India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 69 of 161 · 4,815 total
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Rudra Marketing
Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rudra Marketing and others for infringing its trademarks ('GLEN') and passing off its products. The plaintiff alleged that defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'GLEE' on home appliances, confusing consumers.
Sabhyasachi Gorai v.Aveenshi International Private Limited Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application to modify a prior decree based on an amended settlement agreement. The core of the dispute involved the transfer of two key trademarks, LAVAASH and LAVAASH BY SABY, from Aveenshi International Private Limited to Sabhyasachi Gorai. The court formally accepted the terms of the new agreement, which finalized the assignment of the brands and stipulated mutual non-infringement and cooperation for registration.
M/s.Moti And Company v.M/s.B.Braun Melsungen AG
M/s. Moti And Company filed a petition seeking to revoke or invalidate Patent No. 221306 held by M/s. B.Braun Melsungen AG. The petitioner later submitted that the patent had already expired on July 13, 2021.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 363203, which pertains to a 'Light Blocking Sheet, Imaging Lens Module and Electronic Apparatus'.
Nripendra Kashyap v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nripendra Kashyap filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an earlier order by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, the appellant subsequently instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal.
M/s.Moti And Company v.M/s.B.Braun Melsungen AG
M/s. Moti And Company filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking the revocation or invalidation of Patent No. 221306 held by M/s. B.Braun Melsungen AG. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the patent had already expired on July 13, 2021.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Kba Notasys Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for printing currency notes. The core dispute revolved around whether the prior art documents cited in the International Search Report (ISR) could be considered grounds for rejection during the appeal process. The court acknowledged the relevance of the ISR citations but directed the Respondent No. 2 to file written submissions on this specific point.
Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v.Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh And Anr.
In a dispute over trademark rights, Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. sought to cancel registrations held by Mr. Vijay Keshav Wagh concerning the 'TIGER' device logo. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the near identity between the marks used by both parties and issued an interim order. The court directed that status quo be maintained regarding the registration, preventing any transfer or assignment of the disputed trademarks until further hearing.
DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application for 'Ethylene-based polymers' on the ground of lack of inventive step, citing prior art documents D4 and D5. The court set aside the impugned order, holding that the arguments regarding non-obviousness were not properly engaged by the respondent. Consequently, the matter was remanded to allow reconsideration while taking into account the passage of time and foreign patent grants.
New York University v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
New York University appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 9210/CHENP/2011) for an invention related to targeting pathological tau proteins. The High Court found that the rejection lacked cogent reasons, particularly regarding amendments and inventive step, and consequently set aside the impugned order.
Nripendra Kashyap Constituted Attorney of Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller of patents and Designs Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032
The appellant, representing Huawei Device Co., Ltd., filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging an order granting a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 9270/CHEN/2013. The learned counsel for the appellant subsequently instructed to withdraw the appeal.
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v.Puma Stationery Ltd. and Anr.
Hindustan Pencils Ltd. successfully secured a decree in its trademark infringement suit against Puma Stationery Ltd. and A.W. Faber-Castell (India) Ltd. The judgment was based on an amicable settlement where the defendant, A.W. Faber-Castell, formally acknowledged Hindustan Pencils' ownership of the trademarks 'PLASTO' and 'NON-DUST'. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using these marks in stationery products and withdraw pending opposition and rectification proceedings against the plaintiff’s rights.
Fullstack Education Pvt Ltd v.Institut Europeen D Administration Des Affaires (INSEAD) Association & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, overturned an earlier single judge's decision that had sought to strike off the mark 'INSAID' from the register. The appellate bench held that while phonetic similarity and likelihood of confusion were noted, the original judgment relied too heavily on 'prima facie' findings regarding honest use and adoption. The court emphasized that rectification under Section 57 requires a definitive and conclusive determination, not merely preliminary impressions.
Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed two appeals filed by Sachdeva And Sons Industries Private Limited challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to allow TM-16 applications. These applications permitted the substitution of the trademark applicant's name in pending opposition proceedings, citing that allowing the change would not prejudice the opponents' rights. The court noted the Appellant's lack of appearance and concluded that since the impugned order only related to the name change and did not affect the merits of the final opposition, the appeals were dismissed.
Strix Ltd v.Maharaja Appliances Limited
Strix Ltd filed a suit against Maharaja Appliances Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 192511/95) related to thermally sensitive overheat controls used in liquid heating vessels, specifically electric kettles. The defendant counter-claimed challenging the validity of the patent. Although the life of the patent had expired by the time of final judgment, the court found infringement and decreed the suit for damages and costs.
