Short Summary
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a specific trademark, 'PSO KIND,' from the register. The court observed that while the mark was initially registered, its renewal had lapsed after November 8, 2020. Consequently, the time limit for both renewal and restoration had expired. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration certificate and remove the entry within four weeks.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mankind Pharma Limited vs Genova Biotechniques Pvt. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Jyothy Labs Ltd.vsDabur India Ltd.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Dabur India Ltd. for infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks containing the word 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature, used in relation to toothpaste and dentifrices. The Plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the Defendant from using an impugned label mark that prominently featured 'NEEM'. The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of both infringement and passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Pradeep Cholayil & Cholayil Private LimitedvsKarnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited
The Madras High Court confirmed the existing interim injunction in favor of Pradeep Cholayil and Cholayil Private Limited against Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MYSOAP' was deceptively similar to the applicants' registered trademark 'MYSOP' for cosmetic soaps, constituting infringement and passing off. The injunction was confirmed post-contest and ordered to operate for a period of one year, allowing the main suit to proceed expeditiously.
Dr. Vandana ParvezvsThe Controller of Patents Office of Controller General of Patents
The appellants appealed the rejection of their patent application for a method/system related to interactive online digital content. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty based on prior art D1 (the appellants' own withdrawn application). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that citing the appellant's own withdrawn application as prior art was invalid and directing the Patent Office to expunge it from the public domain.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr.vsAlkem Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca AB & Anr., filed a suit (CS(COMM) 411/2020) before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625 against Alkem Laboratories Limited. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the Settlement Agreement to form part of the decree.
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.
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.