India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 164 · 4,909 total
Narender Kumar v.The State
This criminal revision petition was filed by Narender Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kundan Trading Company, challenging the trial court's order dated 04.06.2024 discharging the accused persons in FIR No. 03/2019 registered under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, finding no infirmity or illegality in the discharge order, holding that the recovered goods bore the mark of KTC Japan (Kyoto Tools Company) and not the complainant's mark, and that the offence of falsification of trade mark was not made out against the accused.
State v.Yuvraj Singh And Ors.
The State prosecuted accused Ashok Kumar (along with Yuvraj Singh, whose proceedings were later abated) for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, alleging that counterfeit Maruti Suzuki products were recovered from his shop during a raid on 19.07.2018. The complainant, Sh. Surender Singh, an employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. (authorized by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.), turned hostile and failed to identify the accused or the seized goods, and the case property was destroyed in a fire. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Ashok Kumar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd v.Blueheavenin.Com & Ors
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'BLUE HEAVEN' and associated formative/device marks, filed a commercial suit against Blueheavenin.Com and others for online trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was operating the domain blueheavenin.com, which incorporated its trademark in its entirety and presented itself as the official website, while Defendant No. 2 was hosting an infringing BLUE HEAVEN cosmetics page on an unrelated domain. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the impugned websites and directed the domain registrars/intermediaries to preserve records and transfer-lock the domain names.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 20th September 2023 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing Indian Patent Application No.202047054780. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal and made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr
The plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against M/S GM Foods & Anr. Defendant No. 1 sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause in a Tripartite Lease Agreement dated 19.03.2024. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement did not bind the parties with respect to their separate inter se agreement governing their rights and obligations, and that an arbitration agreement cannot be inferred where none exists.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors. (including proposed defendant nos. 5-8: Mohit Talwar and associated entities)
This is an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 283/2020) filed by Havells India Limited against Ratheesh Govindan and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought impleadment of proposed defendants 5 to 8, who were identified as the manufacturers and controlling entities behind the infringing products. The Court allowed the impleadment application, noting that the proposed defendants were not innocent or bona fide users, and bound them to the existing interim injunction order dated 30.07.2020.
Sri Veerendra Patil Kumbri v.Sri Madiwalayya G Math
The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Share Purchase Agreement dated 23.01.2023. The dispute concerned Clause 7.1 of the agreement, under which the petitioners had agreed to withdraw the trade name 'SOUTHERN' from the companies, believing the respondents had registered it as a trademark, which later turned out to be untrue. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator.
M/s Harisons (India) Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Harilal and Sons and Another
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which rejected the petitioner's application seeking expeditious disposal of its pending interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, on the ground that the injunction application could not be adjudicated while the respondents' Order VII Rule 11 application remained pending. The Allahabad High Court held that the Commercial Court had misread the High Court's earlier interim order dated 06.04.2026, which stayed only the amendment order and not the entire suit proceedings, and that the pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application does not oust the trial court's jurisdiction to decide an interim injunction application on its merits.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.M/S Pooja Lubricant
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and its related entities restraining M/S Pooja Lubricant from using the marks 'MAX VOLVO', 'MAX VOLWO', 'VOLWO GOLD', and other marks deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'VOLVO' in relation to lubricants and allied goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement, passing off, and dilution, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury warranted urgent relief without prior notice to the defendant.
Ankit Kumar Singla v.The State NCT of Delhi Through SHO Police Station Nangloi & Anr.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 478/2021 registered at Police Station Nangloi for offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, on the ground that the complainant (respondent no. 2) had compromised the dispute. Upon the court observing that in trademark infringement or passing off cases the general public is the victim and not merely the complainant, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to face trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited & Anr.
Incyte Holdings Corporation and its associated entities filed a patent infringement suit against Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were offering for sale Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API through their website and third-party platforms, and had obtained a manufacturing licence and developed a generic version of the patented compound. The court, satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib until the next date of hearing.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Melody Healthcare Private Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation and others filed a patent infringement suit against Melody Healthcare Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was offering for sale Ruxolitinib Phosphate API on third-party platforms and had obtained a manufacturing licence to commercially produce a generic version. The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib that would infringe the suit patent.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural directions order in a commercial appeal concerning patents before the Delhi High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the matter had already been heard at length by the predecessor bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and that he was concluding his rejoinder arguments before that bench. The court directed the matter to be relisted before Justice Jyoti Singh's bench on 29th September 2026.
Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Dinesh Kumar (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vijay (Defendant No. 4)
This commercial suit was filed by Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd., the licensee of the 'ANCHOR' trademark originally owned by Panasonic Corporation, against Mr. Dinesh Kumar and others for trademark/copyright infringement and passing off under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that defendants no. 1 and 4 had infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the ANCHOR trademark/label and granted a decree of permanent injunction along with damages of Rs. 3,10,000/- and simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of e-filing of the suit.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited & Anr v.The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing and exporting fly ash and fly ash bricks, challenged the rectification order dated 20.05.2022 which upheld the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 49,60,054/- for accumulated/unutilized Input Tax Credit on exports made under Letter of Undertaking for the period December 2019 to March 2020. The Calcutta High Court found that the Appellate Authority had expanded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing grounds relating to Rule 96A, Rule 96B, and Rule 89(4)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which were never part of the original notice, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity to rebut those allegations. The Court set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing.
