India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 85 of 161 · 4,815 total
Lupin Limited v.Dong-A ST Co., Ltd.
Lupin Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 236862 granted to Dong-A ST Co., Ltd. However, the petitioner subsequently informed the court that they would not prosecute the matter further due to the patent's term expiring shortly.
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v.Union Of India
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited challenged the constitutional validity of Section 37A of FEMA, arguing it violated fundamental rights. The dispute centered on royalty payments made by Xiaomi to foreign entities like Qualcomm for Standard Essential Patents used in its mobile phones.
M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius (substituted by MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Delhi
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by M And M Management Ltd., Mauritius, seeking substitution of its name with MHG IP Holding (Singapore) Pte Ltd. The change was necessitated by a Deed of Assignment executed for certain trademarks, including 'TIVOLI HOTELS & RESORTS'. The court permitted the substituted appellant to carry out proposed amendments in the appeal memo and set a deadline for filing the revised appeal.
RSPL LIMITED v.AGARWAL HOME PRODUCTS & ANR.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a trademark dispute where RSPL LIMITED alleges that Respondent No. 1's registration of the word mark 'AGRAGHADIYAL' is deceptively similar to its well-known trademarks, 'GHARI' and 'GHADI'. The petitioner has filed an opposition against related marks and sought injunctive relief. The court acknowledged the core issue—the similarity between the marks—and granted the petitioner time to present relevant case law before scheduling a re-notification.
Virendra Kumar Gupta v.Burger King Corporation
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Virendra Kumar Gupta against Burger King Corporation. The petitioner sought to cancel or impose a disclaimer on the 'Burger' and 'King' marks registered under No. 927122. The court relied on prior judgments, including one from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court ruling in Patel Field Marshal Agencies vs P.M. Diesels Ltd., concluding that the petition was not maintainable.
Delight Chemicals Private Limited v.Ganga Yallappa trading as Sarpa Paint
The Madras High Court dismissed several petitions filed by Delight Chemicals Private Limited seeking the removal or rectification of trademarks registered under Ganga Yallappa. The court noted that the petitioner had previously won a suit for infringement and passing off against the respondent in 2019. Crucially, the respondents submitted that the subject trademark had not been renewed since 2017. Based on this development, the High Court found that there was nothing left to adjudicate in the pending petitions, leading to their dismissal as infructuous.
Joseph Vogele AG v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court allowed Joseph Vogele AG's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal of their 'AutoSet Plus' trademark. The court recognized the mark's international presence, including EU CTM registrations, and noted that the appellant had obtained no objection letters from relevant foreign proprietors. Consequently, the impugned refusal order was set aside, allowing the application to proceed for registration, provided specific disclaimers were included regarding the word 'Plus'.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs Patent Office
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that its method claims were not patentable because they consisted of executable software instructions. The High Court set aside this refusal, citing judicial precedents, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Honeywell International Inc. v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Honeywell International Inc. appealed a rejection of its patent application for a low-cost programmable HVAC controller, which was denied under Section 3(k) (computer implementational invention exclusion). The Delhi High Court found that the original order lacked adequate reasoning and deliberation from the Joint Controller, merely concurring with the Examiner's finding without providing sufficient justification. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Respondent to take into account relevant judicial precedents.
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd v.Schering Corporation
Bioviz Technologies Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 207233 held by Schering Corporation. The court noted that the term of the patent had already expired on March 24, 2019.
Mr.K.Mangudithangaraj (Trading as Poonam Enterprises) v.Mrs. Thirumalsamy Shanthi & Mr. Karnan
This civil suit was filed by Mr. K. Mangudithangaraj, trading as Poonam Enterprises, against Mrs. Thirumalsamy Shanthi and Mr. Karnan for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the registered mark 'POONAM'. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages due to the defendants' use of the similar mark 'PUNITHAM'. However, despite multiple opportunities, the plaintiff failed to appear before the court on the date of judgment.
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its patent application (No. 6168/DELNP/2013) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Controller for fresh consideration.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appeal concerns the patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). The court heard arguments regarding the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit on whether the subject patent makes a technical contribution or effect.
Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd v.Shree Ram Plastic Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application filed by Kalsi Metal Works Pvt Ltd and Respondent No. 1, leading to the cancellation of the impugned trademark registration (No. 2262092) in Class 17. This decision was reached following a compromise between the parties involved in the dispute. The court disposed of the appeal based on these mutual settlement terms.
