India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 72 of 161 · 4,815 total
Ganesh Grains Limited v.K.R.Nagendra And K.N.Shoba; The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ganesh Grains Limited filed two Original Petitions before the Madras High Court seeking the cancellation and expungement of specific registered trade marks (No. 460314 and No. 2000889). The petitions aimed to challenge the validity or registration of these marks. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed her counsel to withdraw both Original Petitions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the proceedings as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Shah Mayankkumar Bharatkumar v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed a revisional application before the Calcutta High Court, aggrieved by the excessive delay in disposing of an opposition filed by opposite party no. 2 against their Registered Design (No. 304927). The court disposed of the application by directing the Controller of Patents and Designs to conclude the pending opposition proceedings within two months.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited
Kubota Corporation filed a suit for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court against Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited. The dispute centers on Kubota's 'HARVES KING' combined harvester, which the Plaintiff claims is infringed by the Defendants' product, 'Ruilong Plus ++'.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V. Mahendran
This case involved a dispute over trademark and copyright infringement concerning 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' used on rice products. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and artistic works. However, despite multiple opportunities and court directions to file necessary affidavits and proceed with evidence, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the case management schedule. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit for default.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action regarding a patent titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency', which relates to methods and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
Novozymes v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Novozymes appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs to grant a patent for its phytase variants. The rejection was based on Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection concerning claims 1-7, allowing the application to proceed towards grant.
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Tri Parulex Fire Protection System & Ors.
The Plaintiff filed an interim application seeking an injunction against the Defendants for allegedly infringing Patent No.202302, which covers a specific operational sequence involving differential relay, Buchholz relay, and circuit breaker in fire prevention systems (NIFPS). The court accepted an undertaking from the Defendants not to use this specific patented sequence but directed both parties to file affidavits addressing the technical scope of the patent.
FC Madras Trust v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by FC Madras Trust against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the trademark 'FC MADRAS'. The initial objection was based on Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, claiming the mark was a common geographical name and lacked distinctive character. The court ruled that when viewed as a whole, the mark is not descriptive of the goods (printed publications), especially given its prior successful registration in other classes. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for advertisement.
Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Nutri Feeds And Farms Private Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register their device mark. The court found that when viewed as a whole—including the rooster image, stylized font, and corporate name—the mark was distinctive and did not fall under absolute grounds for refusal. Crucially, the prior registration of an identical mark in a related class bolstered the appellant's case, leading the court to set aside the objection and allow the application to proceed to registration.
Rana Steels v.Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications filed by Rana Steels concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademark RANA. The core dispute revolved around the defendant's continued use of similar marks (RANATOR/RAN INDIA) in relation to steel products, despite existing injunction orders. Recognizing the need for factual verification regarding ongoing usage and the disposal of old stock, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and examine account books.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947029757) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the objections raised in the Second Examination Report were effectively addressed through amendments, and the rejection was based on procedural grounds rather than merits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural failures and misinterpretations, despite having addressed substantive objections raised in the Second Examination Report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company v.S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company
This case involved Dhanavilas Madras Snuff Company suing S.Kumaradhas Snuff Company for trademark and copyright infringement, along with passing off, concerning their snuff products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of similar marks and designs, as well as recovery of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement on August 7, 2023, which was subsequently formalized by the Madras High Court.
Astrazeneca Ab v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca filed a suit for infringement against USV Private Limited regarding the pharmaceutical preparations covered by three patents, including those for 'TICAGRELOR'. The parties subsequently resolved their disputes amicably and filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC to record the settlement.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Vifor International Ltd. v.Biological E Limited
Vifor International Ltd., the patentee, filed a suit against Biological E Limited regarding alleged infringement of its patent (IN 221536) covering water-soluble iron carbohydrate complexes. The dispute centers on the use and manufacture of FCM for intravenous iron deficiency therapy. Given the impending expiry of the patent tenure in October 2023, the court issued interim directions. These directions mandate that the defendants maintain detailed accounts of their manufacturing and sales of FCM until the patent expires, while simultaneously prohibiting them from using the specific process claimed by Vifor.
Titan Company Ltd. v.Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Titan Company Ltd. against Titan Plast Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the trade mark in question, No. 925369 (Class 20), had not been renewed since May 17, 2010. Since the long stop date for renewal had expired, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed without further order.
Laticrete International, Inc. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in suits related to the patent IN 221536. The court vacated previous status quo orders following a Coordinate Bench's dismissal of injunction applications, but imposed conditions that defendants must not follow the patented process and must maintain complete sales accounts.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs sought interim directions based on a prior Division Bench order. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications concerning patent IN 221536. Consequently, the status quo orders previously passed were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The court addressed several interim applications filed by Vifor (International) Ltd. in various suits, primarily concerning the patent IN 221536 related to Water Soluble Iron Carbohydrate Complex. Following a prior judgment by a Coordinate Bench dismissing plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, the status quo orders were vacated, subject to conditions preventing defendants from following the patented process.
Vifor (International) Ltd. v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
This order addresses various applications seeking interim directions in multiple commercial suits related to Patent IN 221536. The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had dismissed the plaintiffs' interim injunction applications, leading to the vacation of previous status quo orders. The court declined to grant an immediate direction for deposit of entire sales amount but directed defendants to maintain and file complete accounts of sales.
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
Honasa Consumer Ltd filed a petition seeking cancellation of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered by Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The dispute arose after Honasa received a cease and desist notice from Visage claiming rights over the mark, which overlaps with Honasa's use of 'DETAN' in conjunction with its brand 'AQUALOGICA'. The Delhi High Court allowed procedural applications regarding document filing and issued notice to the Respondent for the stay application, setting future dates for hearing.
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited v.Kuldeep Sharma
Lottoland Holdings Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Kuldeep Sharma for using the 'LOTTOLAND' trademark and associated device. The Plaintiff, a global leader in online lottery and betting services, alleged that the Defendant's application was a dishonest attempt to appropriate its globally recognized mark. The Delhi High Court granted an interim status quo order, preventing the Defendant from launching any business under the disputed mark until further proceedings.
Raytheon Company v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Raytheon Company appealed the refusal of its patent application, 'Scheduling in a High-Performance Computing System,' which was rejected by the Controller under Section 15 for lack of inventive step and non-patentability (Section 3(k)). The core argument centered on the Controller incorrectly applying outdated Computer Related Invention Guidelines. Raytheon contended that their invention provided a technical solution to HPC scalability issues, specifically reducing job scheduling time. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the refusal order and directing a fresh examination without mandating novel hardware.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc v.Sanjeev Gupta & Ors
The commercial suit for patent infringement (CS(COMM) 823/2018) between Merck Sharp & Dohme Llc and Sanjeev Gupta & Ors was settled. The parties agreed that the suit would be decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs, acknowledging the validity of Patent IN'816 and the Defendants' infringing activities.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.
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.