Alcon Inc v. Controller Of Patents And Designs

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 15/2024 & I.A. 8457/2024

Alcon Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of its Indian Patent Application No. 201914027377. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions, setting a date for re-notification.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 15/2024 & I.A. 8457/2024
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Alcon Inc vs Controller Of Patents And Designs is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCONT.CAS(C) 189/2023

Claridges Hotel Pvt LtdvsMr. Rajdeep Sharma & Anr.

Claridges Hotel Pvt Ltd filed a contempt petition alleging that Mr. Rajdeep Sharma and others were willfully disobeying a prior court order dated May 11, 2017. The original order required the respondents not to use the 'CLARIDGES' trademark. Claridges presented evidence showing the respondent continued using the trademark for a real estate project in advertisements. While the petition was filed alleging infringement and contempt, the Court issued directions for further proceedings rather than delivering a final judgment.

patentCS(COMM) 954/2024

Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets CartvsPooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Raj Kumar Proprietor Of Ms Royal Pets Cart, against Pooja Ahirwar Proprietor Of Ms Aselfy Enterprises. The court found that the defendant's pending trademark application for 'ROYAL PETS CART/' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark and constituted a prima facie case of infringement. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark in relation to identical goods until the final hearing.

patentCS(COMM) 32/2019 & I.A. 957/2019

Jhs Svengard Laboratories LimitedvsRanir Llc & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute concerning the unique ornamental design of toothbrushes, where JHS Svengard Laboratories claimed exclusive rights over its 'CURVY' design. The court noted that the Plaintiff sought an injunction against Defendants selling similar products and had previously initiated a trademark cancellation action against one of the defendants. Recognizing the interconnected nature of the claims, the Court ordered the transfer of the pending trademark cancellation petition to be heard alongside the current infringement suit.

patentCS(COMM) 407/2024

Jr Rice India Pvt. LtdvsKishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jr Rice India Pvt. Ltd against Kishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while formally registering the plaint as a commercial suit. Crucially, regarding the injunction application seeking to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'ABBA HUZUR' on rice products, the Court issued notice to the defendant.

patent2025:CHC-OS:225-DB

Ramji Lal AgarwalvsSourav Agarwal

This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call