Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Civil Appeal No(s). /2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s).34749-34751/2015)

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed a suit for injunction alleging that Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was infringing its patent. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that while the Single Judge found infringement, the Division Bench had stayed the order due to pending objections under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing parties to continue being governed by an earlier court order.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Case Number
Civil Appeal No(s). /2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s).34749-34751/2015)
Judge(s)
A.K. Sikri,R. Banumathi

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Supreme Court - Daily Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. vs Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 216/2022

Savelife FoundationvsMr. Aslam Shaikh & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Savelife Foundation against Mr. Aslam Shaikh and others. The court found that Defendants were fraudulently using deceptively similar trademarks ('Save LIFE' and 'Save LIFE Foundation') and associated domains to solicit funds, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's well-known trademark and committing passing off. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.

patent905-COMIPL-18303-22

Unilever Ip Holdings B.V.vsSurjit Dairy Products

The commercial IP suit filed by Unilever Ip Holdings B.V. against Surjit Dairy Products was settled out of court. The parties executed Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the disposal and decreeing of the suit.

patentO.S.A. Nos. 300 to 303 of 2011

Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd.vsWord Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network

Daystar Television Network Pvt Ltd. challenged Word Of God Fellowship Inc., claiming infringement and passing off related to its registered trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK'. The appellant sought permanent injunctions against downlinking, distribution, and use of the mark in India. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the respondent was honestly using their pre-existing global business name. Furthermore, the court held that since the program was originally designed by the respondent, they retained original ownership rights, preventing restrictions on their usage.

patentCS (COMM) 32/2022

Amritsar Rice LandvsSumit Bansal & Anr.

In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.

patentEOS/4/2020 (with related IA Nos.)

Emami Ltd.vsTorque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Emami Ltd. vs Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. saw its multi-faceted IP litigation reach a conclusion through settlement in the Calcutta High Court. The original suit, which involved claims of infringement across trademark, copyright, design, and passing off, was formally withdrawn by both parties. The court accepted the Terms of Settlement, decreeing the parent suit and disposing of all connected applications. This resolution allows both companies to move forward without further legal entanglement.

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