Jwala Prasad v. Raghubir Prasad

70IND. CAS.833

The appeal concerned questions arising from a partnership dispute involving patent rights to locks named "Kartoos" and "Impervis." The court addressed the scope of judicial power concerning patent ownership when it arises within a winding-up of a partnership, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Allahabad High Court
Case Number
70IND. CAS.833
Decision Date
7 July 1922

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Allahabad High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Jwala Prasad vs Raghubir Prasad is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentWPA 15637 of 2022

Kanishka Sinha & AnrvsThe Union Of India & Ors

The petitioners sought a direction to the Deputy Director General (VAHAN), National Informatics Centre, to grant linkage of their patented software with the Vehicle Registration and Homogation System. The matter was settled amicably between the parties, leading to the court disposing of the writ petition.

patent(T)CMA(PT) No.159 of 2023

Trans Union, LLCvsThe Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks

Trans Union, LLC appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding its application for a database matching system. The core issue was whether the invention constituted a non-patentable 'computer programme per se' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the invention involved technical considerations and achieved a technical effect by optimizing data retrieval. However, due to overly broad claims, the court remanded the matter for further examination to narrow the scope and ensure enablement.

patentW.P.(C).No.14153 of 2009

Sri.R.S.Praveen RajvsController General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks

The Kerala High Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the trademark registration of religious symbols, specifically the picture of the Attukal deity. The petitioner argued that registering such an icon commercializes faith and violates fundamental rights. However, the court upheld the registrations, noting that while certain deities are prohibited from registration under specific government directions, the services registered (temple/social welfare) did not violate Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court cautioned against bypassing statutory remedies in favor of invoking Article 226.

patentCS(COMM) 498/2020

Microsoft CorporationvsPcpatchers Technology Private Limited

In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

patentOa/23/2019/Tm/Chn (T) CMA(TM) No.146 of 2023

Board of Regents, The University of Texas SystemvsThe Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.

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