India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 84 of 161 · 4,815 total
Pepsico Inc. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Pepsico Inc., granting an absolute ad interim injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited. The court found that the unauthorized use of 'MIRINDA' and its Hindi transliteration by the defendant, particularly in connection with country-made liquor, constituted trademark infringement and dilution. This decision underscores the strong protection afforded to well-known marks under Indian IP law, even when goods or trade channels differ.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Mohd Rafique Alam
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mohd Rafique Alam and others for illegal use, passing off, and infringement of its trademarks (LEVI'S) and associated designs. The plaintiff asserted that LEVI'S is a globally recognized and well-known trademark in the apparel industry. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting permanent injunctions and awarding nominal damages.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp v.Solitaire Pharmacia Private Limited
The dispute was settled with the acknowledgment of the plaintiff's rights to use the patent related to Sitagliptin. The defendant confirmed they did not engage in any activities constituting infringement during the patent's validity.
Rosemount Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Rosemount Inc appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding its application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement.' The Controller had rejected the patent citing lack of inventive steps based on prior art. However, the Delhi High Court found that the Controller's impugned order was cryptic and failed to provide adequate reasoning or analyze the three essential elements required to determine inventive step. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration with a mandate for a reasoned decision.
Vexim v.The Controller Of Patents
Vexim appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent application, 'Methods and Apparatuses for Bone Restoration,' which was initially denied due to lack of inventive step. The core issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Patent Office had provided adequate reasoning for this refusal. The court found that the impugned order was cryptic, failing to analyze existing knowledge against the subject invention as required by law. Consequently, the rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Patent Office for a fresh, reasoned consideration.
Grupo Petrotemex S.A. De C.V. v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application (No. 965/DELNP/2006). The rejection was based on a lack of inventive step, even though the initial objection raised by the Patent Office related only to novelty. The High Court found that the impugned order went beyond the scope of the original objection and allowed the appeal.
Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'KHANSI NIVAARAN' (Registration No. 1740206). The court found that the cancellation was mandated by a prior compromise order reached between the parties in C.S.No.644/2011. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to take all necessary steps to expunge the mark from the register.
A.D.Padmasingh Issac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.Hariharan (Trading as Sruthi's Masala) & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by A.D. Padmasingh Issac seeking the removal or rectification of Trademark No. 1759431 from the Register of Trademarks. The court noted that, subsequent to filing the suit, the trademark in question had already been removed from the register. Since the relief sought was no longer necessary due to this prior action, the petition was declared infructuous.
M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. v.Union Of India
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S. Liladhar Indarji And Co. challenging the rejection of its trademark renewal applications (No. 1502218 and 1502220). Instead of ruling on the merits of the initial rejection, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application for renewal. The respondent authority agreed that if the petitioner submits a new request with all prescribed fees, it will be considered within four weeks.
Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited v.Dr.Isaac Mathai; Soukya Indian Holistic Centre Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trademarks
In a matter concerning the removal and rectification of trademarks, Sowkhya Way2 Health Private Limited filed two petitions against Dr. Isaac Mathai and others. However, citing a prior memorandum of compromise between the parties, the petitioner subsequently withdrew both petitions. The Madras High Court accepted the withdrawal, dismissing the cases without making any ruling on the merits or costs.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Millennium Pharmaceuticals appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 9677/DELNP/2011), which had been rejected under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to reconsider only the objection raised under Section 3(e).
Rallifan Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
Rallifan Ltd. filed a petition seeking the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 1213190) from the register. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Rajesh Kumar Naredi Trading as Visesh Appliances v.Rallifan Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Naredi against Rallifan Limited concerning the rectification of Trademark No. 306508 in Class 11. The dismissal occurred because both parties had reached a settlement agreement, which was formally recorded by the court. This outcome highlights how out-of-court settlements can resolve complex intellectual property disputes efficiently.
Russell E. Freebury v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Russell E. Freebury against the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of their trademark 'ZINKA'. The court noted that the goods covered by the appellant were distinct from those cited in opposition, and considering the long-standing use of the mark, it set aside the refusal order. Consequently, the application was allowed to proceed with a modified device mark, directing the Registry to process its registration.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v.Aurobindo Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 216665 against Aurobindo Pharma Limited and the Controller of Patents. The court noted that the patent's term had expired on June 24, 2014, rendering the matter infructuous.