State v.Chandan Kumar Tiwari and Anr.
This case involved charges under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act against two accused persons for allegedly dealing in counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. The prosecution's case collapsed because the complainant and the Director of Speed Search Pvt. Ltd. (the authorized investigator) remained untraceable for nearly seven years. The Court acquitted both accused, holding that without the complainant's testimony, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, and mere recovery of allegedly infringing articles was insufficient for conviction.
State v.Arun Jaiswal and Anr.
This criminal case involved charges under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from an alleged raid on counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Titan Fastrack Sonata. The prosecution's case collapsed when the complainant turned hostile and failed to support the material allegations. The court acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Puneet Batra v.Union Of India & Ors
The Petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the search conducted on 25.07.2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents, along with the panchnama and summons issued on the same date, alleging violation of advocate-client privilege. The Respondents contended that the search was duly authorized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and that prima facie material indicated the Petitioner was personally involved in the affairs of M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) beyond acting as a legal adviser. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the search was validly authorized and that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the Advocate's own conduct, while directing safeguards for the protection of privileged and third-party client data.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Patent Controller regarding Patent No. 272351, and to withdraw its post-grant amendment application (Form-13) filed on 17.05.2019 under Section 57 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, permitting the withdrawal of the amendment application without prejudice to the parties' rights, and directed the Learned Controller to decide the pending post-grant oppositions under Section 25(2) of the 1970 Act within nine weeks.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Hostinger Operations UAB & 4 Others (Fino Payments Bank Limited, Sachin Kumar, Rohit Kumar, John Doe operating ashokaleyland.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against the respondents for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the use of its registered marks 'LEYLAND' and 'ASHOK LEYLAND' and the impugned domain name 'ashokaleyland.com'. The respondents included a Lithuanian web hosting company, a payments bank, two John Doe individuals, and an unknown operator of the infringing website. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim injunction until the next hearing date.
The Principal Commissioner v.M/S Dhariwal Industries Pvt Limited
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner challenging the CESTAT order that allowed M/s Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd's appeal seeking remission of excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent had huge stocks of pan masala and gutkha bearing the brand name 'Manikchand' which became unsellable due to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, Mandleshwar restraining use of that trademark. The Court held that the goods were beyond the respondent's control to market and squarely covered under Rule 21, and consequently quashed the consequential show cause notice in the connected writ petition.
Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd. v.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
This transfer petition arose from cross-appeals filed by both parties against a common order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Commercial Court-III, Ernakulam, in proceedings challenging an arbitral award. The petitioners sought transfer of C.M.A.(Arb) Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024, pending before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, to the Kerala High Court. The court allowed the petition, holding that under the amended Government Order designating Commercial Courts, appeals from arbitration-related commercial disputes must be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Man Mohan Narang v.Union Of India & Anr
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to process and allow Form TM-12 filed on 21.02.2012 for Trademark Registration No. 1081552, and to waive a surcharge of Rs. 5,000/-. The Registrar agreed to process the renewal application in accordance with law upon payment of prescribed fee, restoration charges, and the surcharge. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition granting the petitioner liberty to file the renewal application within one month, with no expression on merits.
M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Private Limited v.M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arose from a trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning edible oils. The respondent/plaintiff, M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries, claimed prior use of the trademark 'Tasty Gold' since December 2000, while the appellants/defendants, M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils, adopted the mark 'Namaskar Tasty Nutts' for a blended edible oil. The Telangana High Court upheld the Trial Court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendants' mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among illiterate and semiliterate consumers.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Curewell Drugs And Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
This order of the Delhi High Court dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Curewell Drugs and Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. concerning the marks REVITAL and BEVITAL. The court allowed Sun Pharma to place additional documents on record to substantiate its claim of prior use of the trademark REVITAL since 1988, noting that no new case was being set up. The application for appointment of Local Commissioners was not pressed, and the matter was listed for further proceedings.
UPL Mauritius Limited & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This is an appeal filed by UPL Mauritius Limited and another appellant before the Delhi High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused to grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 202211035759. The court allowed the exemption application and issued notice to the Respondent, with the matter adjourned to 03.12.2026.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)
Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of steel, lighting, and electrical goods marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', filed a commercial suit against Maddi Ramiah Kutati (trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the deceptively similar mark 'SURYA CAB' for electrical wires and cables. The court found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright, engaged in passing off, and was not an innocent user. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- with 9% per annum interest, delivery-up of infringing goods and materials, and costs of the suit.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
This appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellants' applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants alleged that Xiaomi's smartphones, tablets, and other devices infringed their registered Indian Patent No. 244963 titled 'A Communication Device Finder System.' The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, as the respondent's 'Find Device' feature did not read onto the essential elements of the suit patent's independent claim. The court further held that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the appellants' unexplained nine-year delay in approaching the court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal challenged the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase land for an industrial park. The plaintiff had entered into reciprocal land exchange arrangements with defendant No.1 Debasish Pal but sought injunction after the defendant delayed transferring 151.46 decimals of land. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance already executed.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal arose from the rejection of a temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial court had erred in rejecting the injunction, and granted relief restraining the respondents from altering the suit property, obstructing common passage access, or creating third-party interests.
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.