India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 17 of 164 · 4,909 total
Moti Insecticides Private Limited v.Gsp Crop Science Limited & Anr.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN 394568. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within four weeks.
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration (TM Application no. 4287348) held by Respondent No. 2, alleging non-use of the mark for over five years in Class 43. The petitioner presented evidence suggesting that the registered party lacked necessary operational licenses and was not conducting services under the impugned mark. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued directions to serve notice upon all parties before listing the matter for final adjudication.
Arq Providores v.Schloss Hma Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Arq Providores against Schloss Hma Private Limited. While the court acknowledged the likelihood of confusion and potential harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, it balanced this against the Defendants' existing use of the marks since November 2024. Consequently, the Court granted a conditional interim injunction, requiring the Defendants to restrict the use of 'ARQ' only in conjunction with their house mark 'THE LEELA' for specific services (Class 43), discontinue an infringing logo by December 15, 2025, and refrain from using 'ARQ' for certain food/catering services.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
M/S Nice Confectionary v.M/S Nice Food Products
The petition challenged an arbitration award related to a trademark dispute. The claimant (M/s Nice Food Products) alleged that the petitioner (M/s Nice Confectionary), who used the trademark 'PRIKA'S CHAA-PAT', breached the conditions of a 2005 license agreement. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claim.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Chaudhary Beverage & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archian Foods Private Limited against Chaudhary Beverage & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the Plaintiff, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an interim injunction through the appointment of a Local Commissioner, enabling site inspection and seizure of infringing products related to the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd v.M/S Maxford Healthcare And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings against M/S Maxford Healthcare. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed an ex parte ad interim injunction based on a local commission, which will investigate alleged infringement of the 'PROTINEX' mark and associated trade dress by the defendants' 'PROTILOX' products.
Ms.Nischitha S Katta, Proprietor of SatvaDaily v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions filed by Ms. Nischitha S Katta seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to recognize her as the subsequent proprietor of the trademark 'SATVADAILY'. The petitioner sought the completion of assignments across various classes (29, 30, and 31) based on an Assignment Deed dated December 9, 2024. After considering the respondent's submission that they had already initiated the process, the Court closed the petitions but issued a clear directive to the Registrar to finalize the assignment exercise within eight weeks.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Nayan India Science And Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 407425, titled 'CROWD-SOURCED ON DEMAND AI DATA ANNOTATION, COLLECTION AND PROCESSING', which was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. The Court issued notice to all parties and set timelines for filing replies.
Gsp Crop Science Ltd v.Gilehri Organics & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Gsp Crop Science Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the infringement of its Indian Patent (IN'568) related to a synergistic formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court passed an order addressing various interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing for urgent interim relief measures.
Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt. Ltd., seeking a Mandamus order to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to issue their trademark. The petitioner's application was pending due to an opposition filed by a third party. The court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner instead to file an expedite application directly with the Registrar, who must then process it as quickly as possible.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Calcutta High Court for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'JAY'S,' registered by Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo's well-established brand, 'LAY'S.' Given the similarity in goods (snack foods) and the petitioner's immense goodwill, the court ruled that the registration of 'JAY'S' violated the Trademarks Act and must be cancelled.
M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Sri Tulasi Industries
The Telangana High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by M/S. Vaidehi Agro Oils Pvt. Ltd against an order passed by the District Judge, Kamareddy. The petitioner argued that their application seeking a stay of proceedings in a trademark infringement suit should not have been dismissed as infructuous while a higher court's stay was still pending. The High Court found the trial judge's dismissal erroneous and set aside the impugned order, directing the lower court to reconsider the applications.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Krs Multipro Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Krs Multipro Private Limited. The suit involves allegations of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the popular brand 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Based on a prima facie case, the court found that the Defendants' product packaging copied the Plaintiff's registered mark precisely, posing a risk of market confusion. Consequently, the Defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'THILTH'. The core issue was that despite the mark expiring, the petitioner could not renew it because the Registry failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court emphasized the Registrar's duty to inform proprietors about approaching expiration, thereby enabling timely renewal or restoration.
