India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 164 · 4,909 total
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.Shivam Udhyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited, declaring its trademark 'WIPRO' as a well-known mark. The judgment recognized the extensive goodwill and reputation associated with the brand, citing massive sales turnover (over INR 60,775 crores) and substantial promotional expenditure over several decades. This declaration is crucial for protecting the brand against unauthorized use by third parties.
M/S.Texmo Industries v.Mukesh Lamba
The Madras High Court addressed a complex intellectual property dispute involving M/S.Texmo Industries against Mukesh Lamba regarding the use of similar marks for pump goods. The suit claimed infringement under Trademark Act provisions, alongside copyright violations related to website design and content. Ultimately, the court decreed the case based on a compromise memorandum entered into by both parties, resolving the multi-faceted dispute.
M/s. Zonex Industries v.Kunal Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision to stay an infringement lawsuit concerning the 'ZONEX' trademark. The petitioner, M/s. Zonex Industries, challenged the stay, arguing that their trademark was validly registered. However, the court found that since the respondent had initiated rectification proceedings challenging the validity of the registration before the competent forum, the suit for infringement must be stayed under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This ruling reinforces the legal mechanism allowing parties to pause litigation while trademark validity is being determined.
Sujatha Rajkumar v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Sujatha Rajkumar filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention against the Registrar of Trade Marks for the undue delay in processing an application related to the assignment of her trademark 'VELVETTE'. The petitioner sought recognition of the subsequent proprietor based on an Assignment Deed. While the court did not rule on the merits of the assignment, it issued a binding direction to the Respondent to dispose of the pending application within six weeks, treating the counsel's assurance as a formal undertaking.
Dpac Ventures Llp v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court intervened in a trademark dispute between Dpac Ventures LLP and Exotic Mile Private Limited, modifying the Commercial Court's order that had granted an ex parte temporary injunction against 'GOBOULT'. Recognizing the defendant's significant business turnover (Rs. 188.94 Crores) and operational impact, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to dispense with pre-institution mediation while permitting the defendant to continue using its trademark subject to filing weekly accounts. This decision emphasizes balancing IP rights protection against commercial viability during litigation.
Biotech Visioncare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks against Biotech Visioncare's trademark application for 'BIOVISION'. The petitioner successfully argued that a subsequent successful registration of the same mark provided grounds to reconsider the initial denial. Consequently, the court directed the Trademark Registry to freshly hear the original 2016 application while taking into account the later certificate of registration.
XX v.YY
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which relates to Janus Kinase Inhibitors. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect premises and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Aet Laboratories Private Limited & Anr
The suit was filed by Helsinn Healthcare Sa seeking permanent injunction against Aet Laboratories Private Limited and others for infringing its patent IN 426553, which covers compositions for treating chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The court ultimately vacated the existing ad interim injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish territorial jurisdiction or a prima facie case.
Neeraj Gupta v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Neeraj Gupta appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected his patent application for an 'Intravenous Catheter Device.' The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of novelty and inventive step, citing specific prior art. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to consider detailed submissions and oral arguments, thereby violating natural justice. The Delhi High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside both the initial rejection order and the subsequent dismissal of the review petition.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd
The suit was filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The patents relate to technologies incorporated into 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court addressed various interlocutory applications regarding amendments, discovery, and procedural exemptions.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Aethlon Medical, Inc appealed an order refusing to grant its patent application for a medical device used in extracorporeal removal of microvesicular particles. The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court examined the matter, accepting the auxiliary claims as permissible amendments within the specification. Ultimately, the court found that the merits had not been fully examined and remanded the case back to the Controller General for fresh consideration, granting the appellant a hearing.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc & Anr. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit asserting infringement of their portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to cellular standards (3G, 4G, 5G, HEVC) by the Defendants' mobile and smart devices. The court issued orders allowing various procedural applications, including granting liberty to amend claims for additional patents and devices, while setting timelines for pleadings and interim relief hearings.
Xx v.Yy
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff (Xx) against the Defendants (Yy) concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'KAMA GEMS' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered marks, leading to a restraint on selling infringing products and preventing disparagement. Additionally, the court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Thrillophilia Travel Solutions Private Limited & Anr. v.Mrs Vishali Maggo & Ors.
Thrillophilia Travel Solutions filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defamation and disparagement of its trademark 'THRILLOPHILIA' by individuals who posted negative comments online. The Delhi High Court granted an interim restraint, preventing the defendants from uploading any new defamatory content using the Plaintiffs' marks or disparaging language on social media platforms. This order also allowed the Plaintiffs to file additional documents in the ongoing commercial suit.
M/S Gopika Industries v.Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Defendant's application seeking rectification of the Plaintiff's trademark registration. The core dispute centered on prior user rights, where the Defendant claimed earlier use of 'DAYAL' in cattle feed compared to the Plaintiff's earliest documented use. However, the Court found that the Defendant's claims were not tenable and did not raise a triable issue, upholding the validity of the Plaintiff's registered mark.