Google Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for capturing panoramic images. The core contention was that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims under Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, leading to an unsustainable rejection order.
Mrs X v.Union Of India And Ors
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a writ petition filed by 'Mrs. X' seeking the removal of her non-consensual intimate images (NCII) from various online platforms. The case details how Mrs. X was victimized after being coerced into paying money, leading to the leakage of explicit photos and videos on pornographic websites. Despite complaints to social media giants like Google and Microsoft, the content remained online. The Court emphasized the need for robust mechanisms to protect victims' privacy and dignity in a patriarchal society. While acknowledging existing legal frameworks under the IT Act, the judgment highlighted the reluctance of intermediaries in implementing these laws effectively. The court issued directions urging all concerned entities to comply with the stipulated provisions.
M/s Vets Farma Ltd. v.Vest Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the review application filed by M/s Vets Farma Ltd. The court clarified that while statutory provisions may restrict registration until a competent court determines rights, this does not bar the Civil Court from admitting assignment deeds into evidence to examine their validity and enforceability during litigation. The judgment underscores the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts in resolving complex trademark disputes involving assignments.
Agensys Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Asnd Designs
Agensys Inc appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected its application under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that their monoclonal antibody invention demonstrated a technical effect (improved affinity/cross-reactivity) not considered by the Controller, thus warranting the setting aside of the impugned order.
Sugen, Inc. v.Mr. K Vijaya Prakash
Sugen, Inc. filed applications alleging that Mr. K Vijaya Prakash and associated defendants willfully violated an injunction order passed by the Delhi High Court in 2016. The original suit concerned the infringement of three patents covering the drug Crizotinib (marketed as Xalkori®). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including photographs and investigator reports, suggesting the manufacturing and sale of the generic product 'CRIZO SPL™' after the injunction was issued. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had control over the infringing entities, leading to a finding of wilful contempt against him.
Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System v.Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited
This commercial appeal challenged an interim order that restrained Tri-Parulex (appellant) from infringing the Plaintiff's Patent No. 202302, which relates to a fire protection system for electrical transformers. The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, finding no prima facie case of infringement and noting that the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the appellant.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged the position taken by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court found the affidavit filed by the Respondent to be inadequate in reasoning regarding Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the court directed the Controller General to ensure specialized Controllers assist the court on the next hearing date.
Ankit Aggarwal Proprietor Of M/S Vepson Engineers v.Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed petitions filed by Ankit Aggarwal to cancel two trademark registrations held by Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the respondent's marks were confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'JAI KISAN,' used since 1985 in agricultural implements. Furthermore, the respondent failed to demonstrate genuine use of their registered marks for a continuous period of five years, leading the court to remove them from the Register under Section 47 of the Trade Mark Act.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v.Parulben Navnath Chothani Trading As Shiv Enterprise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court recorded a settlement between the Plaintiff, Sirona Hygiene Private Limited, and Defendant No. 1 in a trademark infringement suit concerning its 'SIRONA' brand. The settlement acknowledged Sirona's rights in both its registered mark and product packaging copyright. As part of the agreement, the infringing party agreed to cease using similar marks like 'SIROMA' and paid Rs. 65,000/-. Consequently, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1, who was then deleted from the array of parties.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the term of the patent had already expired on June 4, 2021.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 205706 held by Mylan Laboratories Limited and the Controller of Patents. However, the court noted that the term of Patent No. 205706 had already expired on June 4, 2021.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v.Novartis AG
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 212815 titled “N-substituted 2-cyanopyrrolidines” under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous after noting that the patent term had already expired and the petitioner had previously requested withdrawal.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Natco Pharma Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 252762. The court noted that the term of this patent had already expired on February 3, 2014.
Abs Global, Inc. v.Cytonome/ST, LLC
Abs Global, Inc. filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 240790 granted to Cytonome/ST, LLC. However, the court noted that leave had been granted in another proceeding for the petitioner (and defendants) to withdraw the revocation proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the current petition as withdrawn.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v.Matrix Laboratories Limited
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 224634, which was granted to Matrix Laboratories Limited. The court noted that the term of Patent No. 224634 had expired on the date of the judgment.
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.