India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 164 · 4,909 total
Kaha Pte. Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Kaha Pte. Ltd. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of a patent for application no. 02017037882. The court also addressed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from document submission requirements.
Vivek Verma & Ors. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of the trademark 'PALANG TORE MARD CHOURI PATTI' in favor of Vivek Verma & Ors. The court found that the Impugned Mark is identical or deceptively similar to the Appellant's existing marks, particularly considering the nature of the goods (chewing tobacco/gutkha) and the consumer base (illiterate sections). This decision highlights the high risk of market confusion when identical marks are used for related products.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court allowed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited's leave petition seeking to consolidate the cause of action for passing-off with the existing claim of trademark infringement against Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The court found that since both causes of action arose from the same set of transactions, combining them was appropriate. Furthermore, the interim relief previously granted in the matter was directed to continue until the next hearing date.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr. v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court, which had prohibited Ms. Anuradha Sharma's use of her registered trademark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found that a prima facie case existed for the appellant to challenge the order, particularly regarding the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating goodwill and likelihood of confusion in the passing off action. Furthermore, the High Court issued a directive to Commercial Courts, mandating clear findings on whether an injunction is based on infringement or passing off, and requiring positive proof of goodwill in passing off cases.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Frame Assembly' due to lack of inventive step and other objections. The appellant argued that their design, which mounts a utility box on gusset plates instead of cross members, provides surprising technical effects like enhanced strength and optimized space utilization. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Abdul Rahim Khalilur Rehman v.Abdul Karim Khalilur Rehman
The Bombay High Court addressed two Commercial Arbitration Petitions concerning a dispute over the dissolved partnership firm's assets, specifically the 'Moulvi' trademark. The core issue was whether third parties (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) could be bound by the ongoing arbitration proceedings against Respondent No. 1. The court ruled that instead of granting immediate relief, it converted the petitions into Section 17 applications, directing the Petitioner to raise the 'alter ego' doctrine before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. This allows the tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent, to determine if the third parties are bound by the existing arbitration agreement.
Mir Mahamood Ali & Ors. v.Mir Mukkaram Ali
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the expungement of the respondent’s name from the Copyright Register. The dispute centered on a conflict where the respondent was incorrectly listed as the owner of the artistic features of the 'Sagar Homeo Stores' trademark, despite the petitioners being the rightful owners. By establishing their prior and valid registration with the Trademark authority, the court found the opposing copyright entry to be illegal and concocted.
M/S. Sudhakar Pvc Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahendra Pratap Singh
The Madras High Court closed Original Petition (Trade Marks) No. 58 of 2025 after both parties reached a settlement. The petitioner, M/S. Sudhakar PVC Products Pvt. Ltd., sought to remove or rectify the registration of trademark no. 6322916 in Class 17. The first respondent, Mahendra Pratap Singh, agreed to the removal via an undertaking submitted to the court. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to make the necessary corrections within four weeks.
Provogue India Private Limited v.Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Provogue India Private Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors., granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court recognized the urgency of the matter, noting the risk that defendants might conceal or suppress their infringing operations. Furthermore, the court directed a local commission inspection to gather evidence regarding the alleged deceptive trade mark use in the manufacturing and sale of leather goods.
Jyoti Sharma (Trading As Akhand Bharat Enterprises) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Jyoti Sharma's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register a device mark. The court found that the original refusal order contained significant factual errors, incorrectly characterizing the application as a word mark for services when it was actually a device mark for goods in Class-9. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration, without prejudging the merits of the registration claim.
Rajani Products v.Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S Naturalindia Oils And Proteins & Anr.
Rajani Products filed a petition seeking the removal of a specific Copyright registration (A-128046/2019) held by Madhukar Varandani. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing edible oils, claimed that their own artistic works and labels, featuring the SWASTIK device, were prior and original. They argued that the impugned work was a substantial reproduction of their protected designs. After comparing the two artistic works, the court found that the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and substantially imitated the Petitioner's registered works.
