India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 160 of 164 · 4,909 total
The Singer Company And Anr. v.Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
The petitioners, owners of trade marks featuring "Singer", challenged letters issued by the Central Government that refused their applications to extend the period of use under Section 49(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that since the refusal letters did not state specific reasons or consider the petitioners' contentions, they were not 'speaking orders'.
Fabcon, Corporation Incorporated v.Industrial Engineering Corporation
Fabcon Corporation challenged an order rejecting its application to transfer a suit to the High Court. Fabcon claimed infringement of Patent No. 140164 and sought permanent injunctions. The defendant argued that the patent was invalid, leading Fabcon to argue this constituted a counterclaim for revocation under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Monsanto Company By Their Patent Agent, De Penning and Depen v.Coramandal Indag Products (P) Ltd.
Monsanto challenged Coramandal Indag Products for infringing its patents related to herbicide formulations containing 'Butachlor'. The respondent argued that the patents were liable to be revoked under various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Supreme Court ultimately held that Butachlor was publicly known and the process of emulsification was common knowledge, thus revoking the patent.
American Home Products Corporation v.Mac Laboratories Private Limited And Anr.
American Home Products Corporation (Appellant) sought to protect its registered trade mark 'Dristan'. Mac Laboratories Private Limited (Respondent) challenged the registration, leading to appeals regarding the validity and rectification of the trademark.
Ravinder Kumar Gupta v.Ravi Raj Gupta And Ors.
Ravinder Kumar Gupta filed a petition seeking cancellation of Design No. 150873, which was registered by Ravi Raj Gupta for glass tiles. The petitioner argued that the design lacked novelty and had been published prior to registration. The court examined whether the change from sharp corners to rounded corners constituted an original or inventive design.
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v.Lokenath Chemical Works
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. filed a suit seeking an injunction against Lokenath Chemical Works for infringing its registered bottle/container design (No. 94985). After negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement which was accepted by the plaintiff in toto. The court held that this acceptance created a binding contract.
Tobu Enterprises (P) Ltd. v.Joginder Metal Works And Anr.
The plaintiff sued for permanent injunction against infringement of two registered designs (mini bike tricycle) and for rendition of accounts. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction to grant relief outside the scope of the Designs Act, particularly regarding accounts and passing off. The court held that it has jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable.
Sandoz Limited And Anr. v.Pharmaceutical And Chemical ...
The plaintiffs, holding the registered trademark 'Syntocinon', filed a suit against defendants marketing 'Synthocilin' due to alleged deceptive similarity. The trial court declined an interim injunction, leading to this appeal. The High Court considered the prior finding of deceptive similarity but opted for settlement rather than granting immediate restraint.
Amar Soap Factory v.Public Gram Udyog Samiti
Amar Soap Factory filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Public Gram Udyog Samiti for alleged infringement of its copyrighted artistic wrapper and passing off using the similar trade mark 'Talwar Marka'. The court examined claims regarding both copyright protection and trademark rights. Ultimately, while the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a permanent injunction protecting their registered copyright, the claim for rendition of accounts was dismissed due to the long usage by both parties.
Hami Brothers v.Hami & Co. And Anr.
In this Bombay High Court case, Hami Brothers challenged the registration of the 'Majmua 96' trade mark held by Hami & Co., arguing that the numeral '96' was descriptive and thus invalid. The court examined whether the mark retained distinctiveness despite its age and use across various products. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mark had lost its distinctive character or that it was registered fraudulently.
Madura Coats Limited And Ors. v.Chetan Dev
The suit was filed by Chetan Dev against Madura Coats Limited seeking a declaration that the alleged infringement threats were unjustifiable and an injunction to stop them. The trial court decreed the suit, finding no infringement. On appeal, the High Court clarified that since damages were not claimed, the scope of the suit was limited only to whether the threats were justifiable. It found the threats unjustified.
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents & Designs
The petitioner applied for a patent for a rail clip adapter. The respondent (RDSO) filed an opposition based on prior public knowledge and use. The petitioner challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of his application to introduce further evidence and cross-examine witnesses, arguing that the opposing affidavit was inadmissible. The High Court ultimately rejected the petition, upholding the Controller's discretionary power.
Niki Tasha India Pvt. Ltd. v.Faridabad Gas Gadgets Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing their registered design (Kitchenette) for a gas cooking range. The court examined whether the defendant's product (Navjyoti) was a fraudulent imitation and if the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an interim injunction.
Meena Match Industries v.The Wimco Limited
This case involved a dispute over the validity of Design No. 146498, registered by Wimco Limited for their match boxes. Meena Match Industries challenged this registration, arguing that the pattern was neither new nor original and had been publicly known prior to Wimco's application date. The court examined evidence of pre-publication and found that the design lacked novelty. Consequently, the court ordered the cancellation of the registered design and dismissed Wimco's infringement suit.
Jawahar Engineering Co. And Ors. v.Javahar Engineering Private Ltd.
The suit was filed by plaintiffs claiming rights over the registered trade mark 'Javahar' for diesel oil engines, seeking perpetual injunction and passing off relief against defendants who applied for a similar mark. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
Bijoli Grill Spencer'S Product v.Spencers & Co. Ltd.
