India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 62 of 161 · 4,815 total
Robert Bosch Limitada v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limitada appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order rejecting its patent application. The rejection was allegedly based on insufficient description, which the appellant argued was not properly communicated during the examination process. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Huck International, Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Huck International appealed the rejection of its divisional patent application based on an objection under Section 16 of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that they were denied a fair opportunity because the final decision was based on an objection not enumerated in the initial hearing notice. The Court agreed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Respondent to issue a fresh notice.
3G Licensing S.A v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a patent application. The Appellant argued that prior art cited by the Indian Patent Office had also been considered and the patent granted in Europe. The Court issued an interim order allowing the Appellant time to submit the European patent record.
M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills v.M/S Haryana Strips Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Raj Steel Rolling Mills seeking cancellation of the trademark 'SHAILDU HEAVY'. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively and structurally similar to the Petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SALDU', which had been in continuous use since 1974. Given the identical nature of the goods (iron and steel shapes) and the clear evidence of prior usage by the petitioner, the registration of 'SHAILDU HEAVY' was deemed a contravention of the Trade Marks Act, leading to its cancellation.
M/S Star Syringe Ltd v.M/S Tiger Surgical Disposable Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have infringed their patent and seek damages. The case is ongoing with preliminary objections raised by the defendants regarding maintainability due to insolvency proceedings.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis appealed an order that allowed certain amendments in its Indian Patent Application (IN'518) based on a finding that pre-grant opponents should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The core dispute centered on whether the examination process and opposition proceedings are independent or merged under the Patents Act, 1970.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
This appeal challenged the revocation of a plant variety registration (FL 2027) granted to PepsiCo. The initial Single Judge affirmed the revocation primarily due to incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale and failure to submit requisite documentation. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the revocation order while noting that the mistake in styling as 'new' was remediable.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
PepsiCo appealed the revocation of registration for its plant variety FL 2027. The original revocation was based on PepsiCo furnishing incorrect information about the date of first commercial sale and alleged non-compliance with documentation requirements. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment regarding the eligibility to apply for registration.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, citing technical objections and procedural issues. The High Court found that the significant delay between the hearing and the issuance of the refusal order was arbitrary and lacked confidence.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Dabur India Limited seeking the rectification and removal of a trademark registered in favor of Emami Limited. Despite arguments regarding prior injunctions related to passing off suits, the court ruled that since the rectification application had already been filed, there was no impediment to issuing notice. The court emphasized that rectification proceedings must be decided first before proceeding with the trial of the underlying suit.
Jupiter Aqua Lines Limited v.Vtsrn Systems Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction in a prior order concerning trademark disputes. The court allowed the petition, correcting an inadvertent error where Respondent No. 2 was incorrectly directed to remove the Petitioner's mark. Instead, the corrected order mandates that Respondent No. 2 must remove the registration of the specific 'JAL' (Device) mark belonging to Respondent No. 1 from the Trademark Register and update its website accordingly.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this matter concerning a trademark opposition, Louis Vuitton Malletier sought relief after being unable to complete the payment for its notice of opposition due to a technical glitch with the payment gateway. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim regarding the non-fault nature of the delay and took steps to ensure all parties were heard. Consequently, the applicant of the disputed mark was impleaded as Respondent No. 2, allowing the litigation to proceed fairly.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v.Extra Tech World and Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to file a Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit against the respondents. The core issue was establishing the court's jurisdiction, given that the infringing websites were accessible across India.
Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner, an association of pesticide manufacturers, challenged the dismissal of their pre-grant opposition against a patent application (No.538/DEL/2010) filed by Crystal Crop Protection Limited. The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent failed to serve notices correctly after the petitioner changed their email address.
Bundi Technologies Private Limited v.Chandrasinh Dhirubha Rathod
The plaintiff, Bundi Technologies Private Limited (owner of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY'), filed a suit against several defendants for illegal adoption and unauthorized use of its trademark. The defendants were allegedly manufacturing confectionery products under or with deceptive similarity to the 'SWIGGY' brand name to deceive the public.
