India Patent Cases
4,815 decisions indexed
Page 93 of 161 · 4,815 total
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis, the patent holder of IN 276026 covering novel pyrimidine compounds including Ceritinib, alleged that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing the patent by manufacturing and selling Ceritinib under its brand NOXALK. The court found that Natco had infringed the valid suit patent.
Anita Agarwal v.Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Anita Agarwal, who owns the registered trademark 'VENSOR'. The court found prima facie that the defendant, Vankon Modular Pvt. Ltd., was circulating notices that were defamatory and disparaging towards the plaintiff's mark and goods. This preliminary order aims to protect the plaintiff's goodwill while the main suit proceeds, addressing both alleged trade mark infringement and passing off.
Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v.Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.
In this commercial suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by both parties. The court allowed Defendant No. 1 to place legal proceeding certificates related to its registered trademarks on record, despite initial objections regarding relevance. Furthermore, upon agreement from the Plaintiff, the court permitted the deletion of Defendant No. 2 (IndiaMART Intermesh Ltd.) from the array of parties, allowing the litigation to proceed with a refined set of defendants.
New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust v.New Horizon School
The plaintiff, New Horizon Educational & Cultural Trust, claimed that it was the registered owner of the trademark 'NEW HORIZON' for educational services. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, New Horizon School, was illegally using a similar name/logo, causing confusion and passing off. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
Zephyr Biomedicals v.Lalit Mahajan And Anr
Zephyr Biomedicals filed a post-grant opposition against Patent No. 224469. The court addressed procedural issues regarding the patentee's non-response and the subsequent service of notice after the abolition of the IPAB, allowing the patentee to file a reply.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its application for patent (No. 3304/DEL/2005). The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for computer programs. Microsoft argued that the reliance on outdated guidelines was incorrect and cited prior court views supporting patentability.
Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Whirlpool Properties, Inc. against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its device mark application. The court found that the coined word 'AFFRESH' was inherently distinctive and not descriptive, thus overcoming objections under Section 9(1)(a). Furthermore, after reviewing cited marks, the court determined that the subject mark was prima facie dissimilar to existing registrations, allowing the registration process to continue.
Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd v.V-Guard Industries Ltd
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's MATTEO range of switch plates infringed upon three registered designs (296178, 296179, and 296180) held by the plaintiff for its LYNCUS switch plates. The court examined physical samples and photographs to determine infringement.
Perkinelmer Health Sciences Inc And Ors v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged an order refusing a patent application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, based on Section 3(f). The Appellant argued that the objection was raised for the first time at the hearing stage without prior notice, violating natural justice. The Court agreed, finding that the Respondent violated procedural fairness by not communicating all objections in advance.
Modi Naturals Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Modi Naturals Limited against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their device mark, 'OLEEV ACTIVE'. The court found that the coined word 'OLEEV', combined with 'ACTIVE' and a slogan, was distinctive and not merely descriptive. Furthermore, it determined that the subject mark was not deceptively similar to any earlier marks cited in the examination report. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and directed the Trademark Registry to proceed with the registration process.
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited v.M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited
M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited appealed against an order passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, which allowed temporary injunctions sought by the plaintiff. The appeal challenged the misuse and misrepresentation of the plaintiff's logo, channel name, and assets by the defendants. The High Court dismissed the appeals but held that the impugned order was subject to the trial court's determination of jurisdiction.
N.V. Satheesh Madhav And Anr v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for an invention related to a bio-bed and method for growing Vigna radiata plants. The initial objections included lack of inventive step, non-patentable subject matter (Section 3(h)), and clarity issues. Although some objections were dropped, the final refusal was based on Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d).
Metis Eduventures Private Limited v.Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Metis Eduventures Private Limited against Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors. The court found a prima facie case based on the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the 'CAREER POWER' trademark in the education sector. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the infringing marks across e-commerce websites and directed to remove specific content featuring the mark.
Jivraj Tea Limited v.Dayalji Vanravan Kotecha
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of an interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning tea brands. The plaintiff, Jivraj Tea Limited, argued that its registered mark 'JIVRAJ-9' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'DOUBLE HAATHI PREMIUM TEA NO.9'. However, given the introduction of additional pleadings and documents during the appeal process, the High Court found it necessary to remand the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the interim injunction application.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 8620/DELNP/2012) by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The original rejection was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the claimed method for repairing a gas flue inside was merely standard operation or part of an operational manual. Nippon Steel contended that its claims disclosed several unique technical steps ignored by the Examiner. The Delhi High Court issued directions for both parties to file detailed submissions and supporting documents before proceeding with the appeal.
Kalki Industries v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V
Kalki Industries appealed against an excise order demanding duty, interest, and penalty based on alleged evasion of central excise duty by wrongly availing SSI exemption. The core issue was whether the appellant, having acquired the rights to the 'KALKI' trade mark, was entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption.