M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. v.Divyam Gupta
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring M/S. Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. against Divyam Gupta, finding that the defendant was attempting to ride on the plaintiff's established trademark rights. The court recognized the substantial use and reputation of the 'CP CENTURY' mark in kitchen hardware products. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using deceptively similar marks like 'CENTUARY PLUS/ACE CENTUARY PLUS' until the final hearing of the suit.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies(India) Limited
The court heard an application filed by the defendant (Intex) seeking modification of existing interim royalty rates. The court dismissed this application, noting that the defendant was straining to avoid complying with prior directions for royalty payments. Separately, the court disposed of an application concerning the reconstitution of a confidentiality club.
Lombard Brands Ltd. v.United Spirits Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Lombard Brands Ltd against United Spirits Limited regarding the trade mark 'STORM'. The court found that the registration for STORM in Class 33 was liable to be cancelled because the first respondent failed to demonstrate continuous use of the mark for at least five years, as required under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the impugned trade mark from the register.
Ind Swift Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
In this trademark opposition matter, Ind Swift Limited sought an exemption from strict procedural requirements regarding document submission. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, permitting the Appellant to produce original documents later as required by law. The court also noted that the appellant's mark 'AMYCLOX' is opposed by Cedar Properties and Trading LLP, directing necessary intimation to the opposing counsel before listing the matter for further proceedings.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Array Biopharma Inc filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No.450/DELNP/2015) by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs on June 30, 2023. The court issued notice and directed written submissions from the Respondent.
M/s.Ufo Moviez India Ltd. v.M/s Real Image Media Technologies Pvt.Ltd
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 202980. The court observed that the term of this patent had expired on October 18, 2022, rendering the petition infructuous.
The University of Houston v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The University of Houston filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and allow its patent application (No. 379/CHENP/2008) to proceed for grant. The petitioner subsequently endorsed that it did not intend to prosecute the appeal, leading the court to dismiss the petition.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Business Objects Software Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its patent application (No. 7583/CHENP/2011). The Appellant subsequently sought permission to withdraw this appeal to file it before the High Court of Madras. The court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn.
Shyam Enterprises Private Limited v.Hotel Amaravati
The Madras High Court partially decreed a suit filed by Shyam Enterprises Private Limited against Hotel Amaravati concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the plaintiff had successfully proven its claim regarding the use of the registered trademark AMARAVATHI in the hotel and hospitality sector. Consequently, the defendant was granted permanent injunctions restraining them from using the mark or suggesting a connection to the plaintiff's services. However, since the plaintiff did not press for claims related to damages or accounting of profits, those specific reliefs were dismissed.
M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons v.M/s.S.Jaffer Mohideen Alias Noushad
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons against the rejection of their opposition to a trademark application (No.676174). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of prior use of 'S', the respondent's mark, which prominently features 'FILTER BEEDI,' was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. However, the judgment imposed strict conditions on the respondent, requiring them to use their label in combination with two other specific labels and formally undertake not to use the 'SS' logo independently.
Shyam Sel And Power Limited v.Atibir Industries Company Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Shyam Sel And Power Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Atibir Industries Company Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'ISEL' on TMT bars constituted passing off, as it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'SEL'. Relying on the principles of trade law and the lack of defense from the respondent, the court expedited the judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Nalli Sambbasivam Trading as M/s.Nalli's Silks Sari Centre v.M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty & Ors.
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Nalli Sambbasivam against M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty regarding the trade mark 'Nalli'. The core issue was whether a rectification petition could proceed when an earlier infringement suit concerning the same marks was pending before the Bombay High Court. The court held that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, a party must first convince the civil court to frame a triable issue on the validity of the registration before seeking rectification.
Bidisha Ghoshal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Bidisha Ghoshal appealed the rejection of her trademark application '42 orchids' by The Registrar of Trade Marks, arguing that the Examiner's refusal was mechanical and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and devoid of substantive discussion regarding similarity or likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a fresh examination, ensuring due process.
Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh v.Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed three trademark rectification petitions filed by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland Gmbh against Ultrafilter (India) Private Limited. The original petitions, which sought to expunge specific trademarks from the register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, were withdrawn by the petitioner before a final ruling could be made. This outcome highlights that procedural decisions, such as withdrawal, can conclude IP litigation without substantive judgment on the merits.
University College London v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
University College London appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'COLONIC DRUG DELIVERY FORMULATION'. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to engage with the specific submissions made by the appellant.
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.