Bijoli Grill Spencer's Product sought an injunction to protect its right to use the trade mark and trade name 'Spencer' in relation to mineral aerated waters, challenging Spencers & Co. Ltd.'s rights. The court examined the history of the marks and found that the petitioner could not establish a concurrent right.
Albright And Wilson Ltd. v.Income-Tax Officer
The dispute concerned whether the consideration received by Albright And Wilson Ltd. from selling its technical know-how and two Indian patents to an Indian company was taxable under Capital Gains provisions. The Income Tax Officer initially taxed the amount, but the Tribunal ultimately held that since the asset had a cost (though difficult to determine), the transfer attracted capital gains liability.
Press Metal Corporation Limited v.Noshir Sorabji Pochkhanawalla And Anr.
The petitioners appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that dismissed their opposition to a patent grant. The core dispute centered on whether the muffler silencer improvement was novel, non-obvious, and adequately described in the application. The High Court found the Controller's approach erroneous, sustaining all grounds of opposition.
Anup Engineering Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents Office
Anup Engineering Ltd. challenged the refusal by the Controller of Patents Office (Respondent No. 1) to accept its opposition application against a patent filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) for 'metal bellows'. The petitioner argued that it had a statutory right under Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970, to be heard before the grant of any patent.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft Of ... v.Controller Of Patents, Government Of ...
The petitioner applied to rectify Patent No. 139978, arguing that the compound Chlorothio-N-Phthalimide should be granted a 14-year patent term instead of the 7 years fixed by the Controller. The respondent argued that the compound is a drug and that the application was barred by limitation.
The Indian Association Of Thermometry v.Hicks Thermometers (India) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the registration of the trademark 'Hicks' to Hicks Thermometers (India) Ltd., dismissing objections raised by The Indian Association Of Thermometry. The court found that the foreign proprietor had effectively abandoned the mark, allowing the respondents to acquire reputation and register it in their own name. Furthermore, the court clarified that an unregistered association qualifies as a 'person' under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act.
B. Chawla & Sons v.Bright Auto Industries
B. Chawla & Sons sought to protect its registered design for rear view mirrors (No. 139585). Bright Auto Industries challenged this registration, arguing that the design lacked novelty and originality as it was common in the market. The court examined whether a further curve on the sloping upper length side constituted substantial novelty.
Surendra Lal Mahendra v.Jain Glazers And Ors.
The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing his 'Laminating Apparatus' patent (No. 143964). The defendants contested the claim, arguing that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step as it was already known globally, citing Morane Maxibond machines. The court ultimately vacated the ex parte injunction but directed the defendants to maintain status quo.
Pillalamarri Lakshmikantham And Ors. v.Ramakrishna Pictures And Ors.
The Publishers sued Ramakrishna Pictures for infringing their copyright in the book 'Tara-sasankam', which was adapted into a film. The trial court found in favor of the publishers, granting injunction and awarding damages. Subsequent appeals were filed by the publishers seeking accounts of profits, but the High Court dismissed these appeals based on established legal principles that preclude claiming both damages and accounts.
K.R. Beri & Co. v.The Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P)
The Delhi High Court upheld the refusal to register the trade mark 'FIVE 50' in favor of The Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. (P). The court found that the appellant's proposed mark was highly likely to deceive and confuse consumers due to its substantial similarity to the respondent's established marks, 'Fifty' and '50'. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove concurrent use or acquiescence against the respondent, whose extensive prior usage and market reputation were well-documented.
Central Camera Co. Private Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Central Camera Co. Private Ltd. appealed against the Registrar's refusal to register the trademark 'Solar' for photographic apparatus. The Registrar refused registration on two grounds: that 'Solar' was descriptive (Section 9(1)(d)) and that it conflicted with existing marks (Section 12(1)).
National Research Development Corporation of India v.The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff, National Research Development Corporation of India, sought a temporary injunction against the defendants for infringing its Patent No. 138571 concerning TSIA. The defendants challenged the patent's validity and denied infringement. The court found that the plaintiff was the rightful assignee and that the defendants were aware of the patent and had negotiated for a license, thus confirming the injunction.
Amrutanjan Limited v.Amarchand Sobachand
Amrutanjan Limited sued Amarchand Sobachand for infringing its registered trade mark 'AMRUTANJAN' used on pain balm. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was using a deceptively similar name ('Amar's Pain Balm') and an imitation carton design, leading to consumer confusion. The court found infringement but dismissed claims for damages as passing off was not proven.
J.N. Electricals (India) v.President Electricals
J.N. Electricals sued President Electricals for infringing their registered design of an electric toaster, passing off, and copyright piracy of their promotional pamphlets. The court found that the defendant's toaster was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, and the defendants had outrightly copied the plaintiffs' pamphlet word-for-word.
Chandra Bhan Agarwal And Anr. v.Arjundas Agarwal And Ors.
The appeal challenged the registration of the trade mark 'Dora' (No. 252040) used by H. P. Textile Mills for hosiery goods. The appellants argued that 'Dora' is a common, generic word meaning thread or stripe and thus lacked distinctiveness. The court agreed that while the design acquired some distinctiveness, no monopoly should be granted over the word 'Dora' simpliciter.
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.