India Patent Cases
4,909 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 164 · 4,909 total
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya & Anr.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the Single Judge's order in a Letters Patent Appeal, which had directed the Corporation to incorporate yearly increments earned during the probation period and re-fix the pension of respondent Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya, a former Staff Nurse promoted to Assistant Nursing Tutor. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the pay-protection granted under Condition No.6 of the appointment order covered both salary and benefits, and the Corporation could not subsequently modify these terms to the detriment of the employee at the time of confirmation.
Roja v.Elumalai
This case involved a petition filed by Roja seeking custody of her minor son Yashwin (aged about 6 years) from the respondent Elumalai, filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition, making an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The Madras High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected applications.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited v.Strava Healthcare Private Limited
The plaintiff, Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited, filed a Commercial IP Suit against Strava Healthcare Private Limited for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and damages. Both parties informed the court that they had settled the dispute and tendered Consent Terms signed by their respective directors and advocates. The Bombay High Court took the Consent Terms on record, accepted the statements therein as undertakings to the Court, and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms.
Dr. Badri Prasad and Others v.Furnace Fabrica (India) Limited and Anr.
This was a Leave Petition filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking permission to institute a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court against defendants, two of whom were outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The proposed suit sought a declaration that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st March 2014, along with its addenda dated 9th September 2014 and 9th November 2020, were valid, binding, subsisting, and enforceable with retrospective effect. The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and perusing the relevant paragraphs of the petition and plaint, granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) filed a Leave Petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking leave to institute a commercial suit against Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of amounts under an agreement dated 25th May 2018. The respondent, situated outside the Court's jurisdiction, was required to supply air-conditioned buses to the petitioner from Mumbai and across Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court granted leave, holding that although part of the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction, a material part arose within Mumbai, and the agreement itself stipulated that breaches would be tried by Courts in Mumbai.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
Ultratech Cement Ltd And Anr v.Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd
This is an interim order in a commercial IP suit filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd and another against Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement. The plaintiff's witness was examined, affidavit of evidence was recorded, and documentary evidence was marked as exhibits. Given that the suit was undefended, the Court Receiver was directed to destroy the seized goods, and the matter was adjourned for final hearing.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Patent No. IN235625 (3573/DELNP/2004) held by AstraZeneca AB. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to withdraw the petition in light of a settlement reached between the parties in a related suit, CS(COMM) 323/2020. Respondent No. 1 raised no objection to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the application and disposed of the revocation petition as withdrawn along with all pending applications.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
This is an order by the Delhi High Court framing issues in a patent infringement suit filed by Largan Precision Co. Ltd against Motorola Mobility India Limited and others concerning Indian Patent No. IN 395095. The defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent on multiple grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court framed eight issues covering infringement, revocation grounds, non-working of the patent, and reliefs, and appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence with a timeline for completion of trial within one year.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear or file any reply, leading the Court to treat the Plaintiff's contentions as uncontroverted. The Bombay High Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, including the appointment of a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear before the Bombay High Court. The Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, appointing a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to search, seize, and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trademark at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The plaintiff, John Cockerill Hamon SA, filed a suit for infringement and passing off of its registered 'HAMON' trademarks against Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited, which was using 'HAMON COOLING' and 'HCS HAMON COOLING' as marks and as part of its corporate name. The plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the HAMON mark. The Bombay High Court allowed the interim application, holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the defendants were derivative users whose authority to use the marks had expired, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored the plaintiff.
Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v.Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.
This is an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed by Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited against the refusal of its application to register the word mark 'ANAAR' in Class 25. The Registrar had rejected the application outright without advertisement, citing similarity with an earlier registered mark under Section 11(1). The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to cause the application to be advertised under the proviso to Section 20(1), enabling consideration of any objections from third parties.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
This case involves Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Petitioner) challenging the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' (Registration No. 2473300 in Class 5) registered in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark registration. The court directed that the Commercial Miscellaneous Petition be tagged with the connected Commercial IP Suit and listed for directions on July 15, 2026.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
This case involves a patent infringement suit filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc. and its parent company against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and related entities, which manufacture smartphones under the ITEL, INFINIX, and TECNO brands. The plaintiffs, holders of standard essential patents (SEPs) for 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies committed to ETSI on FRAND terms, sought pro tem security payment under Section 151 of the CPC. The Delhi High Court, finding that the technologies were deeply interconnected and that the gap between the parties' licensing offers was wide, directed the defendants to deposit one-fifth of the amount based on the defendants' own counter offer, or alternatively furnish an unconditional bank guarantee.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd seeking rectification of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered in favor of Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court held that the mark 'D-TAN' is descriptive and not registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration of the mark 'D-TAN' was cancelled, and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the registration from the Register of Trade Marks.
Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenged an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which allowed the rectification applicant to file an evidence affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 despite a delay of over three years. The core legal issue was whether the deadline stipulated in Rule 45 for filing an evidence affidavit is mandatory or directory. The Bombay High Court held that the deadline is directory and not mandatory, disagreeing with the Delhi High Court's decisions in Sun Pharma and Mahesh Gupta, and instead endorsing the view expressed by the IPAB in Sahil Kohli. The petition was dismissed and the Impugned Order was upheld, with no costs awarded.
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Integrace Private Limited sued Mas Pharmachem for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant's mark 'BON K2 FORTE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'BON-K2', both used for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants failed to appear or file a written statement, and the suit proceeded as an undefended suit. The Bombay High Court found the defendants had adopted the impugned mark in a dishonest and mala fide manner to ride upon the plaintiff's goodwill, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with injunctive relief and costs, though damages were denied for lack of evidence.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd for infringement of its ZEST family of trademarks. The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. The plaintiff had made significant investments in advertising its products under the ZEST trademarks and had generated considerable income. The defendant's use of the CELSIUSDIZEST mark was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v.Ms. Rupali Sharma & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' granted in favour of Ms. Rupali Sharma. The court held that the term 'GLASS SKIN' is generic and descriptive of the goods, and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any party. The respondent had filed a trademark application for the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in Class-03 on a 'proposed to be used basis' and was granted a registration certificate, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against the defendants for infringing the plaintiff's trademarks, copyrights, and artistic works. The court also exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation and effecting advance service. The defendants were directed to block and suspend the impugned website and preserve domain registration records.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Amber Nutrition Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'AMBER KREAM TOFFEE' or any other similar mark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing their sales and to provide an account of profits.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr v.Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Liv-22' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's use of the mark 'Liv-22' was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Fortune Marketing Private Limited v.Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
The Delhi High Court revoked the impugned copyright registration of the artistic work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK in favor of Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. due to procedural flaws. The court found that the grant of copyright registration was procedurally flawed and deserved to be revoked. The original application filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent No.2. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
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.