Omved Lifestyle Pvt Ltd. v.Sanjay Jain
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for rectification, ordering the removal of the trademark 'OMVEDA' (Registration No. 1953655) from the Register. The petitioner, Omved Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., successfully argued that the impugned mark was dishonest and unfair, causing potential confusion with its own established marks ('OMVED'). The court found that allowing the registration would amount to passing off and deceive the public, thereby upholding the petitioner's claim as the exclusive owner of similar marks.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.Sanjay Rungta T/As M/S Bonsai Pharma
The Gujarat High Court directed the removal of the trademark 'TERCOREX' from the official registry website. The court noted that the trademark was likely to be removed due to non-filing of a renewal request within the prescribed time limit, citing precedents from other high courts. This order effectively cleared the mark from public record, allowing the petitioner liberty to file again should the mark eventually be renewed.
M/S Arm Limited v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Arm Limited, setting aside a previous refusal order that blocked the registration of their trademark 'AMBA'. The court accepted the reasoning from the dissolved IPAB and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 2) to proceed with the advertisement and registration process within four weeks. Furthermore, the Court highlighted systemic issues regarding the retention and authentication of records from defunct tribunals, mandating a status report on this matter.
Jack In The Box Inv. 9330 Balboa Ave. San Diego, CA v.Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for rectification, ordering the removal of the trademark 'Jack in the Box' registered by Marching Ants Hospitality Pvt Ltd. The petitioner, Jack In The Box, successfully argued that its mark is an earlier and well-established brand with significant international reputation. Furthermore, the court noted evidence suggesting non-use of the impugned mark by the respondent, leading to the removal order.
Bhabani Offset And Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd v.Bhabani Graphics (Press) and 3 Ors.
The Gauhati High Court heard an appeal filed by Bhabani Offset And Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd against Bhabani Graphics (Press) and others. The court admitted the appeal for hearing, directing the appellant to ensure proper service of notice on all respondents via registered post and other usual processes. The matter was subsequently listed after four weeks.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5945/DELNP/2009) by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs. The appeal challenged the ground that the applicant failed to file a rebuttal against non-patentability objections under Section 25(1)(f). The Court decided to issue notice to Respondent No. 2 before determining the matter.
Jrpl Riceland Llp v.Neeraj Mittal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Jrpl Riceland Llp against Neeraj Mittal & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting the identical use and color scheme (green and gold) of the 'Biryani King' trademark on both parties' rice products. This interim order restrains the defendants from using the disputed mark or any deceptively similar permutations until the final hearing, safeguarding the plaintiff against irreparable harm.
Abhinav Immigration Services Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'VISA EXPERTS - PARTNERING LIFE CHANGING DECISIONS' for visa and immigration consultancy services. The court ruled that the composite nature of the mark prevents it from being deemed merely descriptive under Section 9(1)(b). Furthermore, addressing the likelihood of confusion (Section 11(1)), the Court noted an agreement with the conflicting trademark owner to proceed provided a disclaimer of the word 'VISA' is included. Consequently, the application was directed to be advertised for registration.
University Health Network v.Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited
University Health Network filed a Writ Petition challenging the grant of Patent No.439474 to Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step. The appeal before the Madras High Court focused on whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the patent application originated in Delhi.
Biofarma v.Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Biofarma seeking the removal of a registered trademark (No. 3599190) held by Imedrix Systems Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default.
Tirupati Foam Limited v.Shri Vignesware Fibres Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark rectification petition filed by Tirupati Foam Limited against the entry 'SLEEP LIKE A DREAM' (No.2064365) in Class 20. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Original Petition for default. This highlights the importance of diligent representation in trademark litigation.
Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. v.M/S Vans Inc Usa
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. challenging an interim order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the word mark 'IVANS'. The court noted that the petitioners had previously withdrawn their challenge to the same interim order, and therefore, any substantive arguments should be reserved for the final hearing of the underlying cancellation petition. This decision reinforces the principle that challenges to IP decisions must be pursued through appropriate procedural channels.
Dhama Innovations Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Dhama Innovations Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No. 628/CHE/2012, which related to a heat dissipation device. The appellant argued that the Controller erred by dissecting the combination into individual components for obviousness testing and failing to address their submissions on inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the dissection impermissible in law.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) v.Girdhar Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the Khadi And Village Industries Commission (KVIC) seeking an interim injunction against Girdhar Industries regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off. Despite KVIC asserting immense goodwill associated with its 'KHADI' mark, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favor granting a restraining order at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, though the defendants were mandated to maintain and periodically file detailed accounts of their product sales.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited
The suit alleged infringement of several patents held by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiffs contended that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories was manufacturing and exporting Olaparib API, violating their patent rights. The court decreed the suit, permanently restraining the Defendant from commercially launching the product before the patent expiry date, subject to Section 107A provisions.
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.