India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 80 of 161 · 4,815 total
Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v.R.Neelakanteswara Rao
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by Essar Water Proofing Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought the rectification of registered trademark No. 943699 in Class 1. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the case on instructions from their counsel, leading to the dismissal of the petition without any order as to costs.
Jindal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prawesh Agencies Through Its Partners Vikash Singh Ravindra Kumar Singh
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit where the defendant claimed a co-branding arrangement with an affiliate of the plaintiff's group. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose this vital co-branding agreement in their plaint, despite being required to attest to full disclosure under the Commercial Courts Act. Consequently, the court noted the breach of procedural rules and directed the plaintiff to place the relevant agreement on record before further proceedings.
Trademark Address v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed writ petitions challenging procedural delays in a trademark opposition case. While the petitioner initially sought to overturn an order rejecting an extension for evidence, the court noted that subsequent events had rendered the original petitions infructuous. Since the petitioner subsequently filed a rectification petition against the registered mark, the court disposed of the initial writs but directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expeditiously consider and decide the pending rectification application.
Pfizer Health AB v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
Pfizer Health AB filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order passed by The Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the relevant Patent No. 229260 had expired in November 2019, rendering the matter infructuous.
Bayer Schering Pharma AG v.M/s.Cipla Ltd.
Bayer Schering Pharma AG filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier patent office order. The appellant argued that the relevant patent term had expired in August 2020, rendering the matter infructuous.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit related to Nokia's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Nokia argued that infringement was prima facie established, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd v.Symed Labs Limited
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN213062 held by Symed Labs Limited before the Madras High Court. However, the petitioner subsequently moved a memo to withdraw the petition.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit. Nokia claimed infringement based on its extensive portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used by Oppo in smartphones. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, finding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and directing Oppo to deposit the last paid amount attributable to India.
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd v.Symed Labs Limited
Centaurus Pharma Pvt. Ltd filed an Original Petition seeking the records and proceedings related to Patent No. IN213063 held by Symed Labs Limited, with the intent to revoke and set aside the patent. However, the petitioner subsequently filed a memo requesting permission to withdraw the petition.
Jayson Industries And Anr. v.Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Jayson Industries filed a suit alleging that Crown Craft was pirating their registered designs for household items like buckets, mugs, and tubs. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's products were fraudulent imitations of the plaintiffs' unique shapes and surface patterns. However, the court found credible prior art, including various published designs from 2019, which challenged the novelty and originality of the suit designs. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an interlocutory injunction, vacating the earlier restraining order.
Microsoft Corporation v.Zoai Founder
Microsoft Corporation challenged an arbitral award rendered under the INDRP concerning the domain name zoai.in, which had denied Microsoft's claim for transfer. The petitioner argued that the arbitrator was biased and that the decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness due to independent research conducted without providing materials to Microsoft. The Delhi High Court agreed with the petitioner on both grounds of bias and natural justice violation.
Resintech Inc v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark application dispute, setting aside the Senior Examiner's refusal based on the mark being descriptive. The Petitioner argued that the Examiner failed to consider prior submissions regarding the distinctiveness of 'RESINTECH,' including its use by the applicant globally and its combination nature. Consequently, the court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, ensuring all petitioner arguments are reviewed before a final decision is made.
Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co. v.Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sachin Gupta Trading As Gcmc Masala Co. against an interim injunction granted to Kbm Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that there was a high likelihood of confusion between the two parties' spice labels, particularly due to the use of similar marks and 'COW' devices. Despite the appellant's claims regarding prior use and copyright protection for their artwork, the court upheld the original order, finding that Kbm Foods had established a strong prima facie case for passing off.
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v.United Spirits Limited; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'Royal Challenge American Pride.' The petition, which sought rectification of Trademark Registration No. 4300764 in classes 32 and 33, was rendered infructuous because the registration had already been suspended prior to the court's decision.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors.
This Delhi High Court judgment confirms a comprehensive settlement between Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) and Avighna Medicare Private Limited & Ors. (Defendants). The parties resolved their trademark infringement dispute regarding the brands 'DOSELA' and 'ATENTRUE' versus 'DUZELA' and 'ATTENTROL'. Under the agreement, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks, destroy existing stock within specified timelines, and waive its own pending trademark applications for those names. The suit was subsequently disposed of based on these mutual undertakings.
Adidas AG v.Muthu and The Registrar of Trademarks
Adidas AG filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of the trademark registration 'ADIMAS' held by Muthu. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the dispute, both parties reached an out-of-court settlement agreement dated May 30, 2016. Consequently, Adidas sought leave to withdraw its petition, and the Madras High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.