Sunil Jain v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by Sunil Jain against the Registrar of Trademarks and others. The court noted that pleadings were complete but directed the respondent no. 2 to file their reply within one week, condoning the delay. The matter has been scheduled for listing on December 17, 2025, indicating ongoing litigation rather than a final decision.
Smt. Reena Paltani And 3 Others v.M/S K.K. Tobacco Co. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court set aside a Commercial Court's rejection of an interim injunction application in a trademark infringement suit involving tobacco products. The petitioners argued that the respondents were infringing their registered trademarks ('KK99'/'KK 99') despite having a different registration ('V99K'). The court allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation and directed the lower court to urgently decide on the interim injunction and receiver appointment, recognizing the urgency of preventing further infringement.
M/s.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP. v.M/s.Sangeetham House of Veg
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a conflicting trademark. The petitioner, M/s.Sangeetha Caterers, successfully argued that the respondent's mark, 'SANGEETHAM HOUSE OF VEG,' was registered in bad faith after a court decree had already mandated the respondent to change their business name to 'Hotel Raagam - House of Veg.' The Court held that the registration was voidable because it suppressed prior litigation and compromise terms, ordering the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the conflicting mark forthwith.
M/s.Aston Packaging Solution v.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry
M/s.Aston Packaging Solution approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against delays in its trademark opposition proceedings. The petitioner, who owns the 'ASTON' device trade mark application, noted that despite completing all pleadings and evidence in Opposition No.1011897, no hearing had been fixed by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court intervened, directing the Respondent to promptly consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation seeking an early hearing within a specified timeframe.
TRANS UNION, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC challenged the refusal of its patent application (No. 4268/CHE/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, which rejected it primarily on grounds of non-patentability under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the system and method for matching database records was inherently technical, providing a solution to data quality issues in emerging markets. The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the invention involved technical considerations implemented by hardware, but remanded the matter to refine the claims' scope and ensure adequate enablement.
Trans Union, LLC v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Trans Union, LLC appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding its application for a database matching system. The core issue was whether the invention constituted a non-patentable 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the invention involved technical considerations and achieved a technical effect by optimizing data retrieval. However, due to overly broad claims, the court remanded the matter for further examination to narrow the scope and ensure enablement.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using graphical representations.
AB INITIO TECHNOLOGY LLC v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged an order rejecting its patent application (No. 4693/CHENP/2010) based on lack of novelty and inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). The invention relates to a method for tracing upstream and downstream data lineage using metadata management systems.
LG Electronics Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
LG Electronics Inc filed a suit against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors seeking restraining orders for infringing its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 4G and 5G cellular standards. The court passed several interim orders allowing the plaintiff various applications, including filing confidential documents and adding claims for infringement of additional patents.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Rajan Adlakha v.Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Rajan Adlakha filed a writ petition seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks regarding a pending opposition. The petitioner argued that since the opponent failed to file evidence by the statutory deadline, the opposition was deemed abandoned under Trademark Rules, but the Registrar had not formally recorded this status. The Delhi High Court directed the Respondent No. 1 (Registrar) to treat the petition as a formal representation and pass appropriate orders recording the abandonment within four weeks.
Omnidya Tech Llp v.Jayant Ratti & Ors.
Omnidya Tech Llp filed petitions seeking revocation of two Indian patents (IN 317629 and IN 373372) before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the relevant respondents and directed them to file their replies within six weeks.
Synertec Pty Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
Synertec Pty Ltd filed a writ petition seeking restoration of its patent application (No. 202217030233) which had been deemed withdrawn under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner argued that the failure to file the request for examination was due to an inadvertent error by its Patent Agent regarding the deadline. The Court allowed the petition, finding that the Petitioner acted diligently and should not suffer consequences of the agent's mistake.
Sri. Manjappa Chatrad v.3M India Limited
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 416744 ('Road Safety Device') held by Respondent No. 2 (3M Innovative Properties Company). The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that patent revocation is a civil remedy falling under the High Court's original civil jurisdiction and should be filed as a Civil Petition, not a Writ Petition.
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.