Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v. Gharda Chemicals Limited

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3567 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 2932 OF 2011

The Plaintiff, a minority shareholder, filed a derivative action alleging that Defendant No.2 (Chairman/MD) obtained and applied for several patents in his individual name instead of in the name of Defendant No.1 (the company). The court examined whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the company.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3567 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 2932 OF 2011
Judge(s)
K.R.Shriram

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck vs Gharda Chemicals Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentOSA.Nos.21 and 22 of 2010

Shabbir Medical HallvsMohammed Naseer

Shabbir Medical Hall filed a suit alleging that Mohammed Naseer infringed its registered trademark, 'ISPAHANI TEA,' by using the deceptively similar mark 'FAMILY TEA' along with an imitation color scheme and get up. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for this alleged infringement. However, the Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, confirming a single judge's order that revoked the leave granted to the plaintiff. The court held that the plaint failed to establish any part of the cause of action within its local jurisdiction.

patentO.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 116/2024

Tipping Mr Pink Private LimitedvsM/S Savera Eats

The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited against M/S Savera Eats. The Petitioner sought injunctions against the Respondent for continuing to use the registered 'BURGER SINGH' trademarks after a franchise agreement had been terminated. Given the alleged ongoing infringement and reputational damage, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of all infringing materials at the Respondent's premises.

patentCS(COMM) 653/2019 & CC(COMM) 22/2022, I.A. 16988/2019, 7640/2022, 14592/2022, 15284/2023

Communication Components Antena Inc.vsRosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg

The suit is a patent infringement action concerning Patent No. IN240893 ('Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'). The court proceeded with the recording of cross-examinations of the Defendants' witnesses on September 22, 2023. Evidence has now been concluded, and directions were issued for parties to file written submissions before final arguments.

patent906-WPL 32894-23

Indi Pharma Pvt LtdvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.

patentCR No.6252 of 2023

Sanjeev Kumar Juneja And AnothervsTerrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd

The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a revision petition concerning a composite trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that while joinder of causes of action is permissible under CPC, the delay in trial due to combining both claims necessitated modification. Consequently, the court granted the defendant time to seek rectification of the plaintiff's registered mark, stayed the infringement claim for three months, and directed that the passing off claim be tried as a separate suit.

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