Trident Limited v.Controller Of Patents
Trident Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing'. The Appellant argued that the refusal, based on lack of inventive step, was flawed because the cited prior art did not disclose the critical feature: uniformly distributed pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn. The Delhi High Court found infirmities in the Impugned Order, particularly regarding the interpretation of novelty and obviousness against the specific claims. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application for a prophylactic drug composition intended for neurodegenerative diseases. The core dispute centered on whether the claims, which described a chemical composition, could be rejected under Section 3(i) (lack of inventive step/patentability criteria) because they were used for treatment. The High Court found that the Controller failed to address all objections and misinterpreted the scope of the product claim versus its therapeutic application. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the refusal order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Llc And Anr v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Amylin Pharmaceuticals appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS'. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d).
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs sought exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation. The Court disposed of this application as infructuous and noted that the current suit involves the same Suit Patent as another pending infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). Consequently, both suits were listed together for further proceedings.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Aberdare Technologies Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of two patents related to optical fiber production. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of these same patents. Both parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.
Lmw Limited v.Marzoli Machines Textile S. R. L & Anr.
Lmw Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent number IN 496349. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file necessary pleadings, setting future dates for listing.
Ashim Kumar Ghosh v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Ashim Kumar Ghosh against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'SoEasy'. The core issue was whether the mark, used for instructional and teaching material, possessed sufficient distinctiveness. The court ruled that 'SoEasy' is a suggestive mark—requiring consumers to use imagination and thought to connect it to educational products—and therefore qualifies for protection under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Fdc Limited v.Healing Pharma India Private Limited
Fdc Limited filed a suit against Healing Pharma India Private Limited alleging multiple infringements related to its pharmaceutical products. The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural aspects, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of additional documents. Crucially, the court also addressed interim relief, restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing products confusingly similar to Fdc's registered trademarks (ZIFI) and copyrighted trade dress (ELECTRAL).
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
Sudeep Gupta v.Registrar Of Trademarks Trademarks Registry New Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the cancellation of Sudeep Gupta's trademark registration (No. 4684988) during the pendency of his appeal. The Appellant challenged the cancellation, which was based on Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that his mark is a composite mark and therefore exempt from the 'exclusivity' requirement. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Appellant, citing precedent that limits the application of Section 9(1)(b) to non-composite marks.
Surya Nataraj Sharma v.Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an order that allowed the trademark suit to proceed. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who was a booking agent, could maintain a trademark infringement and declaration suit despite alleged non-compliance with Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the question of trademark misuse is a matter for trial, and the plaintiff's right as a registered owner would not be negated by his status as an unregistered booking agent.
Irish Distillers International Limited v.Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Irish Distillers International Limited, leading to the cancellation of the 'BLUE SPOT' trademark registration held by Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the mark for over five years from its grant date. Given the lack of market presence and unrebutted evidence of non-use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reinforcing the statutory grounds for trademark removal.
Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd v.Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the ongoing IP infringement suit filed by Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd against Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set out a detailed schedule for the parties to file their written statements and replication, while also addressing procedural matters regarding document filing and translation.
Aqualite Industries Private Limited v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned allegations that Aqualite Industries was infringing on Relaxo Footwears' registered designs for hawai slippers. Relaxo had secured an interim injunction against Aqualite, which challenged this order. The court examined whether Aqualite's products were identical to the protected designs and whether the registrations themselves were invalid due to prior art or lack of novelty. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the suit designs possessed novelty and that Aqualite was infringing Relaxo's registered design.
M/s.Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Office
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of its post-grant opposition against Patent No. 311984, which covered an anti-stick coating. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order because it failed to provide reasons for rejecting material grounds of opposition. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by a different officer.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed an application seeking condonation of a 53-day delay in filing an Appeal against the refusal of Patent Application No. 201917042060. The Respondent accepted the notice and stated they had no objection to the condonation.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the rejection of a patent application for 'Composition comprising human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives' based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued that deriving these stem cells requires the destructive use of human embryos, making the invention contrary to public order or morality. The High Court upheld the rejection.
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.