Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Tuba Chemical Works

CCL Product (India) Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AgvsNatco Pharma Limited

F. Hoffmann-La Roche filed a suit alleging infringement of its species patent (IN 334397) for the drug Risdiplam, marketed as EVRYSDI®, by Natco Pharma Limited. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the API. However, the court found that the defendant had raised a credible challenge regarding the validity of the patent. Considering the public interest in affordable medicine for rare diseases like SMA, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, though it clarified that damages would be payable if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the trial.

Kemin Industries, Inc.vsThe Controller of Patents

Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.

M/S.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast FoodvsM/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Ananda Vilas Biriyani Hotel; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai

The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by M/S.Thalappakattu Biriyani & Fast Food seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 1408388, which was registered in favor of another party. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, the petitioner voluntarily chose to withdraw the Original Petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the case as withdrawn without making any order regarding costs.

Mona AggarwalvsSandhya Gupta

This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Mona Aggarwal against the trademark 'Super MULTI PLUS' used by Sandhya Gupta. Mona Aggarwal argues that since her prior passing-off suit established her as the prior user, and Sandhya Gupta failed to provide documentary evidence of use since 1994, the registration should be cancelled as fraudulent. The court has noted these arguments but deferred a final decision, setting a date for further hearing.