India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 152 of 164 · 4,909 total
Speaking Roses International Inc. v.Controller-General Of Patents And Anr.
The Petitioners applied for a patent for a method of providing an image on organic products (flowers). The Controller-General rejected the application, citing Section 3(j) exclusion and lack of inventive step. The Bombay High Court overturned this rejection, finding that the mechanical process was outside the scope of biological exclusions and demonstrated sufficient novelty compared to prior art.
Bilcare Limited v.M/s.Associated Capsules Private Limited
Bilcare Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/s.Associated Capsules Private Limited for infringing its registered patent (No. 197823) related to 'metallized' film used in pharmaceutical packaging. The court examined the validity and infringement claims, ultimately finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Bilcare Limited v.M/S.The Supreme Industries Limited
The suit was filed by Bilcare Limited seeking a permanent injunction against M/S. The Supreme Industries Limited for infringing registered patent number 197823, which covered 'metallized' film used in pharmaceutical packaging. The court examined the technical evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement.
Sundar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Sundar Dietetics Pvt. Ltd., and Sundar Diabetics Dezire v.Adyar Ananda Bhavan And Muthulakshmi ...
The plaintiff, operating under various names, sought an ad-interim injunction against the respondent for infringing two registered patents: one covering a process for making low glycemic sweets with fructose (No. 193899) and another covering the resulting product (No. 200285). The defendant challenged the validity of these patents, claiming fraud by the plaintiff. However, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and granted the interim injunction.
Commissioner Of Central Excise v.H.K. Rolling Mills Engg. P. Ltd.
The Revenue appealed against a decision regarding whether H.K. Rolling Mills Engg. P. Ltd. was liable to pay Service Tax on license fees collected for using Thermex Cooling System technology. The Tribunal found that since the respondents were providing technical expertise, assistance, and supervision related to the patented technology, they were rendering engineering services under the Finance Act, 1994.
B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre v.Shree Rajmoti Industries
The dispute concerned a proposed opposition to a trade mark application (Application No. 1279800). The question before the Tribunal was whether the notice of opposition filed by Shree Rajmoti Industries on August 28, 2006, was within the prescribed statutory period, considering procedural delays and late receipt of Trade Marks Journals.
Aia Engineering Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Anr.
Aia Engineering Ltd. challenged Patent No. 197257, arguing that substantive changes were made to its claims through amendments disguised as clerical errors. The initial review application was rejected by the Assistant Controller citing procedural flaws and lack of locus standi. However, the High Court intervened, finding fatal errors in the dismissal order due to violation of natural justice principles. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh adjudication on merits.
Bal Krishan Jindal v.Mohinder Singh And Anr.
Two applications were filed before the IPAB seeking rectification/cancellation of the trade mark 'Citizen' by both parties. Shri Kishan Jindal claimed prior adoption and use, while Mohinder Singh claimed his own rights to the mark. The Board found that the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding lack of distinctiveness or deception.
Jcb India Ltd. v.Commissioner Of Service Tax
Jcb India Ltd. appealed an order from the Commissioner of Service Tax demanding significant amounts of service tax and penalties, arguing that the transaction was a transfer of technical know-how, not a rendering of services. The Tribunal examined the agreement which granted a license under patents and know-how for manufacturing licensed products.
Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. v.Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Soongachi Tea Industries, granting an interim injunction against Sona Spices Pvt. Ltd. The court found that despite Sona Spices' prior use of the mark for spices, they had not established a prima facie case regarding their use of 'Sona' for tea before 1993. Given the Defendant's long-standing and substantial business in Sona tea, the balance of convenience lay with protecting the existing market player.
Novartis Ag. v.Cipla Ltd.
Cipla Ltd. opposed Novartis AG's patent application for a new crystal form of imatinib mesylate. The IPAB found that the subject matter was merely a new form of a known substance without significant enhancement in efficacy, thus failing Section 3(d). Furthermore, the court disqualified the application due to improper claiming of Swiss priority.
Gopal Glass Works Ltd. v.Iag Company Ltd. And Ors.
The petitioner sought an interim injunction against the respondents for infringing its registered design 'DIAMOND SQUARE' (No. 190336) and passing off its goods. After a complex legal history involving cancellation and restoration of the plaintiff's design, the court allowed the application partly against Defendant No. 2, restraining them from using the petitioner's design or imitation thereof.
Pankaj Jaiswal v.Virendra Prasad Jaiswal
The plaintiff, Shiva Engineering Company, a manufacturer of electric fans under the registered trademark 'SEC', filed an appeal against an order restraining the defendant from using the word 'SEC'. The dispute centered on alleged passing off and infringement of trade marks and copyright by the defendant, who used similar branding and packaging. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had a strong case for passing off.
Dr. Anji Reddy (Appellant) v.Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft against a single judge's decision, restoring the original trademark registration order. The dispute centered on whether the mark 'Novigan,' applied for in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations), was deceptively similar to the existing registered mark 'Novalgin.' The court found that despite structural similarities, the marks were phonetically and visually distinct enough not to cause confusion among the general public. This ruling emphasizes deference to technical authorities like the Assistant Registrar when assessing trademark similarity.
Dr. Anji Reddy v.Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
This appeal concerned the registrability of the pharmaceutical trademark 'Novigan' against an objection raised by the owner of 'Novalgin'. The single judge had ruled that the marks were deceptively similar, but the Madras High Court overturned this decision. The court found no significant phonetic or visual similarity between the two marks, noting that common prefixes like 'Nova' are widely used in the pharmaceutical sector. Consequently, the original order allowing registration was restored.
