispute involved discrepancies in the registered mark's representation, specifically concerning its association with another trademark (323656) and the spelling/display of 'RICARDO'.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. v.Kesar Medicaments And Anr.
J. Mitra And Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking a temporary injunction against Kesar Medicaments and others, alleging that their product, SIGNAL HCV, infringed on the plaintiff's Patent No. 194638. The patent covers a 'fourth generation' diagnostic device for detecting Hepatitis C Virus antibodies in human serum. The court examined the technical specifications of both devices, noting similarities in core components and identical sensitivity/specificity reports. Finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the Delhi High Court granted the temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's patent rights.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v.Tvs Motor Company Ltd.
Bajaj Auto Ltd. sought an interim injunction against TVS Motor Company Ltd., alleging that its 125-CC 'FLAME' motorcycle infringed upon Bajaj's Patent No. 195904, which covers an improved four-stroke internal combustion engine using twin spark plugs. The court examined the prima facie case, finding that novelty and enablement had been established by the applicant through market presence. Consequently, the interim injunction was granted in favor of Bajaj Auto Ltd., restraining further infringement.
Ravi Kamal Bali v.Kala Tech And Ors.
The Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendants for manufacturing and selling tamper-proof locks/seals that allegedly infringed his patents. The court examined the infringement claims, noting the similarity between the parties' products. However, the court ultimately denied the injunction due to the Plaintiff's significant delay in bringing the matter before the court.
Eureka Forbes Ltd. v.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
The appeal challenged the Single Judge's decision to allow a suit for patent infringement. The court examined whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, particularly when the suit was filed against another patentee. The High Court held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and dismissed the appeal.
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.