M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Mark & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a contempt case involving M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. against the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning two specific trademark registrations. The court noted that one mark (No. 1800087) had been removed by the registry, while another (No. 1800086) was stated to have been abandoned. The court granted time for the respondents to file their replies and rejoinders, setting a future date for consideration.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Arvind Kumar Trading And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Limited's petition seeking the removal of the trademark 'NIKIND'. The court found that 'NIKIND' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established family of marks, including 'NIMEKIND', and that its registration should be cancelled under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. Furthermore, the judgment noted a lack of bonafide use and continuous non-use of the impugned mark for five years, leading to its removal under Section 47.
Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag Enterprises v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Charanjiv Kumar Taneja Trading As Chirag Enterprises, which sought to restore a lapsed trademark registration. The petitioner had failed to renew their 'TIGER' mark after 2006 and only attempted renewal in 2022, sixteen years later. The court held that the petitioner could not take advantage of such undue delay, especially since the RTI response confirmed an O3 notice was generated in 2006 but remained untraceable.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted by the Controller of Patents to S.A.Safiullah. The first respondent submitted that the term of the patent had expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
Matrix Labs. Limited v.Astellas Pharma Europe Bv
Matrix Labs. Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 234753. However, the court noted that the term of the subject patent had already expired on June 25, 2017.
T.A.S. Safraj Khan (USI Traders) v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah by The Controller of Patents. However, the respondent submitted that the term of the patent had already expired, rendering the matter infructuous.
N.Solomon v.S.A.Safiullah and The Controller of Patents Patent Office
N.Solomon filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to S.A.Safiullah. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
M/S Map Systems v.M/S Informatic Publishing Limited
M/S Map Systems appealed against an interim order passed by the Commercial Court that confirmed an ex-parte temporary injunction against them. The plaintiff, M/S Informatic Publishing Limited, claimed that the defendants had misappropriated its proprietary remote access solution, 'RemotLog,' to create a competing product called 'MapMyAccess.' The Karnataka High Court found that the trial court's order was vague and lacked proper reasoning regarding the grant of injunction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the temporary injunction and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.
G.Daniel v.S.A.Safiullah and Company
G.Daniel filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079 under Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970, alleging it lacked novelty and/or inventive subject. The respondent submitted that the term of the said patent had already expired.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application. The appellant argued that certain grounds for rejection were not addressed during the hearing notice and pointed out inconsistencies within the rejection order.
B.Kailasam Sole Proprietor of M/s.Sri Ayyappan Fine Arts v.S.A.Safiullah an Indian National, trading as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of S.A.SAFIULLAH & CO
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 198079, which was granted to the first respondent. The court noted that the term of the said patent had expired.
Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. v.Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to a trademark dispute involving the 'SONA' mark. While one application seeking to introduce public record documents was allowed, another crucial application filed by Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. (the appellants) was dismissed. The court found no merit in the appeal against the interim injunction granted to the respondents, citing factors such as the non-perishability of goods and potential grave prejudice to the successful respondent if the injunction were lifted.
M/S Sureka International v.Government E Marketplace & Anr.
M/S Sureka International challenged the lack of verification mechanisms on the Government E Marketplace (GeM) portal, arguing that false complaints regarding its trademark usage were damaging its reputation. The court acknowledged the reputational harm but noted that the dispute was fundamentally about trademark registration scope (Class 35 vs goods). Instead of mandating a specific mechanism, the Delhi High Court directed GeM to consider and respond to the petitioner's representation within two weeks.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed several counter claims filed by counterclaimants seeking the revocation of four specific Indian patents (IN 259932, IN 269929, IN 321300, and IN 300066). The order directed that the counter claims be numbered, notice issued, and written statements filed.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.Kcm Appliances Private Limited
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design for a pressure cooker. The core dispute centered on whether the unique, anti-spillage lid design was protectable and if Kcm Appliances Private Limited had copied this feature. The court found that the challenge to the registration's validity lacked substance and concluded that the defendant's product prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered design.
M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Amrit Lal Jain & Ors.
The plaintiff, M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for passing off and infringing its registered trademark 'Goldmedal' and associated copyright. The court found that the defendants were dishonestly using the deceptively similar mark 'Gokul Medal' in respect of allied goods.
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.