Merck Kga A. v.Alpharma Inc.
The case involved an opposition filed by Alpharma Inc. against Merck Kga A.'s trade mark application for 'ALPHAPHARM'. The core issue was whether the notice of opposition, filed after the prescribed extension period, was still valid given procedural delays in receiving the Trade Marks Journal.
Dhanpat Seth And Ors. v.Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction against the respondent, alleging infringement of Patent No. 195917 for an agricultural hauling device. The court examined the claims and found that the patented device was merely an imitation of the traditional 'Kilta', lacking novelty or inventive step as per Section 2(j) of the Patents Act.
Jhaveri Industries v.Majethia Masala
The Bombay High Court ruled against Jhaveri Industries, finding that the use of 'Rajwadi' by Majethia Masala did not constitute trademark infringement or passing off. The court emphasized that since only 'Badshah' was registered and 'Rajwadi' had a disclaimer, the term is considered descriptive and generic for a type of masala. Consequently, the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for granting interim relief.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. v.Mr. Anant Kanoi And Ors.
Garware-Wall Ropes Ltd. sued M/s Techfab India (Defendant No. 1) alleging infringement of their patent for a synthetic rope gabion and sought permanent injunction and damages. The defendants argued that the invention was prior art and should be revoked under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v.S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd.
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deductions under Section 80-O. The dispute centered on whether the assessee company, M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd., was the rightful owner of patents and designs used to generate royalty income, or if they belonged solely to its Managing Director, Shri Rakesh Goel. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s finding that the company was the beneficial owner.
Bentec Electricals And Electronics v.Bentex Control And Switchgear Co.
The dispute concerned an opposition filed by Bentex Control & Switchgear Co. against a trademark application for 'BENTEC'. The core issue was whether the notice of opposition and the request for extension were within the statutory time limits, given delays in receiving the Trade Marks Journal.
Brooke Bond India Ltd. v.Girnar Exports (and others trading as M/s. Girnar Exports)
The dispute concerned an opposition filed by Girnar Exports against the trademark 'RED LABEL' owned by Brooke Bond India Ltd. The core issue was whether the late filing of the opposition, necessitated by a perceived error in the re-advertisement of the mark, was within the statutory period.
Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. v.Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Orchid Chemicals, vacating an earlier interim injunction that had restrained them from using the trademark 'MEROMER'. The court found that while the plaintiff (Astrazeneca) claimed infringement based on deceptive similarity with 'MERONEM', the balance of convenience favored the defendant. Given that the defendant offered a cheaper alternative for the same essential drug, and considering other companies also used similar prefixes in the market, the court allowed the use of 'MEROMER' but mandated regular submission of sales accounts to safeguard the plaintiff's interests.
Dr. Reckeweg And Co. Gmbh Through ... v.Mr. S.M. Sharma Managing Director ...
Dr. Reckeweg And Co. Gmbh sought an injunction against Mr. S.M. Sharma for allegedly infringing their copyrights related to homeopathic medicines. The core dispute centered on the Defendants' use of the alphanumeric series L-1 to L-75, which was identical in description and formulation to the Plaintiffs' copyrighted R-series products. The court found that despite minor changes in the catalogue, the cumulative evidence demonstrated a clear attempt by the Defendants to pass off their medicines as those of the Plaintiffs.
The Heels v.Mr. V.K. Abrol And Anr.
The plaintiff, a partnership firm dealing in leather goods under the brand 'THE HEELS', filed a suit against the defendants for copyright infringement, trademark violation, and passing off. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that the defendants were using a similar name ('HEELS') and identical logo to deceive the public and capitalize on the plaintiff's goodwill. Given the defendant's failure to appear in court despite being served, the court granted permanent injunctions and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Amanat Tobacco Gul Manufacture v.Aftab Tobacco Products
The matter involved a Review Petition filed by Amanat Tobacco Gul Manufacture against an order that abandoned Opposition No. DEL-T-3769 regarding the registration of the trade mark 'Raja Gul Label' sought by Aftab Tobacco Products. The petitioners argued that their evidence was not considered and procedural lapses occurred, but the Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record.
Mr. Ravi Raj Khanna And Anr. v.Mr. Lalit Gupta And Anr.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction for passing off and infringement of their designer furniture. The defendants challenged the interim orders by arguing that the plaintiff's designs were already in public domain prior to registration, thus defeating protection under the Designs Act, 2000.
Hindustan Lever Limited v.Cavin Kare Limited And Ors.
The petitioner (Hindustan Lever Limited) filed contempt applications alleging that the respondents (Cavin Kare Limited and Ors.) willfully breached an undertaking recorded during a prior compromise regarding Patent No. 169917. The undertaking prohibited the manufacture and marketing of fairness cream using Silicone compound in combination with specific ingredients covered by the patent. After considering conflicting reports, the Court found the breach deliberate and wilful.
Glaxo Smith Kline Plc And Ors. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And ...
Glaxo Smith Kline challenged the rejection of their application for exclusive marketing rights. The core dispute revolved around whether the Controller was legally obligated to consider the examiner's report when making the final decision under Section 24A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision based on the law existing at the time of the initial rejection.
Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. v.Cipla Ltd.
The case involved an Interlocutory Petition filed by Cipla Ltd. (opponent) seeking permission to take evidence on record after significant delays in the trademark opposition proceedings against Gujarat Medicraft Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that procedural rules must be followed and that the opponent's failure to act within prescribed time limits constituted abandonment of the opposition.
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.