Comite International Olympique v.S.Kasthuri
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by Comite International Olympique seeking rectification and cancellation of Trademark No. 1108146 in Class 12. The dismissal was based on the fact that the trademark had already expired, having been valid only up to May 30, 2023. The court granted the petitioner leave to re-apply should the mark be restored, allowing them to pursue their claim later.
Kilitch Drugs (India) Limited v.Zee Laboratories Limited
The Plaintiff, Kilitch Drugs, sought an interim injunction and relief for passing off against the Defendant, Zee Laboratories. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks (KILITCH and KILITCH SRO) in pharmaceutical preparations by the use of the impugned mark KILITH/KILITH SRO.
Also at v.Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and delivery up of stocks against Morepen Laboratories Ltd. for alleged infringement of three registered patents related to SAROGLITAZAR free acid and its magnesium salt. The dispute was subsequently settled out of court through a Joint Compromise Memo, which the Court recorded.
Raghu Ram Guda v.Kithuru Mohideen
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Raghu Ram Guda against Kithuru Mohideen and the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought to cancel Trademark No. 3952456 in Class 2. However, the court noted that the petitioner had subsequently been brought on record as the proprietor of the trademark, rendering the original petition unnecessary and moot.
M/S.J.S.F.Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v.Ms.Revathi Mohandass
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition (Trademarks) filed by M/S.J.S.F.Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought the removal and rectification of Trademark No. 3712623 in Class 30. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that a compromise had been reached in an earlier infringement action, leading to the withdrawal of the current petition. This outcome highlights how prior litigation settlements can directly impact ongoing IP remedies.
Rasila Jain v.Sh.J.Pradeep
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Rasila Jain seeking to remove or rectify the trademark entry 'TULASI LABEL' (No. 1783252). The court noted that documentation presented indicated the trademark was valid only until February 10, 2019. Consequently, since the mark had expired, no further adjudication was required, and the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Cadbury India Limited v.Gomathi Suresh
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Cadbury India Limited seeking to expunge Trademark No. 1050347 from the register. The court noted that the primary respondent, Gomathi Suresh, submitted that the trademark in question had already expired on October 8, 2021. Consequently, since the mark was no longer active, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without further adjudication.
M/S.Resq Technologies Private Limited v.Rajdeep Energies Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/S.Resq Technologies Private Limited against Rajdeep Energies Private Limited and the Registrar of Trademarks. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of the trade mark 'RESQ' (Device Mark) registered under Trade Mark Registration No. 1779942 in Class 09, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal followed a settlement reached between the parties involved.
Kiri Industries Limited v.Huntsman Advanced Material (Switzerland) GMBH, The Controller of Patents, The Controller of Patents & Design
Kiri Industries Limited filed an Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 216182, granted to Huntsman Advanced Material for 'AN AZO DYE'. The petitioner subsequently informed the court that it was withdrawing the rectification petition.
Chivas Holdings (Ip) Limited v.Mcdowell And Company Limited
The Madras High Court allowed Chivas Holdings' petition seeking the removal and rectification of a conflicting trademark registration, 'Tribute,' in Class 33. The court noted that Respondent No. 2 (United Spirits Limited) had filed an application for cancellation of this specific mark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register by removing Trademark Registration No. 636945 from the records.
T.G.Arumugam v.T.G.Harigopal
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking rectification of the trademark 'UMBRELLA BAND' registration. The court noted that the dispute had been resolved through a joint memorandum of compromise, which was subsequently decreed by a lower court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Trademark Registry to allow applications filed under Form TM-P and Form TM-M, thereby officially recording the petitioner as a joint proprietor alongside the respondent. Furthermore, the registry was mandated to implement the agreed geographical division of territory.
Solera Holdings, Inc. v.Solera Networks Inc.
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Solera Holdings, Inc. seeking the cancellation of Trademark No. 1795016 registered in the name of Solera Networks Inc. The court noted that the trademark registration had already expired on March 13, 2019. Consequently, since the mark was no longer valid, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed without any order regarding costs.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236791 from the patent register. However, the petitioner subsequently instructed their counsel to withdraw the petition.
N.Mariappan v.S.A.Safiullah and Co.
N.Mariappan filed an appeal seeking revocation of Patent No.198079, arguing that the invention lacked inventive step and was not patentable. The first respondent submitted that the relevant patent had already expired on August 28, 2020.
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.