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited v.Registrar of Trademarks
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal of its 'Apollo' trademark application in the Gujarat High Court. The initial rejection was based on a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark, but the court accepted an affidavit and No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the owner of the cited mark. Consequently, the court quashed the original rejection order and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application.
Kei Industries Limited v.M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kei Industries Limited against M/S Sanayai Hardware & Ors. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, recognizing the urgent need for protection. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with seeking an ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the premises, allowing the Plaintiff to gather evidence of alleged trademark infringement related to 'KEI' and 'HOMECAB-FR'.
Dhanuka Agritech Limited v.Agrim Wholesale Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Dhanuka Agritech Limited against Agrim Wholesale Private Limited. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff's request for an urgent interim injunction and directed the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and inventory the alleged infringing goods, setting a clear path for immediate evidence gathering in the dispute.
Estuaries Industries Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the trademark application 'BLEND IT'. The court noted that the Respondent failed to consider the Petitioner's existing registered mark, 'BLEND IT RIGHT', in Class 32. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application, ensuring the prior registration is taken into account.
Gsp Crop Science Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors
Gsp Crop Science Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 298645 from the Register of Patents. The court heard initial arguments but adjourned the matter to allow counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 time to obtain instructions, noting that the patent is nearing its expiry date.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Verinder Cigrate Store And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pataka Industries against Verinder Cigrate Store. The court granted exemptions from advance service, filing certified copies, and mandatory pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed swiftly. Crucially, the court permitted a Local Commissioner to execute a commission to seize stock bearing similar marks ('S02 PATAKHA') to the Plaintiff's registered trademark '502 PATAKA', signaling strong judicial support for immediate injunctive relief.
Pooja Electric Co. v.Anand Tomar Trading As Pooja Rading Company
In this intellectual property dispute, the Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Pooja Electric Co., to introduce evidence of subsequently registered trademarks into the ongoing litigation. Although the plaintiff sought an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court determined that since the original plaint already disclosed the pendency of these trademark applications, a formal amendment was unnecessary. The court permitted the plaintiff to rely on the registration certificates while leading evidence, allowing the suit to proceed toward the recording of evidence.
M/S Blinkit Private Limited / M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited v.M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited / The Registrar of Trade Marks Chennai
The Karnataka High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by M/S Blinkit Private Limited and M/S Blink Commerce Private Limited. The petitions involved disputes over the validity and cancellation of specific trademark registrations (Nos. 3480206 and 3480207). Both parties submitted memos requesting the dismissal of their respective cases as withdrawn, leading to the court's order.
Havells India Limited v.Aman Virmani
Havells India Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Aman Virmani before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Havells' rights in 'REO', committed to ceasing all use of similar marks like 'RIEO', and agreed to destroy all infringing products. Furthermore, the defendant consented to withdraw his pending trademark application (No. 5774240), leading to the suit being decreed based on these mutual terms.
Aculife Healthcare Private Limited v.Auspharma Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of OP(TM)No.34 of 2025, which sought rectification of a trademark registration. Although listed for reporting settlement, the court formally accepted and gave effect to a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) between Aculife Healthcare Private Limited and Auspharma Private Limited. The judgment confirmed that the MOC would form part of the order, effectively resolving the dispute without further litigation.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.M/S Balaji Foods And Beverages & Anr.
Archian Foods Private Limited filed suit against M/S Balaji Foods And Beverages & Anr. alleging infringement of its trademarks, copyright, and trade dress related to 'LAHORI ZEERA' non-alcoholic beverages. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated the established goodwill and reputation of its brand. Although the defendants were proceeded ex-parte, the court found their actions not innocent and awarded nominal damages of Rs. 50,000/- to deter further illegal activities.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Anita Anu regarding the use of 'Poly Punkaj' for plastic goods. The core dispute revolved around whether the court should dispense with mandatory pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Although the plaintiff claimed urgency due to the defendant's alleged bad faith registration, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The judgment held that the plaintiff's prolonged delay in approaching the court demonstrated a lack of genuine urgency, leading to the revocation of leave and dismissal of the suit on procedural grounds.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. v.Syed Jawed Mohsin & Another
The Calcutta High Court allowed Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.'s application for the cancellation and rectification of the mark 'PROTIFIX'. The court found that PROTIFIX was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established trademark, PROTINEX, both visually and phonetically, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the healthcare goods market. Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of genuine use for the impugned mark, satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Act.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging patent infringement regarding heat exchanger plates. The Defendants asserted that their product does not infringe the suit patent. To resolve this dispute, the Court ordered the appointment of an independent Scientific Advisor to inspect the impugned product and provide a technical report on potential overlap with the patented claims.
Suneeta Sharma v.German Plast Industries Private Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Suneeta Sharma's registered design, Design No. 331213-001. Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking fresh summons and directions for the Controller of Patent and Designs (Defendant No. 2) to produce complete records related to the design registration.
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.