Tci Foundation v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by TCI Foundation against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of its label mark application. The court overturned the initial rejection, which was based on grounds including non-compliance with examination reports and similarity to prior marks in different classes. The judgment clarified that a composite mark can be registered and directed the Registry to process and advertise the subject mark.
Entertainment Network (India) Limited v.Https//Tuneincom/Podcasts/Arts--Culture- Podcasts/Bangla-Sunday-Suspense-P2082186/ and Ors
In this copyright infringement case, Entertainment Network (India) Limited sought to protect its audio content, 'Sunday Suspense,' which is based on literary works. The court issued an ex-parte order directing intermediary platforms (like Tuneincom) to immediately take down the infringing URLs and compelling Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to disclose server details used by the infringers. This ruling highlights the proactive role of courts in enforcing IP rights against digital infringement.
M/S RPG Enterprises Limited v.RPG Developers Private Limited & Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S RPG Enterprises Limited, granting a permanent injunction against RPG Developers Private Limited and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendants were deliberately using the 'RPG' mark to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's well-known trademarks. Furthermore, due to the dishonest conduct of the defendants in attempting to deceive the public, the court awarded damages and costs to the plaintiff.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs And Anr.
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the High Court at Calcutta following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices.
Samsung India Electronics Co Ltd v.The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr
This matter was transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to the Calcutta High Court following the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021. The court directed the department to correct its records and instructed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue necessary notices before setting a returnable date.
Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
Nestle appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents and Design regarding its patent application for a composition comprising DGLA. The initial objection was related to Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, which Nestle addressed by amending the claims. However, the subsequent amendment was rejected under Section 59 on grounds of expanding the original claim scope.
Diageo Brands B.V. v.Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd
Diageo Brands B.V. filed an application seeking injunction against Alcobrew Distilleries India Pvt Ltd, alleging piracy of their registered Design No. 306577. The core dispute revolved around whether the defendant's product design was a fraudulent imitation of Diageo's protected design. The court examined complex issues regarding the scope of novelty analysis versus infringement analysis and the appropriate 'eye' (instructed vs. ordinary purchaser) for comparison. Ultimately, the court found that the distinguishing features used to establish the suit design's originality also differentiated it from the defendant's impugned design, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.
SAP SE v.SAB INFOTECH SOLUTION PVT LTD & ANR
The dispute between SAP SE and Sab Infotech Solution Pvt Ltd was resolved through a comprehensive settlement decree by the Delhi High Court. The core agreement mandates that while Sab Infotech can continue using the full trading name 'SAB INFOTECH,' they must not use the mark 'SAB' in isolation or deceptively similar to SAP's registered trademarks. Furthermore, Sab Infotech agreed to withdraw a specific trademark application related to their brand. This settlement allows both parties to move forward with defined usage parameters.
Manoj Kumar Goyal, Sole Propreitor Of M/S Manoj Sweets v.The Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Also Registrar of Trademark Registry & Anr.
This Delhi High Court order addresses a dispute where the petitioner, Manoj Sweets, claims prior use and registration of the mark 'MANOJ SWEETS' in classes 30 and 43. The core issue is the subsequent registration of an identical mark, 'MANOJ BAKERS,' by another party (Respondent No. 2), which the petitioner alleges was done without proper citation of his existing rights. The court has initiated proceedings to examine this conflict, directing notice to all parties and setting timelines for filing detailed submissions.
Smt. Manju Pathak v.M/S Shree Agro Foods
The plaintiff, a scientist, holds Patent No. 23606 for a process of developing Blood Sugar Regulating Products from germinated soybean seeds. She sued M/S Shree Agro Foods alleging that their product, NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR, infringed her patent. The court found the defendant liable and granted permanent injunction but declined damages due to lack of evidence.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201611000234) on grounds of ineligibility under Section 3(k). The appellant argued that the invention was a technical advancement with practical implementation and should be granted a patent.
Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr. v.Yms Laboratories Private Limited
The commercial suit filed by Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp against Yms Laboratories Private Limited for Patent Infringement concerning Sitagliptin was settled mutually. The court decreed the suit in terms of this settlement agreement, which included the Defendant acknowledging the patent's validity and agreeing to cease all infringing activities.
M.I. Industries, Incorporated v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by M.I. Industries against the Registrar of Trade Marks, overturning the rejection of their trademark application 'NATURE'S VARIETY'. The court found that despite consisting of common dictionary words, the mark was sufficiently distinctive when applied to animal foodstuffs (Class 31), as it evoked a natural quality without being directly descriptive of the goods. Furthermore, the Appellant's international reputation and goodwill were noted in the decision.
M/S Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Veda Seed Sciences against an interim trademark infringement order. The court affirmed that Kohinoor Seed Fields was the prior adopter and registrant of the marks 'SADANAND', 'TADAAKHA', and 'BASANT'. Despite Veda's later registration, the court found their use was dishonest, stemming from a marketing agreement where they acknowledged ownership by Kohinoor. The injunction restraining Veda from using these trademarks remains in effect.
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.