ITC Ltd v. Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd & Ors.

Onyx Therapeutics, Inc.vsUnion Of India & Ors

Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. challenged procedural orders issued by the Controller General of Patents concerning a post-grant opposition filed against their Indian Patent No. 255964. The petitioner argued that denying them the opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses relied upon by the opponent violated principles of natural justice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding that the denial vitiated the proceedings and set aside the impugned orders.

Patanjali Ayurved LtdvsMeta Platforms Inc Ors & Ors.

The Delhi High Court heard an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved against a trial court order that had returned its trademark infringement suit, citing lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the suit was not commercial in nature, despite the trial court's finding. The High Court found that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements under the CPC when returning the plaint. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to present their case afresh before the Trial Court.

M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd., setting aside an order that had deemed its opposition to a trademark application abandoned. The core issue revolved around whether a communication sent to the Mumbai office, despite being addressed to the Chennai Registry, constituted substantial compliance with the Trade Marks Rules. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was sufficient compliance and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

Ollos Biotech Private LimitedvsOmega Ecotech Products India Limited

Ollos Biotech Private Limited filed an Original Petition to revoke Patent No.411774 granted to Omega Ecotech Products India Limited. The petitioner contended that the invention lacked novelty, inventive step, and was patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that both the product claim and method claim lacked an inventive step or novelty based on prior art and non-patent literature.

Electronica India Ltd.vsElectronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Electronica India Ltd., setting aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' communications that allowed a subsequent proprietor (Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.) to record ownership via Form TM-24. The court found significant procedural flaws, including the lack of a speaking order and discrepancies in official records. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner is given a full opportunity to be heard before any decision is made.